Tuesday, 4 September 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for his inability to come to grips with difficult matters of proper behaviour by holders of public office, himself and that of past and present members of the Australian Labor Party, and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to face squarely the Murphy issue by having the Parliament deal with it in order to achieve a reconciliation of views. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the latest Commonwealth Bond Tender closed with interest rates 1 percent lower than they had opened; (b) the trading banks have chosen to lower their prime rates for borrowers; and (c) in recent days some building societies have lowered rates to first home buyers by 1 per cent; and (2) calls on all banks and building societies to review and lower their interest rates for new and existing home mortgages. Notice of Motion Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall present a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes Labor's continuing neglect of north Queensland with the closure of ANL services to Mackay, Townsville and Cairns at 2 months notice; (2) condemns the Minister for Transport for- (a) the shortage of notice that does not allow some alternative form of shipping to take over the service; (b) making the decision without up-to-date statistics, and; (c) his reluctance to effect alternative economies by smarting up the ANL service; and (3) reminds the Minister that subsidies are available from the Government to undertake unprofitable services to other parts of Australia, but are denied to the north. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that on 8 December 1983 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs introduced into this House a lengthy motion on Aboriginal affairs; (2) condemns the Minister for spending $16,000 on the morning of 8 December 1983 telexing Aboriginal communities indicating that he was about to introduce the motion; and (3) condemns the Government for failing, after 9 months, to bring the matter on for debate. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that homosexual activity is a health hazard for both participants and non-participants, and (2) condemns those, particularly in positions of influence, who seek to condone or promote this unnatural activity. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the 61 per cent drop in European migration to Australia in January 1984, followed by the 49 per cent drop in European migration to Australia in February 1984; and (2) calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to indicate if he stands by his public statements that there has been no change in immigration policy. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the basically uncontrolled entry of films and videotapes into Australia; (2) condemns the Attorney-General for not placing this important item on the agenda as a significant matter for consideration by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General's meeting in August 1984; (3) calls on the Attorney-General to re-instigate the previous codes and regulations pending the outcome of the proposed Parliamentary inquiry; (4) castigates the Government for its blas'e attitude to the well-being of Australian children who may be exposed to this material, and (5) endorses concern for the wave of Father's Day violence which can only feed upon violent and depraved depictions supported by members of the Government. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that youth unemployment in Australia is the highest in the western world, and (2) condemns the federal Government for its continuing self-smugness while so many of this nation's youth join the legion of the lost and forgotten. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Franklin will second: That this House- (1) expresses its agreement with the motion passed at a public meeting held in Hobart on 3 September 1984, and attended by 850 people, condemning the AFI board for moving to close the State Cinema, Hobart; and (2) calls on the AFI board and the Minister to reverse this decision within 7 days of the giving of this notice of motion. Mr Carlton proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Health- Mr SPEAKER —Order! This question goes very much to the personal affairs of the Minister and not to those matters under his public administration. I think the honourable member should reword his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. Mr Carlton —Mr Speaker, may I address that on a point of order? Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I will listen to your point of order. Mr Carlton —I submit that the Minister is responsible directly for the delivery of medical and hospital services within the Australian Capital Territory through the Capital Territory Health Commission, and this matter relates to actions of the Minister that are very much at the heart of his administration. Mr SPEAKER —It does not seem to question a public act of the Minister. I fail to see the question so far as relating to an act of administration; it has been a matter of the personal actions of the Minister. I ask the honourable member to reword his question so that it is in accord with the Standing Orders. Mr CARLTON —I ask: Has any member of the Government in recent times declined the services of a rostered surgeon at the Royal Canberra Hospital and asked the hospital authorities to contact a surgeon of his choice? Did the surgeon of that person's choice come from his home in the middle of the night to perform the operation? Does the Minister believe that the exercise of this choice was in accordance with the spirit of Medicare, or was this person manipulating the system? Dr BLEWETT —It is quite clear that the approach of an election brings out the more despicable side of this Opposition. I am only disappointed that the honourable member for Mackellar should stoop to seek to make this kind of cheap political capital. Most of his assertions are incorrect and I think it is important that the situation be put clearly on the record. Approximately a month ago my daughter was taken ill late at night with acute appendicitis. It was diagnosed by a local general practitioner whom I called in. That GP then checked with a surgeon to conduct the operation at the Woden Valley Hospital. There was no interference with hospital authorities whatsoever. Simply, the GP discussed with me a surgeon to undertake this operation. Mr Tuckey —What about the hospital surgeon? Dr BLEWETT —I will come to that point in a moment. I discussed it with him. We took my daughter to the hospital and the surgeon was there, I think, when we arrived. I would point out that in those choices I exercised simply what is open to every citizen in Canberra. Let me just point out an advertisement which under my authority was placed in the Canberra papers in the first weeks of Medicare. It is headed 'Doctor of choice in Canberra-these are the facts'. The advertisement states: You can have your doctor of choice as a Medicare patient in a public hospital in Canberra. The doctor that admits you to a public hospital for any pre-arranged service can continue to treat you in hospital. Mr Sinclair —Nowhere else in Australia. Dr BLEWETT —If the right honourable member understood he would know that the same right exists in most country towns if the doctors will co-operate. The advertisement continues: The Capital Territory Health Commission will allow this and will pay the doctor under the Medicare arrangements. So I simply exercised a right of choice that every Canberra resident has and, of course, which many residents in country towns have, if their doctors agree, and, of course, many doctors do. The one additional point I used insofar as I exercised this preference was simply to ensure that my daughter was treated by a fully salaried public doctor, that is, a person who is committed wholly and totally to the public hospital system and who is available regularly to Medicare only patients. Mr HAND —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the current Liberal Party of Australia advertising campaign, I ask the Prime Minister: What role do the personal income tax reductions announced in the Budget play in the Government's overall economic strategy? Mr HAWKE —Obviously the tax cuts are a crucial part of the overall Government economic strategy. They will play, first, a very important part in stimulating consumer demand and in that way keeping the momentum of the recovery going. Of course, very importantly, secondly, the tax cuts will ensure continued income restraint under the accord and in that sense will underpin the accord which is recognised now universally-perhaps with one exception-as having been fundamental to the success of the recovery in this country. The tax cuts are, therefore, obviously good economics. It is important to understand that they are real tax cuts. The cost of the tax cuts in a full year will be $2.1 billion. Full tax indexation would have cost only $1.2 billion in a full year. So any claim that has been made in this spurious advertisement that these are not real tax cuts, of course, is just another part of the Opposition's mosaic of misrepresentation. During the last election campaign the Deputy Opposition Leader claimed that this Party would be a high tax government. The facts have shown that, of course, he was wrong during the campaign, and he will continue to be proved wrong. It is very important, let me say in answer to the honourable member's question, that we understand-and perhaps to some extent in some areas on the other side there is a glimmering of hope that they may understand it-that there is a need for reform of the Australian tax system. It needs to be reformed on the basis of considerations of efficiency and equity. I made it quite clear when I spoke in Sydney last week, and I repeat in this House, that when there is tax reform aggregate tax levels should not go up. They will not go up under this Government . I have referred to the place of the tax cuts in the economic strategy of this Government. It is appropriate, in the light of the honourable member's question, to ask ourselves: What of the Opposition's tax policy? It is a legitimate question. Although the Liberal Opposition talks about its tax policy by way of advertisements, it has not announced it yet. We do not know what the policy is. Mr Wilson —You would love to know. Mr HAWKE —On the contrary. I have gladly to this point put up with the indications of what it is because we are not without some indications from some spokespersons on the other side as to what they believe is an appropriate policy . In this context I remind the House of what the shadow Treasurer had to say on 19 March. Honourable members opposite do not like it. It remains true. Mr Sinclair —You would not know anything about context. Mr HAWKE —If I were the Leader of the National Party I would not start talking about context. On 19 March the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said: I think if the Government is faced with a choice between giving a tax cut of, say, $1 billion and having a deficit that is one billion lower than it might otherwise be, I think it ought to choose the latter. Those were the words of the shadow Treasurer. We all know, do we not, the dilemma of the Leader of the Opposition? Because of his irresponsible spending promises he has already developed a massive credibility gap in this area. To dissolve his dilemma of the $15 billion deficit that would be involved in his spending proposals, the only way out for him would be significant tax increases. When the mob opposite talks about taxes we do not have to think about what its tax policy for the future might be. All we have to do is look at what the Opposition did when it was in government. That Government was the greatest phoney of all time. What did it do? In 1977 it went to an election and said to the people: 'Here is your great tax cut'. When the Government got back into power what did the present shadow Treasurer do? The Government was not back a matter of weeks before it said 'Thanks. We gave you the tax cuts for the election. Bye bye, electorate', and grabbed the money back. That is the record of the former Government in the area of tax cuts. The Opposition has shown, in the area of economic management generally and fiscal policy in particular, that it simply cannot and will not be trusted. Against that, the record of this Government is clear. We have produced the tax cuts that were promised. They are real. If one wants to talk in advertising terms, the record shows simply this: Liberals talk; Labor delivers. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has the Minister or the Prime Minister recently received correspondence from Commissioner Costigan? Has Commissioner Costigan expressed to the Minister or the Prime Minister the view that, because of the haste of the Government in winding down the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the fight against organised crime has been severely hampered? Has Commissioner Costigan also expressed to the Minister or the Prime Minister the view that the transition between the Costigan Commission and the National Crime Authority has not been successful? Will the Minister table the correspondence between himself, the Prime Minister and the Commissioner? Mr YOUNG —It is true that correspondence has taken place between the Government and Commissioner Costigan and between Commissioner Costigan and Mr Justice Stewart. Let me say this: The closedown of the Costigan Commission has not been rushed. I take honourable members back to February-March of this year when I spoke with Commissioner Costigan about the timetable for the closing down of the Costigan Commission and the transition from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. It was at the request of Commissioner Costigan that we met and it was with his approval that the timetable was set. That timetable was that his work would be completed by the end of June, when we set up the National Crime Authority, that he would require one month, the month of July, to see that the transition took place and a further eight weeks to see that his report was completed. As honourable members know, as a result of the legislation which has passed both Houses, the National Crime Authority is in place. The three people who form the National Crime Authority-Mr Justice Stewart as the Chairman, and Mr Dwyer and Mr Bingham as the commissioners-are now in place. There may have been some problems in the transitionary period, in moving from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. The material from the Costigan Commission has been handed over via the Attorney-General for the National Crime Authority to look at . I do not expect that we will face any grave problems in terms of the National Crime Authority being able to reach its conclusions about what references it will require from the first meeting of the intergovernmental committee, upon which the Commonwealth, of course, will play its part. As a result of the actions of this Government, I think that in future we will be in a far better position than previously to play our role in order to bring down the crime rate in Australia. Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters aware of claims that over the first two years of the Hawke Government Australian Public Service staff numbers will grow by 10 per cent? Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's estimates of Australian Public Service staffing trends and explain its general approach to Public Service staffing matters? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for her question. It is true that some curious calculations have been made. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made another of his famous calculations just the other week. I quote from his speech to the National Press Club: My calculations are that staffing levels in the public service will rise by about 10 per cent under the Hawke Government's first two Budgets. This is a dramatically greater increase than occurred under the previous Government. He is way out in both respects. It is not the first time that I have had to give him a little assistance with his arithmetic, and I will happily do so again. The fact is that in the last year of the Fraser Government, in the last discredited Budget of the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the increase in the size of the Public Service was 5.3 per cent. As a consequence of that very large increase in that year there was a further increase, directly related to the decisions of our predecessors, of 2.2 per cent. Therefore, there was an increase directly attributable to the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition of 7.5 per cent in his last Budget. By comparison, in our first two Budgets the increase has been 2.5 per cent and 2.1 per cent; that is, 4.6 per cent. Not only is the 4.6 per cent miles less than the 10 per cent that the calculations of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would suggest; as well, it is miles less than his own tarnished record. But we are used to these kinds of calculations. I do not have to remind the House of his predictions about the size of the deficit in 1983-84 when he suggested that it would be $6 billion but when one of his heroes, the soon to retire head of the Treasury, told us that it would be $9.6 billion. The fact is that it is a bit more complicated even than that, because if we look at the way in which our predecessors handled the whole question of staff numbers we find that during their period of office the number of officers in the Second Division increased by a substantial 19 per cent, whilst the rest of the clerical work force increased by 12 per cent. The way in which they were able to offset that increase was to reduce by 50 per cent the numbers in the day labour force of the Department of Housing and Construction. The result was that, whilst this reduction limited the amount of funds that they spent on repairs and maintenance of government housing, it has left us with a most evil inheritance of houses which in many cases are almost uninhabitable. So as the result of some cosmetic treatment of the statistics not only were our predecessors unable properly to manage the size of the Public Service but also they were able effectively to damage the infrastructure which is required to house many of the people working for the Government. We have adopted an entirely different approach. We do not use the crude approach of staff ceilings so beloved of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Rather we have used a process of proper personnel management and proper resources budgeting which has ensured that we have been able to contain the size of the Public Service but at the same time has ensured that there are adequate resources to provide the important services which are made available to the people of Australia. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that Sir Humphrey would have been pleased with this Budget. I think Sir Humphrey would have been very disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not able to undertake a simple arithmetic exercise without taking off his shoes and socks. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Special Minister of State, in the light of his answer to my colleague the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. Is it a fact that the head of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, has not had a briefing from Commissioner Costigan although he might have had some correspondence? Will Mr Justice Stewart be absent from Australia for at least six weeks during the balance of this year? Has the head of the team charged with transferring material from Mr Costigan to the National Crime Authority, Mr Phillip Cummins QC, been occupied with other work until last week and probably will be again from next week? Are the transition team, the commissioners and the staff of the National Crime Authority all employed on a part time basis? If not, how many are full time? How does the Minister reconcile these circumstances with his claim that the National Crime Authority is better placed than Mr Costigan in the pursuit of organised crime? Mr YOUNG —One would want a better memory than Billy McMahon to remember all that. In terms of what briefings Mr Justice Stewart may or may not have received, I would think it very competent to lay it upon his shoulders to seek out what information he requires. He does have access to all the senior personnel from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union at the same time as Mr Costigan is writing his final report. The problem I referred to earlier in reply to the Leader of the Opposition was that in some instances Commissioner Costigan in writing his final report may need some of the facilities and personnel to assist him that otherwise would be working with the National Crime Authority during this period. Of course, those services and facilities will transfer immediately to the Crime Authority once Commissioner Costigan has completed his work. We are not aware of any major barrier in this transition period. There may have been difficulties, but that is not a matter which has been raised with us by the National Crime Authority people. In terms of those working with the Commissioner, I noted the question the right honourable member asked about Mr Cummins QC. As I understand it he will be absent for one or two weeks between now and the end of the year, but basically the whole of his time will be given over to the National Crime Authority. In relation to the question the right honourable member asked about other staff, I know that Mr Justice Stewart was anxious to look at the make-up and levels of the staff that would be available to the National Crime Authority coming across from the Costigan Commission. When we set the budget for the National Crime Authority, while we gave it the same resources that the Costigan Commission had, it was on the basis that we would look favourably upon any further request that was made of us by the National Crime Authority. That was something which Mr Justice Stewart wanted to flush out, in his experience as head of the National Crime Authority, rather than having the Government prejudge what staff and at what levels he required for the Authority which he was going to run. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Opposition's continued criticisms of the pensions assets test, could the Prime Minister advise the House what would be the consequences of the repeal of the assets test on pensions? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. There are two quite obvious results. First, there would be an unnecessary further blow-out in the level of expenditure on pensions. As we know, with the aging of the population that area is something which requires careful monitoring. That is the first thing that would happen if we abandoned the assets test. The second thing, which, of course, would not worry the people opposite but would nevertheless worry the overwhelming majority of Australian people, is that we would have a highly inequitable pension system. It would simply mean that very many very wealthy pensioners could so arrange their affairs that they would be able to get a full pension as against those who were significantly less well off but who, because of their position, would not get a full pension under the income test. That would be highly inequitable and something which, of course, would be welcomed by those opposite. I remind the House of the unbridled hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the House on this issue. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have ruled on that word when I have used it on a number of occasions. I ask you to do the same in regard to the Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The ruling on that word has been made when it has been used in regard to a specific individual, not when it has been used in its generality. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, one can understand the tenderness opposite on this issue. I want to remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition has in the past been more eloquent on this issue than anyone else I can recall. I remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition-of course, he was not in that exalted position then-had to say when he addressed the National Press Club in Canberra on 16 September 1981. That is when he was doing his sulk up the back here; that is when he thought he could speak as the truth hit him. Let me tell the people of Australia what the Leader of the Opposition at the National Press Club in Canberra said on 16 September. I ask honourable members and the people of Australia to listen very closely to the words that the Leader of the Opposition, then a private member, said on this issue. I ask honourable members to savour the words; they are indeed delectable. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would not want to listen to this. We can understand that he wants to forget that he ever said it. He never wants to hear the words again, but he will hear them today and I can assure him that he will hear them day after day and week after week for a long time to come. On 16 September 1981, a memorable date, almost three years ago to the day, he said: What I have said . . . Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Ian Cameron —The Prime Minister knows very well-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa knows what happens if he ignores the warnings of the Chair. I suggest that he be quiet. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition said: What I have said in regard to that burgeoning area of expenditure, social welfare for example, 27 per cent of our outlays, that it has to be cut. The way to cut it- said the Leader of the Opposition- is to ensure that it goes to those who are in genuine human need, and not- said the Leader of the Opposition- to those I've described as demonstrably not needing it. He went on-and it gets better: Now that means perhaps some form of income or means testing- Ah, ha! But it gets better. It is like a good meal: One has the entree first and then the fish course. We are coming up to the main course. He said: I am not in a position to implement the change but if I ever become in a position to implement change I will certainly be seeking to see that the sort of things-- Mr Beazley —This is going to look good in our election advertising. Mr HAWKE —Oh, now, come on. Really! Wait a minute. We are used to that from the Opposition side. He said: I am not in a position to implement the change but if I ever become in a position to implement change I will certainly be seeking to see that the sort of things I am giving voice to . . . will become a reality. And then, this delightful phrase: I am not engaging in rhetoric for its own sake. Having made it quite clear in September 1981 that he was totally committed to the concept of testing so that pensions should not go to those who do not need them, he has now become an opportunist of the first order. Let me at least say this, because one always desperately looks for a bit of decency from the Opposition benches: I give credit to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because he has always made it clear that he supports the concept of an assets test. I conclude by reminding the House that in September last year the Opposition promised to repeal the assets test as part of a total co-ordinated approach to retirement income policy. That was a year ago. We are still waiting for that co- ordinated retirement income policy. It is probably reasonable to come to the conclusion that we have not yet seen that policy because we had Mr Peacock, a private member as he was then, saying he supported the concept of an assets test ; we have the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, quite consistently saying that he supports the concept; and we have Senator Chaney saying that he supports it. As if it were not enough to have those who are currently within this Parliament challenging the Leader of the Opposition, we have outside the House Mr Elliott, a senior official of the Liberal Party, also supporting the concept of an assets test. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the importance that his Government has attached to the fight against organised crime -this was reiterated today by the Special Minister of State-and because of the great community concern about it and in the light of the Prime Minister's own statements about the value of the Costigan Commission and with regard to his declared support of open government, will he give the House a guarantee that it will be able to receive and debate the final report of Commissioner Costigan? Will he assure the House that the Government will not suppress the report or seek to avoid discussion of it before the election? Mr HAWKE —The question of the Costigan report is quite straightforward. I understand that we will be receiving it-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —If I were a member of the Opposition I would not be trying to gloat about the Costigan report. If ever members opposite want to have something written in their hearts-one name which has been devastating to their cause-I suggest that they write the word 'Costigan' because Costigan was the name which exposed the infamy of the conservative parties of this country. I know members opposite do not like to hear this but I remind them and the people of Australia of the substance of the major interim report of Commissioner Costigan in which he talked about the fastest growing industry in Australia. What was the fastest growing industry in Australia? It was the industry of tax avoidance and he identified it as having grown and prospered under the stewardship of the Liberal Government. I would think that members opposite should not be talking too much about the name of Costigan because he has exposed them. As far as this Government is concerned, we have nothing to hide-- Mr Peacock —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The inane haw-haws of the Leader of the Opposition are no substitute for rational analysis. We expect to receive the report of Commissioner Costigan I understand approximately at the end of September. When we receive that report it will undergo the normal processes that any government must-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —Wait a minute; it will undergo the normal processes of examination which were undertaken by the previous Government when it received reports. Mr Young —And not tabled. Mr HAWKE —As has been pointed out, so many of the reports to the previous Government were not tabled. We will receive the report and will undertake that examination which is necessary to see that appropriate security or privacy matters are properly dealt with-as would be done by those opposite if they were in government, an experience that they will not savour for very many years to come. Of course after those processes have been undertaken the report will be made available. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry when details of the national soil conservation program will be announced and what progress has been achieved in policy development in this area. Mr KERIN —I am pleased to be able to report to the House that considerable progress has been made in the development and implementation of the national soil conservation program. In terms of this year's allocation of funds, I can inform the honourable member that details of projects announced under the national component will be released today and an announcement of projects funded under the State component will occur in a week's time. The national soil conservation program is emerging as an effective package for conserving the land resource of this country. On coming to government, attempts to institute a national approach to dealing with the widespread land degradation afflicting rural Australia were hindered by the complete dismantling of soil conservation policy that had occurred under the previous Government. A national policy is being developed in consultation with the States. We have had two secondees from departments in New South Wales and Queensland and, as in all the Government's rural policies, there is an approach of consultation and quiet policy development that is gaining so much support in rural Australia. This approach is contrasted by the Opposition's confused approach to policy development. As we are aware, the Opposition recently brought out its primary industry policy, a wish list which would cost $312m extra. I see that there is to be another policy. I read from the latest edition of the National Farmer: Signs that the National Party is keen to develop a distinctive policy profile from its coalition partner, the Liberals, were given by Primary Industry spokesman Tom McVeigh, who said the party was preparing a separate farming policy from the coalition paper issued earlier to woo country voters. 'Ours will be a lot better than theirs,' he said. 'It will be a lot more specific.' That is what the honourable member said. The problem is that he wrote theirs. I do not know whether the Liberal Party will come out with its own primary industry policy. After all, I think the Leader of the Opposition gave us seven sentences on rural industry in his reply to the Budget; so perhaps the Liberal Party has some interest in the primary industries. But how could the Liberals say his policy is better than theirs? What if there is a contradiction between these two policies? Will the Leader of the Opposition run with both policies in the time honoured coalition tradition of hypocrisy or will he put out his own policy? It is apparent that there will be two policies, and 'ours will be a lot better than theirs' according to the Opposition spokesman. What he is really saying is that his policy will be better than his. That is pretty confusing. Mr PEACOCK —The Special Minister of State said in answer to an earlier question that he was not aware of any major difficulties in the transition between Mr Justice Stewart, the National Crime Authority and Commissioner Costigan. Is it not a fact, however, that Commissioner Costigan has written to the Prime Minister saying that the transition has not worked? If this is so-and we understand it to be so-will he table the correspondence to reveal why there is a discrepancy between Commissioner Costigan's letter and his answer? Mr YOUNG —Extra information has been made available to me during Question Time. It might be in relation to both questions asked earlier. Mr Peacock —Ah! Mr YOUNG —That is all right, because the Leader of the National Party asked a whole series of questions and I wish to pick up some of them in answer to this. I understand that in late July Commissioner Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister raising issues relating to the transition from his Royal Commission-- Mr Peacock —Ah! Mr YOUNG —Woof, woof! Mr Peacock —There's a lot to come out of this. Mr YOUNG —Wait for the next one. It has three syllables. In late July, Commissioner Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister raising issues relating to the transition from his Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. He indicated that he would like to brief Mr Justice Stewart and officers of the National Crime Authority. At the same time he wrote to Mr Justice Stewart in similar terms. Mr Justice Stewart responded by saying that such briefings would not be necessary. Subsequently Commissioner Costigan wrote again to the Prime Minister saying that, having received Mr Justice Stewart's letter, the matters he had previously raised no longer applied. Just recently Commissioner Costigan has again written to the Prime Minister raising the question of the transition, briefings and an extension. A response to this further letter is being considered by the Government at the moment. Finally, the Government is later this week meeting with Mr Justice Stewart and the other two members of the National Crime Authority. Mr Justice Stewart will be absent from Australia for only two weeks during the balance of the year. He is travelling in the United States in his capacity as Royal Commissioner inquiring into Nugan Hand. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of conservative political commentary in this country describing so-called South African constitutional changes as a dramatic step and the friendly tribute from the Capetown Argus about statements of a similar nature as giving a strong hint that the Liberal Party in Australia will develop a more accommodating policy towards South Africa, what vindication does the Minister see in the conduct of the recent South African elections for such commentary? Mr HAYDEN —I think the conduct of the recent South African elections would convince members of the Opposition, should they have harboured the belief that there had been constitutional improvement in that country, that no such improvement had taken place. On those grounds I urge members of the Opposition to reconsider the policy declarations it has made in that area. I seek particularly to appeal to their better nature in view of the repression which has been taking place in the course of electoral processes in South Africa in recent times. First of all, the processes, which were presented as a constitutional advance, represent nothing more than a shabby manipulation of the electoral processes. The first and major deficiency is that more than 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, the black people, are completely excluded from any participation in the electoral processes. In the course of the actual election processes the authorities, mainly the police forces of South Africa, were brutally repressive against Indians, coloureds and blacks, particularly against Indians and coloureds who were political activists but activists in a sense which we would recognise as a legitimate right in a country such as this. As a consequence of all this, the very widespread disenchantment and alienation of the non-white people of South Africa were reflected in the voting participation rates, less than 20 per cent for Indians and less than 30 per cent for coloureds. Without going into further detail there, I recall an article I read quite recently in the 10 September issue of the New Republic. I will give some quotes to illustrate the nature of the repression, of the cruel brutality, that takes place in South Africa. I do so, asking for the patience of honourable members and in the hope that, if the quotations are listened to, members of the Opposition might reconsider the statements they have made which have been described in the South African media as more accommodating of apartheid. The article states: Consider the following cases, which occurred during the last fifteen months: A white youth who battered a black man to death with karate sticks was ordered to serve 1,200 hours in prison on weekends. According to trial testimony, 20-year- old Ronnie Johannes Van Der Merwe was walking down the street with his girlfriend and bragged that he felt like killing a 'houtkop' (blockhead)-a derogatory term some Afrikaners apply to blacks. He brutally beat to death the next black man he encountered. The judge said Van Der Merwe could be partially excused for his actions because he was upset that his parents were considering a divorce. I ask honourable members to consider this case: . . . two black musicians were sent to jail for four years because the security police detected that during a concert they included in their music some verses praising Nelson Mandela, the leader of the outlawed African National Congress . . . In another case a few months ago, a black factory worker was given an eighteen- month jail sentence because his tea mug was inscribed with an A.N.C. slogan. I have asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to see whether it can verify these accounts and it has been able to verify immediately a number of them and others it is checking-there is no doubt as to the authenticity of others-but I quote only those which have been verified. Above and beyond that, the Department has given me a number of other cases which are just as bad but which are not included in this article. The next case is as follows: Mrs Suzman cited evidence, brought out in a related trial, that the organization- that is, the Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging, the AWB or Afrikaner Resistance Movement- had planned the assassination of black churchmen, including Bishop Desmond Tutu, an outspoken opponent of apartheid and head of the South African Council of Churches. I conclude the quotation here: The A.W.B is a violent white supremacist organization, she said, with a swastika-like symbol and a salute modeled on that of the Nazis. But Justice Van Dyk had ruled that no useful purpose would be served by sending the defendants to jail since they are 'civilized and decent people'. South Africa is a powderkeg under present circumstances. There is an understandable bitterness on the part of the non-white population. Apartheid is a slur and a moral crime against the dignity and rights of a very large number of people. That country deserves to be repudiated. I urge the Opposition to reconsider the more accommodating commitment it has given to the policy of apartheid in South Africa. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the answer that he gave to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Is it a fact that the final report of Commissioner Costigan is to be delivered to the Government by 30 September 1984? If that is a fact, will the Prime Minister undertake to the House that the normal processes of which he spoke in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition will be attended to before the Parliament is dissolved for the forthcoming election? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing to add to my previous answer. This Government, as distinct from its predecessor, will handle this matter with total propriety. Mr GAYLER —I refer the Minister for Transport to the recent need for the Australian National Line to withdraw from its coastal shipping services to Cairns, Townsville and Mackay. Would the Minister give the background to this decision? Is it the case that ANL was virtually bankrupt when the Government took office and now requires major restructuring? What alternative transport services are available to the people of north Queensland? Mr PETER MORRIS —The question that the honourable member for Leichhardt raises is an important one. When we came to government, ANL found itself in the position of being virtually bankrupt as a result of a policy instituted as far back as when the Leader of the National Party of Australia decided that ANL should perform its functions as an instrument of political policy. From that time ANL continued to go downhill. In simple terms the reason for ANL's withdrawal from the far north and north Queensland is that the revenue it gathers from that service barely covers the shore costs associated with it. The Australian National Line, like any prudent responsible business enterprise, is in the position of having to pay its way. Given that it is battling to survive in these very difficult conditions, the Australian Shipping Commission has undertaken a service by service review of its operations to ascertain those services that have the prospect of paying their way and those services that have no prospect of even meeting the expenses involved. I have to say that ANL is losing in excess of $500,000 a month on its far north Queensland services. In total, since the service began in 1978, ANL has lost in real terms in excess of some $42m. As I said, the service continues to lose half a million dollars a month. The simple fact is that the people of the far north of Queensland have shown over the past six years that they much prefer the cheaper and more frequent road and rail services that are available. It was in those circumstances that I went to north Queensland last week at the invitation of the honourable member for Leichhardt, the honourable member for Herbert and Senator Reynolds to discuss the difficulty of ANL's decision with the people there. We discussed with business, community and union leaders in Townsville and Cairns the prospects facing ANL and the expenditures and revenues involved. Clearly, in Townsville the consensus was that the course being followed by ANL, considering all the circumstances, was the correct one. Similarly, in Cairns, it was understood that there was no way that ANL could continue to bear those losses and carry on. We have this continuing disarray in respect of what is the Opposition's policy. It seems to me that we have four different Opposition spokesmen on transport. We have the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume, who says that the line-meaning ANL-was justified in withdrawing its services to Cairns and Townsville if the service was unprofitable. Mr Lusher —I didn't say that. Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, you did. Mr Lusher —Show me the quote. Mr PETER MORRIS —I will show the honourable member that later. He has said on numerous other occasions that there is no requirement for the Government to own a shipping line. They are his words. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister for Transport resume his seat until the House comes to order and conversations cease. Mr Lusher —A total fabrication. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Hume. Mr PETER MORRIS —Those words are on record. As well as that, the honourable member for Hume has made it quite clear in debate in this chamber that this Government should not own a shipping line, that there is no place for ANL-- Mr Lusher —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If the Minister is quoting me, is he prepared to authenticate the quote that he made? Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Lusher —What is he going to do-stand here and make allegations about what I have-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has been told that there is no point of order. He will resume his seat. Mr PETER MORRIS —Then we have the honourable member for Dawson, the shadow Minister for northern development, or no development really for the north of Queensland. He sent me a telegram on 8 August, asking that I urgently intervene to require ANL to continue the service. One section, the old pork barrellers represented by the honourable member for Dawson, wants the service to continue regardless of the cost. Then we have the honourable member for Hume, the economic dry of the National Party, who says that we should not be in the business at all. Then the Leader of the Opposition got into the act. He went to Townsville and said: 'Well, if ANL cannot do it effectively it has to review its operations and perhaps bow out'. That is exactly what ANL is doing. It cannot afford to carry this rate of loss. But let us get back to the responsibility for the provision of intrastate transport services in Queensland. Again, that is a responsibility of the National Party in Queensland. National Party Ministers of the Queensland Government were invited to meetings which were called last week in Townsville and Cairns. True, the Queensland Parliament was meeting. However, neither of the Queensland Ministers involved saw those meetings as being important enough to attend. We were there. I was there to explain the position. But where was the National Party? One month after a decision was made on this matter, which is very important to the people of the far north of Queensland, the honourable member for Dawson has been stirred finally to raise the matter in this chamber by way of notice of motion. He could have raised the matter during the previous sitting week. He could have asked a question, as could the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Hume. Nobody did, because it is not a matter of accord or importance to them. The responsibility for intrastate services in Queensland rests fairly and squarely with the Queensland Government, a National Party Government. If that Government wants that service to be provided it is up to it either to contract the service out to a company which will provide it or to contract the vessels from ANL. The Queensland Government can do what the Labor Government in Western Australia is doing. In Western Australia the Labor Government services the people of the far north of that State with its own shipping service. If the National Party is one iota fair dinkum-those who sit opposite and those in Queensland-it can provide the service. Mr Sinclair —No responsibility to any State. Mr PETER MORRIS —You are the architect of ANL's disaster. You are the man who set about destroying the Line, and you dare to interrupt. You are the architect of the disruption of the service. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should address the House and not an individual member. Mr Sinclair —What about what Charlie Jones did? Mr PETER MORRIS —Please, George, you and Charlie Jones I do not want to know about. You were a disaster. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to address the House, not an individual member. Mr PETER MORRIS —In conclusion, I repeat that responsibility for this matter, which is important to the people of the north and far north of Queensland even if it is not important to the National Party, rests fairly and squarely with the National Party Government of Queensland. I suggest to National Party members opposite that they take the matter up with their Party colleagues in Queensland. If a loss is incurred by the Queensland Government in providing that service, then the Queensland Government can take its case to the Commonwealth Grants Commission as do other State governments in respect of transport services. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 3 September 1984 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit Act and other Acts dated 3 September 1984. (2) That the paper be printed. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year 1983- 84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present statements on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for May, June and July 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I table certain documents relating to the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. On 24 August I made a statement to the House concerning the inquiries into the operation of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. For the further information of the House I now table the report of the joint working party established to examine and consider a range of matters arising from the report of the Monaghan inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The working party comprised representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Public Service Board, the Trust, my Department and Ernst and Whinney, chartered accountants, who also assisted the Monaghan inquiry. I also table a letter from Mr J. R. Smith who was a part time member of the Trust from July 1976 to June 1983. As well, I table a minute, with attachments, from the present Acting Chairman of the Trust, Mr W. J. Smith. Lastly, I table the conclusions of the inquiry into the possible need for disciplinary action in the Office of the Trust. In view of the personal information about individuals it contains, I do not propose to table the full report but I have made it available in confidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: That seemed to me to be far longer than the normal tabling statement. Mr Dawkins —I will table them separately, if you like. It is four separate things. Mr Sinclair —It is far longer than the normal tabling statement and one of my colleagues wishes to make a few observations on it. Perhaps he could be given a few minutes to do so. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.06) —The documents tabled just now by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) reflect a very serious range of allegations. Mr Young —We are not having a debate now. Mr CONNOLLY —I realise that. I make the point, though, that I seek the assurance of the Minister for Finance that he will in due course make a full statement on what the Government proposes to do in regard to the legislative reform of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and give the Parliament the opportunity to debate in full the range of allegations which have been made on this matter. Notwithstanding that we are well aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is inquiring into the matter, the fact is that there have been no fewer than five inquiries in regard to this matter and the 300,000 people who are investing in the fund want to know what is going on. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to sub-section 25B (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 I present a report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on its inquiry into the regulation of the use of satellite program services by broadcasters, volumes 1 and 2, together with a summary of main findings and conclusions of 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 sub-section 25B (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 I present the Albany inquiry report and recommendations by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into the commercial viability of commercial television station GSW-9 Southern Agricultural Western Australia. The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —During Question Time today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to my speech to the National Press Club in 1981 and quoted my remarks in regard to 'an incomes or means test'. He sought to relate that, as he has done in the past -I have said this sort of thing before-to the assets test. He knows, or ought to know, that an incomes test is different to an assets test. He has imposed not merely an incomes test on those aged over 70 but, in addition, an assets test. We have undertaken to remove the assets test because of its inequity. The incomes test will, of course, remain. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I also claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —I do. For the fourth time in as many months, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister quoted, to use his own expression, out of context something that I had said about the trade-off between tax cuts and a reduction in the deficit, and for the fourth time I correct the misleading way in which the Prime Minister quoted my remarks. I remind him that on the AM program on 19 March 1984 I said: But if you are asking me from an economic point of view what is the better thing to do quite clearly the better thing to do is to give a greater priority to reducing the deficit and that if the Government wishes on top of that to give taxation cuts then it should cut further into its own expenditures to find the room. My point all along has been that there was room both to reduce the deficit further and to give a tax cut. That has been clearly demonstrated in the Budget Papers and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) continue to mislead the Parliament and the people on the subject. Mr Keating —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The latter part of the content of the Deputy Leader's contribution did not deal with a misrepresentation; it was argument. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LUSHER —I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr LUSHER —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has gone to some extraordinary lengths to try to drive a wedge between my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and me in a statement which he released on 31 August and in Question Time again today. Honourable members on this side of the House will be aware of the Minister's repetitious and mosquito-like tactics-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member get to the point where he has been misrepresented. Mr LUSHER —These tactics are characterised by his singular small-mindedness. On this occasion the Minister seeks to draw a difference between my colleague and me in relation to the Australian National Line and one of its services. He has made unsubstantiated allegations about what I am supposed to have said in relation to north Queensland services. In Townsville I said that it is not so much a question of who provides the service but whether the service is provided at all. If the Government is concerned about north Queensland, which it obviously is not, it is within its capacity to call tenders for the operation of a service to north Queensland. I have expressed views about ANL, and they are obviously-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not debate the issue. He will finish by showing where he has been misrepresented. Mr LUSHER —I am not going to debate the issue but I seek leave to table a statement which has been made by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson and which starts off by saying: There is no difference of opinion between Mr Lusher and me. Leave granted. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Coleman,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock and Mr West. 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% 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Goodluck,Mr Humphreys,Mr Punch and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck,Mr Hurford,Mr Newman,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws 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 importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy,Mr McVeigh,Mr Peacock and Mr Scott. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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,Mr Hicks and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropratic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hawker 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: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Peacock and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Goodluck,Mr Lusher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy,Mr Kent,Mr Lloyd and Mr Macphee. 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. Recognise 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, recognise 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 programs, 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 Brumby and Mr Milton. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Steedman. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That grave concern be expressed and decisive action be taken to prevent the lifting of the barriers to the importation, and publication of hard core pornography (including urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia and bestiality) and publications which incite the use of hard drugs. We the undersigned believe that this will cause enormous damage to the moral strength of our people, particularly the young and strongly and urgently request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification and Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That all persons are entitled to protection from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive, and therefore: That adult persons should not permit to be displayed in public any material which offends public morality. Public morality should be determined by references to public committees comprising of significant groups within the community particularly at Local and State Government level. Significant groups would include Employer and Employee organisations, Consumer organisations, Law Associations and Church organisations . We, the undersigned request the Government abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: (1) That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. (2) That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. (3) That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on Christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. (4) That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that because videocassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic videocassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, we the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as '' relished descriptions of violence'' and ''publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana'' (Category 1), and ''sado-masochism'', '' extreme fetishism'' (e.g. necrophilia), ''anal intercourse with consent'' ( Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ''hardcore'' paperbacks containing ''relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student'' and ''extreme sexual torture'' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. 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. 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 retirement; 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 inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, and recognises that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporate the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefor humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the petitioners respectively request that Orthoptic Services be included in the Medicare Health Scheme. Your Petitioners pray that the Medicare Health Scheme be revised to include Orthoptic Services as these services are an integral part of specialist eye care . Currently patients referred for Orthoptic consultations must rely on private health insurance if they are to receive any rebate on fees charged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Motor Vessel KRAIT remain as a Dedicated Operational War Memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia, and that your petitioners consider that the monies raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the KRAIT for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service, and that the current proposal to remove KRAIT from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra, ACT would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid monies were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the Attorney-General with the agreement of Federal Executive Council amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act (1901), to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia without reference to the Australian people or the Australian Parliament. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will establish a Parliamentary Committee to take evidence from the people of Australia, such as the Judiciary, the Police, Welfare workers and Youth workers, the video industry , the media, those engaged in public health, private citizens, civic organisations, churches and other community groups, and report to Parliament on the effects of all pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Commonwealth Government of Australia in Parliament of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Country of Australia, respectively ask: That the Government of Australia be responsible for the staffing and financing of the Australian Cadet Corps as run in Government Schools. The undersigned pray that the Law be changed so as to allow all students who wish to take part, the opportunity to participate, regardless of their financial position. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, are horrified at the prospect that the Personal Care Workers Study in Northcote, Victoria may cease for lack of funding. Such an action would cause severe disruption to the lives of disabled people using the scheme, would prematurely sack the workers involved and waste the research being undertaken. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will ensure that funding for the Personal Care Workers Study is continued without interruption. by Mr Howe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: we find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Recent X rated violent pornography allowed legal distribution, particularly with regard to distribution through sale and hire of video cassette recordings through commercial and retail outlets, is detrimental to the community at large because it gives wide circulation to concepts of human exploitation and victimisation, sexual pleasure through violence to others, and explicit details of violent sexual assault namely rape. Your petitioners humbly pray that Censors be asked to give due regard to the social effect of the release of violent pornography and that a weighting factor for this be included in the rating of films. Producers, distributors, and the owners of cinemas concerned with the production, distribution and showing of violent pornography be required to register with the Federal government and give full disclosure of their financial interests to the government with the proviso that such disclosures will be open to the public. The Federal Government pursue ways of achieving the best effect for the community as a whole that is the abolition of violent pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament for the Commonwealth of Australia assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned would call upon our government to introduce or amend legislation (1) To place controls over video-cassettes so as to provide for the open availability through sale and hire outlets only of G. NRC, and M Rated video- cassettes. (2) To prohibit the availability through sale and hire outlets of R rated video -cassettes and restrict their use to adult theatres. (3) To prohibit completely the concept of X rated video-cassettes by the revision of the Customs and/or Censorship Regulations so that the production, import and distribution of such pornographic and sadistically violent material be prevented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman and Mr Punch. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 shows: That we object to the granting of benefits such as bereavement leave, removal expenses and other such entitlements to homosexual partners of public servants employed by the A.B.C. We the undersigned request the Government to establish legislation to disallow such practice. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we object to the sale of pornographic material, that is, explicit material designed to be sexually stimulating in which women (and children) are portrayed as objects or commodities and are subjected to degradation, domination, dehumanisation, sexual violence, torture and murder. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House halt any attempts to legalise sale and rental of ''X rated'' pornographic video movies, and remove ''X rated'' violent and hardcore pornographic videos which are currently ''illegally'' available for sale and rental at video outlets and sex shops. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison officer or investigator had approached Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 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 Lindsay and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program Levy, at 2 cents per litre of petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988-89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of Riker Laboratories Australia Pty Limited located in the Division of Berowra New South Wales respectively showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the trend in Government policy to pay insufficient attention to the importance of brand-name products. Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective drugs is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the viability is a pre-condition for continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information supplied by the research-based companies which are product originators, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective drugs is secured. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioner of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia showeth that the Attorney-General amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: the Government will restore the former section 4A of the Customs regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Franklin respectfully showeth: 1. Although Australia is endowed with vast quantities of natural gas, Tasmanians are denied reasonably priced access to those resources. It should be shared equally between all Australians. 2. The Tasmanian householder using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pays $35.40 for an average household cylinder. In Melbourne, the same cylinder can be purchased for as little as $23.77. 3. A Tasmanian family on reticulated gas supply pays double the price paid by a Melbourne family on natural gas. 4. Tasmanian commercial and industrial users, paying high prices for their gas, are penalized. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government gas subsidy of $20.31 per tonne should be increased to Tasmania to compensate for Bass Strait freight charges. The subsidy should be raised so that Tasmanian users pay no more than the average of Australian users. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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. And your petitioners as 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 Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's continuing attack on taxpayers in the 1984-85 Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.19) —Of all the broken promises and the phoney self-congratulations about being responsible for the fragile recovery, one sorry fact stands out. After 18 months, two Budgets and a mini- Budget, the average Australian is worse off today than when Labor came to office . Let me repeat that damning fact: Average Australians and their families are worse off now than they were 18 months ago. I shall seek leave to table details of the deterioration at the end of my comments. This Labor Government is engaged in a massive redistribution of income, aimed not at the wealthy but at moving income away from those average people who make up middle Australia. Of course whenever the facts are laid on the table honourable members opposite, and particularly the Treasurer (Mr Keating), immediately resort to bluster and rhetoric. Take, for example, the Australian Labor Party's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. When questioned about the side effects of the Government's slug on super, the Treasurer invented the fiction that this tax would affect only a few privileged fat cats. The most recent example of this program of misinformation by the Government came when I presented figures calculated by the superannuation industry which showed that a person aged 45 entering a superannuation scheme today with a view to achieving a modest enough after tax lump sum benefit of a little over $150,000 at age 65-in 20 years time- would have to pay an extra $5 a week in contributions for the rest of his or her working life because of Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. There goes most of the phoney tax cut right out of the window before we even look at the rest of the Labor tax machine. What did the Treasurer have to say about the facts on lump sum superannuation? He first made the ridiculous statement that these computations applied to people who would get $500,000 lump sum pay-outs-a blatant misrepresentation of what the coalition and the industry had said. He then went on to say that our figures were nonsense because 'only a minority of Australians are members of a superannuation scheme'. He might call it a minority, but let us just remember the size and the make-up of the minority that Labor has slugged. Two years ago there were 2.6 million Australians contributing to superannuation schemes. Of course the numbers have grown since 1982 and more are to come, with a further possible 430,000 from the construction industry alone. So while the Treasurer dismisses more than 2.6 million Australians as a minority, the fact is that Labor's super tax will hit hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians. It is the same with income taxation. I remind the House of what the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said. Of course he has scuttled out of the House to avoid hearing the truth about what he is doing to disadvantage ordinary people. On 16 February 1983 when he opened Labor's election campaign he said that there would be 'immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers with the greatest cuts going to those on the lowest incomes'. Mr Hunt —Immediate! Mr PEACOCK —Yes, 'immediate' was the critical word associated with the income tax cuts. He said that Labor would raise the tax threshold from $4,595 to $5,000 in order to 'free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax'. He said that Labor would raise the dependent spouse rebate where there were dependent children from $1,030 a year to $1,134 in order to provide additional benefits to families. 'Families' is the word which the Prime Minister has not used since February 1983. It is just not in his vocabulary. Mr Hurford —Rubbish! Mr PEACOCK —The Minister says 'Rubbish': When did he last hear the Prime Minister talk about the family? When did he last hear him talk about the average Australian? When did he last hear him talk about the worker? Those words are not in his vocabulary. The Minister knows it and he knows that those are the people who are suffering today, and no obfuscation from second rate interjections can move that to one side. It is a fact and it remains a fact. Mr Hurford —The Prime Minister asked me about my family yesterday. Mr PEACOCK —And that is about all the molly coddling we will get within that incestuous little group. He will ask the Minister about his family. Perhaps he wants to check on whether the Minister intends to take the right to travel overseas with a de facto or not. That is another entitlement Labor has introduced. It has de factos in its program. That is what the Prime Minister might be asking about. I do not know. The Minister leads with his chin. The Prime Minister talks enough about de factos but not about families. Labor said also that it would raise the 46c tax threshold from $19,500 to $19, 750. Well, Labor's mini-Budget came and went with no tax promises in it. Of course Labor did hit those on superannuation and the over 70-year-olds with the means test. Labor's first Budget came and went with no tax promises in it at all . Of course it did hit the elderly, and it hit them again, with the assets test. Tens of thousands of low income earners paid tax for the first time. The real value of the dependent spouse rebate was allowed to erode and 400,000 workers, whom nobody would call wealthy, for the first time found almost half of every extra dollar they earned going to Canberra. As I said, following an interjection from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Prime Minister has given new meaning to the word ' immediate'. In this Budget there is seemingly a new found urgency in the Government's attempt to live up to some of its tax promises before the early election, and so we have the so-called tax cuts brought down in the Treasurer's Budget. But what is the reality of these election sweeteners? Before taking account of the recent Budget changes, Labor had left average wage earners and their families $22 a week worse off in tax and family allowances. Then, up pops the Treasurer two weeks ago, having ripped off 22 bucks, saying he will give back $7.60. It is as phoney as the nonsense which the Prime Minister paraded in the Pacific on a nuclear free zone. We would have a nuclear free zone but with nuclear powered and nuclear armed vessels going around and around in it. We are to have a tax cut, but it will cost $15. Next week the Prime Minister will be in north Queensland making a speech on conservation. I will tell honourable members what he will do. He will chop down a tree, then mount the stump and make a speech in favour of conservation. That is the sort of nonsense that comes out of members of the Government. We have a tax cut-after the Government has taken $22 from people, they will get $7.60 back! According to the Treasurer's own definition, the minority of Australians will benefit. For many Australians the illusory tax cuts did not even make up for the extra tax dollar Labor is taking through fiscal drag. In the process, this Government has ensured that one million Australians-I repeat, one million Australians-will move into higher tax brackets during 1984-85. Dr Klugman —Because they are getting jobs. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member would not know. He can interject because he is making so much from the starting price bookies that the tax man cannot even get close to him. The tax free threshold and the 46c threshold have not been changed and the Prime Minister has yet to honour his totally empty words of 16 February 1983. The real value of the dependent spouse rebate continues to decline. Labor' s tax strategy ensures that more and more Australians find themselves in the 46 per cent and the new 48 per cent tax brackets. Ordinary Australians-a term not in the vocabulary of this Government and a group certainly not addressed by this Government unless it is to slug them-are picking up the bill for this Labor Government's big spending programs. Just the week before last the Treasurer released figures which show that a taxpayer on average ordinary time earnings, with a dependent spouse and two children, would have a lower real disposable income in December 1984 than he or she had two years earlier. That was revealed by the Treasurer's own figures. He comes in here and disputes my figures but has not been able to nail any of the component parts of those figures. He simply says they are wrong, brings in his own figures and releases them. They show that the people I have referred to will have a lower real disposable income than they had two years earlier, in December 1982. That is what the Treasurer showed. What has all this squeezing of ordinary wage earners achieved over Labor's 18 months in office? Of course the answer is nothing; we have gone backwards. In a year of windfall government receipts-receipts are up by $8.6 billion-this big spending, undisciplined, socialist Government has missed a one-off opportunity to restrain the growth in public debt. The Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone, said in his recent Shann lecture that failing to restrain the growth in the public debt serves only 'to defer further the day when meaningful reductions in taxation can be made and, above all, defer if not fundamentally impair the chances of lasting recovery in the longer run'. What a damning indictment of this Government's Budget and its big spending, big taxing economic strategy! Mr Stone knew what it was like, announced publicly his resignation days before the Budget and then poured it all over the Government days after the Budget. He is the Government's principal adviser to whom the Treasurer pledged so much faith and from whom he stated he had total support only the day before he announced his resignation. I repeat: Government receipts are up a mammoth $8.6 billion. Yet the deficit, despite those receipts being up $8.6 billion, is down only $1.2 billion. Where has the money gone? We have been asking that question about the New South Wales Labor Party for a long while. The answer is that the Government has spent it like there is no tomorrow on its pet projects over the last two Budgets. Total government outlays rose nearly 8 per cent in 1983-84, followed by over 6 per cent in 1984-85-despite no increases in major Budget items such as family allowances. Let us remember that payments to the States fell in real terms. Real increases in spending by this Government in just two Budgets exceed the total for the previous six years of the coalition Government. The majority of Labor's spending increases were on Medicare and in paying the interest on the public debt. Every taxpayer now pays $17 a week just to service the interest on the public debt. Yet the actions of the Government in this Budget have locked Australians into a big Budget deficit next year. What has the spending splurge achieved? There is no fundamental tax reform. There is no reform of spending priorities. There is no restraint. There is of course hurt. We should ask the average person and the elderly, just for starters . There is the hurt. The bottom line of Labor's economic mismanagement is that the average wage earner with a dependent spouse and two children will have a lower real disposable income in December 1984 than in December 1982. The Government admits that during this financial year unemployment will remain unacceptably high. There is a massive public debt burden which Labor has increased. We have seen the lowest real increase in defence spending for six years and a reduction in the number of service personnel. All this has been achieved. There have been major cuts in scientific and industrial research and development and real cuts in grants for drug education, in Aboriginal housing and in coastal surveillance. The list goes on and on. At a time when the Government has $8.6 billion more than it anticipated the cuts and the hurt that extend throughout the community go into almost every area of governmental activity other than the areas where the socialists wish to get control of the direction and movement of people which is endemic to their philosophy. They have cut the areas which are essential to our security and to sustained recovery, but they have spent up big in other areas; and that is where the ordinary Australians' money is going. If the Treasurer comes back with more of his second-rate bluff and his second-rate rhetoric, recycles them and charges on to this train of misinformation, he will show that he is unable to cope with the facts. The facts show that he has no answer. I seek leave to table this document. Leave granted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.44) —The time of the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) never even arrived and it has now truly expired because he has never had the intellectual discipline or the intelligence to be able to put to the Australian Parliament and the Australian electorate a coherent view about the national economy, about taxation or about anything else. He has just been complimented by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) on a good speech. All I can say about the Deputy Leader of the National Party is that his quality of observation has declined dramatically since the time he was a Minister and I can assure him and his colleagues that that will bring no more of them to this Parliament. Let me just make this point: The Leader of the Opposition has had only one domestic portfolio, industrial relations, from which he spat out the dummy very quickly. He then took his bat home, sat on the back bench and never at any stage tried to grapple with the national economy. In fact he left it to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to carry the can for a great shambles of a taxation policy, and carry the can he did when the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union exposed the massive tax avoidance which went on under his Government in those years. More importantly, he sat and watched the national economy fall apart in front of his eyes because of the tremendous fiscal imbalance over the last three years of his treasurership. The Leader of the Opposition talked about large spending and deficits. Where did the $9.6 billion come from? How did we get from a deficit of $1 billion two years ago to a deficit of $9.6 billion? I will tell the House how we got there. We got there because of the incompetence of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and his colleague the Leader of the Opposition who were Ministers in the Fraser Government. Of course, the mark of their incompetence was not just the extra quarter of a million people who had no jobs, the quarter of a million they pushed into the unemployment queues-they did not have to worry about tax cuts because they had no income-but also the other unfortunate people in Australia who were belted around with taxation and the dismal rates of growth over the period of their office. That is their contribution to Australia's economic performance. How dare the Leader of the Opposition talk about workers and families? He has never met a worker in his life. (Quorum formed) It is very interesting that the Opposition regards the matter it has raised as important but then calls a quorum during debate on it. In other words, the brain-damaged honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) made his first parliamentary contribution since being elected by calling a quorum to silence me for three minutes. For the Opposition to treat so frivolously a matter which it proposed for debate by calling a quorum shows that it must regard it very seriously and as a matter of great public moment! Madam Deputy Speaker, let me continue with the remarks I was making by indicating the total fallacy of the attack made by the Leader of the Opposition on the Government's taxation policy. It is worth observing the tax policies of the former Government. Let me give honourable members some of that Government's history. In the 1977 election campaign it promised a tax cut. Remember the ring up and find out how much your tax cut is, the fistful of dollars tax cut, election. Numbers in every capital city were given and people could ring up and find out how much their tax cut was. In May of the following year the Government took it away. It introduced an income tax surcharge to wipe the tax cuts out. Honestly, the cynicism of it would make a cat laugh. Here members of the Opposition are now talking about principles, equity and justice but they would not have a principle among them. Take the 1982 tax cut. The honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was the person who took the tax cut away. As Treasurer in 1978 he introduced the tax surcharge to wipe out the 1977 tax cut. Mr Howard —I didn't give it, though. Mr KEATING —He says that he did not give it. What a retreat. He did not give the tax cut so he could wipe it away. His Party went to the election and gave the tax cut and five months later it wiped the cut out, but now he says that he did not give it. He was not the Treasurer, it was Sir Phillip Lynch who was in bed and who had been cut down by the former Prime Minister. He did not give it but he could take it away because he was the new Treasurer. That will give honourable members some idea of the morality of the Liberal Party. That is a very important comment on the standards of morality of the Liberal Party. The second issue was the tax cut of 1982-$2 billion with a $1.4 billion increase in indirect taxes. That is the tax performance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-give $2 billion and in the same Budget take away $1.4 billion. The net cut was $600m. Madam Deputy Speaker, take no notice of the Liberals on tax. They are rip-off merchants. The Liberal Government was the highest taxing government in Australian history. It let the tax system fall to pieces under the massive onslaught of tax avoidance schemes and was forced to do something about it only when Commissioner Costigan exposed it. That is its record on tax policy. The most important thing is that on this occasion the public have got a real tax cut of $7.60 a week, costing $2.1 billion in a full year which is almost twice as much as tax indexation. Tax indexation this year would have cost $1.2 billion in a full year, but we are giving $2.1 billion in a full year, almost twice as much as tax indexation. Even if we had indexed the scales it would have meant that somebody on a lower income would have got $2.30 a week. As it is, that person gets $7.60 a week as a result of the tax cut which this Government has given him . The Leader of the Opposition comes in here talking about $22 tax increases. We exposed that nonsense a week ago. The simple statistic about that is that if taxpayers were $22 a week worse off the Government would be $6 billion better off. Obviously we are not, so that indicates what nonsense such a claim is. Fancy the Opposition attacking our tax policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear-he tries to wheedle out of it every Question Time -that given the choice between tax cuts or a lower deficit he would have taken the lower deficit. In other words, if he had been the Treasurer there would have been no tax cuts this year. Let us get that well and truly clear; there would have been no tax cuts under the Liberals. Fancy coming in here and trying to make a case about living standards. Look at the living standards which prevail in this country at the moment: Job security, a quarter of a million people in extra work, 260,000 in fact; a public health insurance system for everybody, Medicare; the first home owners scheme which would never have been given to those 130,000 Australians who now have roofs over their heads; wage indexation which is worth $25 a week to the average income earner and which is opposed by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy would have wiped it out; they would not have given this tax cut. That is another $7.60 a week. Of course they failed to mention the $5 to $6 a week saving in interest rates on home mortgages because this Government has got interest rates down from the record 20 per cent which we saw with the former Government when the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy were in charge. How can they get up in this Parliament and talk about living standards and the promises of this Government? The Leader of the Opposition even had the hide to say that the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) promised a tax cut before the last election but he omitted to mention that we promised it believing that the deficit would be about $6 billion in 1983 -84 and found that it would be $9.6 billion. Because of the deceit of the former Government there was no possibility of giving tax cuts in 1983-84, and that is why this year the tax cuts were given when the economy started to improve and when the Government was able to get the deficit down. The Leader of the Opposition said that one million Australians have a higher marginal tax rate. Let me inform him that, as a result of this Budget, two and a quarter million Australians have a lower marginal tax rate and six million taxpayers-that is, all of them-have a tax cut. So if the Opposition wants to bandy any statistics around, they are the ones to focus on. It is no good saying that we never increased the spouse rebate. We assisted families by a $7.60 tax cut and we assisted those families not in employment. The Opposition says that we never spoke about families. What a mistruth that is. In this Budget a pensioner with three children and living in rented accommodation will be $15.50 a week better off. So we assisted those out of employment through the social security system, which the Opposition also opposed, and we assisted those in employment with a tax cut of $7.60 for most Australian taxpayers-particularly those in employment and with families. There was no adjustment to the spouse rebate, because we cannot give an increase in the spouse rebate at the same time as a $7.60 tax cut to a family while we increase pensions and benefits alike. It is just not possible to do all those things at any one time. We reject out of hand the phoney proposal raised by the Opposition on the question of taxation. It has no tax policy. Its policy was one of rip-offs, of protecting tax avoidance and evasion over the years. It was simply ripping people off through the massive inflation it had operating through the tax scales , with no adjustments. The only adjustment was in 1977, and that was taken back five months later with a tax surcharge. The Opposition does not have a leg to stand on. It is deluding itself if it thinks that some proposition here, written by some staffer in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, because he is incapable of delivering this sort of speech off the cuff, and full of mealy mouthed charges against the Government, will cut any ice whatsoever with any member of the public who sees a stronger economy, lower inflation, lower interest rates, more job security, more employment, higher wages and a public health insurance system. Is that a contrast to the years of misery under the Liberals, of mounting unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates and no security for anybody? Everyone's job was threatened in their days. The Opposition's proposal is simply a joke. The Government rejects it out of hand for the sham which it is. When the test comes, as indeed it always does, for any political party to face up to the public and say 'This is what we did, this is why we did it and this is how successful it has been', I know the judgment will come in very strongly on the part of the Government. This Government inherited an Australian economy in a shambles and in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. In coming out of it we have given not only those increases in living standards which I mentioned but also a substantial tax cut of $7.60 a week, costing over $2 billion in a full year, and at the same time we brought the Budget deficit down from the $9.6 billion left to us by the honourable member for Bennelong to $6.7 billion, $3 billion lower, despite the fact that we are wearing the massive cost of those unemployment beneficiaries who were lumped on to the Budget by his policies when unemployment galloped in this country. When we look at the burden of public debt interest, which we carried because of the failure of the former Government's policies and high unemployment, to reduce the deficit by $3 billion in two years and to give tax cuts are indicators of a good performance on the Government's part. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(3.49) —I am reminded of an old axiom from my sporting days that when a person constantly complains that he was not out leg before he should go and have a look at the scorebook. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) ought to do just that in relation to this hairy old matter about the $9.6 billion deficit. Quite clearly when we look at the scorebook the answer for the year is $4.4 billion, not $9.6 billion, the estimate made at the time when the Government came to power one on which it then cashiered every promise that it had made around Australia in that campaign. It said that the whole of Australia would get a tax cut, that there would be no wine tax, that there would be increases in the public sector and that there would be increases in terms of security for families through Medicare. It said that this whole retinue of promises would not cost the community money. The Treasurer in Opposition was a sparkling performer. There is no doubt about that. But since he has become Treasurer of the nation he has been increasingly less receptive to economic argument. In fact, very seldom at Question Time does he come to the point on economic questions. He relies substantially on rhetoric. I really do wonder at the Treasurer's claim that the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) would make a cat laugh. Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, I just make this point of order: The Opposition today called this matter on and then called a quorum. By all accounts the Government should have suspended this matter. I simply make the point that I was not even asked one question on the Budget during Question Time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr MOORE —I think that probably points to what I was just saying, that he does not have much regard for economics at all and that he is much stronger on rhetoric than on anything else. As for making a cat laugh, we should think of the President of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and the poor old cat. Wran's cat got lost. I wonder what it swallowed. There is a lot of corruption down there so I guess something happened to it as it disappeared out the window. The response from the Treasurer was totally one of rhetoric. The realities are that the Budget was drawn up as a straightforward exercise in squaring off business. On the one hand, big business had to be squared off. What did we do for it? We resurrected the old chain companies so that expenditure incurred in a totally unrelated field could be written off against current income expenditure. That squared that lot off. What did we do for government? Big government was squared off by a vast increase in the amount of revenue dug up from the Australian taxpayers. Not satisfied with that, we added to it a substantial deficit so that we could carry on a wide-sweeping government spending program. That is what we did for big government. What did we do for big unions? We met their demands by giving them a tax cut. They do not seem to quite understand the difference between taking $22 out and giving $7 back. They cannot be much good at business. I am not surprised that the Australian Council of Trade Unions' efforts in business have failed if that is its level of understanding. However, the trinity of bigness was all squared away. What occurred in this particular area? If we look at the Budget Papers we find that this vast increase in government revenue is to be achieved partly by way of personal contributions from citizens. In fact, 53 per cent of all government moneys raised this year will come by way of personal income tax. The amount has vastly increased from 51 per cent in two years. This is an area in which the Government is saying that it is taking less. However, the figures show quite dramatically that that is not the case. On top of that, all of the Government's revenue estimates are based on the supposition that the economy is strong, that the balance of payments will continue at its current level and that international trade will continue to recover. At Question Time today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the cut in personal taxation will do an enormous amount of good for the economy, particularly in the area of consumer demand. The Confederation of Australian Industry issued a paper on 3 September which contained an analysis of the level of consumer demand on a quarterly basis. The paper shows a growth in consumer demand of 2 per cent in September 1983; 1.1 per cent in December 1983; 0.3 per cent in March 1984; and 0.2 per cent in June 1984. One would be concerned on that basis alone that the income projections within the Budget will be met, given the tax cuts that are involved and the ability of the Government in the framework of the Budget to deliver anything in the coming year. Therefore, those who are charged with the responsibility of framing the next Budget certainly will be left with very little to build on. Let us look at the question of spending. In this area we see not only the vast increase to which the Leader of the Opposition referred but also the components within it. We will certainly not escape from this area. A lot has been made by the Treasurer about the deficits that were left to him. But what do the figures show? In 1980-81 the deficit was $1.1 billion; in 1981-82 it was $500m; in 1982- 83 it was $4.4 billion. Now we see the real truth of the matter. In 1983-84 the deficit was $7.9 billion. The projection for 1984-85-I say 'projection' because there are many doubts in respect of this matter-is $6.7 billion. When exactly did this huge growth take place in the Government deficit? It has come in the last three years. I return now to the percentage outlaid in spending in terms of funding the debt. It is interesting to note that 8.8 per cent of total outlays is now going in funding the Government deficit. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr MOORE —I said 8.8 per cent. Honourable members opposite might be interested to know that the Government is to spend a total of 7.1 per cent on education. So the debt is more than expenditure on education. It is just short of the expenditure on defence of 9.1 per cent. We are looking at a total social security payment of 28.8 per cent and that is the sort of figure the Government will be getting towards if the deficits are not brought under control. This Budget was framed in a totally opportunist approach to electioneering, without any regard to the national interest or the future decade economic management of this country. The Government has let the opportunity pass at a time in which it claims that the economy is in good shape, at a time when it could have managed to restrain Government spending without an impact on the economy. When the Government looks back, especially in 1985-86 and 1986-87 when the projections of economic activity are substantially less than they are today, it will not be in a position to rectify some of the huge structural problems that are built into this Budget and with which no effort has been made to come to grips. I think the citizens of Australia ought to be aware of the increasing concern that most of us have about this situation. Just to underscore that, something like 25 per cent to 28 per cent of gross domestic product today is underwritten by government securities on the market. A frightening amount is taken up in funding that area. If deficits continue to grow in this way-we can look forward to a deficit of substantially the same size or even greater in the next Budget- they will increase the proportion of GDP in the public sector. This certainly underscores once again the proposition that this Budget does absolutely nothing for individual incentive, private enterprise or the ability of Australians to improve their own lot within the economic system. I think that this Budget has done enormous harm to the citizens of Australia, to the families of Australia and to private enterprise. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.00) —This is an absurd matter of public importance to bring forward in this Parliament at this time. It has done nothing but waste the time of the Parliament. It is clear that some of the Opposition's own back benchers even think that because they called quorums on the Opposition's own matter of public importance. To hear the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in the speech that he has just made-it was the second of two poor speeches on this matter from the Opposition-talk about the cat of the Premier of New South Wales and other such matters just adds insult to injury. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) claimed that this Government had reduced living standards. This absurd matter of public importance has been built around that false and phoney claim, because that claim is nothing more than arrant nonsense. It is symptomatic indeed of what the Liberals and their National Party colleagues are peddling around the country at present. It can be summed up as peddling the specious in place of the solid, the plausible in place of the truth. I bring to the attention of the House how the Opposition's analysis-for want of a better word-from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is just so selective and distorted. They peddle figures that living standards have been reduced by $22 a week. First of all, they choose to include in their figures the abolition of the highly inequitable, ineffective and regressive mortgage interest rebates, but they choose to exclude the replacement of rebates with what is now the better targeted and highly effective first home owners scheme grant. The grant has gone up to $7,000 over five years, which represents an average payment of $44.87 a week. Members of the Opposition ignore all of that. Further they ignore the savings of all home buyers. I am using some illustrations from my own portfolio area of housing and construction. In these phoney assessments and analyses of theirs they ignore the savings of all home buyers as housing interest rates fall. Repayments on a typical $30,000 savings bank housing loan are down by no less than by $22 a month. They ignore that fact in their phoney figures. The situation is very different now from what it was when they were in office. Interest rates have gone down virtually three percentage points from what they were when this country was presided over by the Fraser Government. In other words, the Fraser Government would have taken $55 a month from the pockets of typical housing loan borrowers in this country by way of increased interest rates. I repeat that the Opposition's claims about living standards are phoney. Let me illustrate why this is so. The Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy have overlooked altogether what has gone into the social wage due to the policies of the Hawke Labor Government. In what they have put forward they have overlooked the provision of $623m for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in the 1984-85 financial year. An amount of $623m will be provided from the Commonwealth Parliament. The figure is up 9 per cent on that for 1983-84. The figure for 1983-84 was 50 per cent higher than the figure for the 1982-83 financial year when a mere pitiful $264m was appropriated through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement for public housing in this country. I do not think that many members of this Parliament would have thought that even this Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy could produce analyses that are just so phoney, so wrong, so slipshod, so loose, so puerile and so lacking in grasp as those that have been produced by the present Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy. In summary, their mediocrity is superb. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been a member of this Parliament for a while. You will know that an assessment of a Budget is best gained in one's own electorate office. One is able to gauge, from the phone calls which one receives, how the Budget has been received. I might say that as a member of this Parliament for 15 years I have never known the people of my electorate to be more satisfied with a Budget than they are with this Budget. Mr Peacock —I remember you saying that in the Whitlam years. That very analogy was used. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member's memory about that is as good as his memory and knowledge about the living standards of people in this country. He has just made that up as he made up the figures which stated that living standards have reduced by $22 a week. I have already put that matter in its proper place. We are entitled to ask: What would these carping critics have done? What would these moaners and groaners be up to if, God forbid, the country was being run by them? It is fair to say that they would want a deficit of at least $1.5 billion less than the deficit that we have been running. It is also fair to say-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was honest enough to say so-that that reduced deficit would have been created by not giving the tax cuts that this Government has given to the people of Australia. The tax cuts amount to $2.1 billion in a full year and $1.3 billion in this year. The average taxpayer will have $7.60 a week more in his pocket. What would the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy have done with the economy of this country? Instead of having created 270,000 jobs, as the Hawke Labor Government has done since 1983, they would have run lower deficits. They would have cut the civil and defence works programs of this country. They would have ensured that those 270,000 and more would have been unemployed. The history of the last year of office of the Fraser Government, which was administered by people such as the present Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy, shows that 270,000 jobs were lost in that year. It is fair to say that the former Government would have continued with those policies. There would not have been the great growth in the economy and the great result in improved living standards which have come with the growth that we have had under the Hawke Labor Government. It is also fair to say that under the former Government there would have been a continuing protection of the tax evaders of this country. I remind the House and the people, when we are talking about an attack on taxpayers, as do the terms of this phoney matter of public importance, of what these people in the Opposition have done in relation to our attack on the tax evaders of this country. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition remains the friend of the tax evaders. The only growth industry while the Opposition was in government was the tax evasion industry. Now the present Opposition continues to protect the tax evaders. Members of the Opposition have refused to pass bottom of the harbour taxation legislation on three occasions. Twice they have refused to pass the cherry-pickers legislation. We will give them another opportunity shortly to allow that legislation to pass. They have refused to pass the income equalisation deposits legislation. As a result of all this, the ordinary honest taxpayer in this country has to bear an increased burden. Revenue worth $285m has been lost because the present Opposition has had to protect its Liberal tax dodging mates. Yet the Opposition has introduced this absurd matter of public importance about the Government attacking taxpayers. Members of the Opposition are the attackers of taxpayers. We are seeking to help the taxpayers by what we have done and what we hope to do in attacking the tax evaders. We have been prevented from doing so by the actions of members of the Opposition. What the taxpayers want and what we all want is a continuation of that growth which the Hawke Labor Government has already initiated. That means more people in jobs. We want those extra people in jobs not only for social reasons but also, of course, because when they receive an income they contribute to taxation and thus reduce the burden on other taxpayers of this country. I feel sorry for these people. They have so few feathers to fly with that even though one is called Peacock I regret to say that the hawk has plucked the peacock's wings. It is so absurd that the result is this pathetic matter of public importance which was brought forward today. Members of the Opposition do not have any feathers to fly with. Therefore, they come up with these sorts of things. I extend personal thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, who is at the table, for raising this subject today. We were worried that the Budget had been forgotten. He has helped us to remind the people of how good it is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —I am. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I appreciate that we are in a sense already engaged in an election campaign. No doubt there will be plenty of misleading statements made by the Australian Labor Party over the next few weeks. Once again the now familiar Labor lie about the deficit inheritance of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been repeated in this debate. Once again, for the record, let me state that the largest deficit that I produced while I was Treasurer was $4.4 billion in 1982-83. The first two deficits of the Hawke Labor Government have been $8 billion and $6.7 billion respectively. If the Treasurer does not accept the comments that I make in this regard, or his own Budget Papers, I remind him of a statement that he made and which was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 July 1983 when his back was to the wall about criticism of Treasury domination. He said that if Mr Fraser had remained in power the Budget deficit would have been about $6.5 billion. I also remind-- Mr Hurford —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr HOWARD —What is the point of order? I claimed to have been misrepresented and I am-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has given an explanation of that misrepresentation. Mr HOWARD —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I advise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to wind up his remarks. Mr HOWARD —I will wind up by quoting, with approval, a statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) who is at the table. On 2 April 1984, in an excited answer to a question, he said: They- the Liberals- would have had a deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion less than we have been prepared to have. So much for the great $9.6 billion hoax! I seek leave to table a document dealing with that subject. Leave granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The discussion is concluded. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —by leave-Mr Speaker, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the seventy-first Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland from 2 to 7 April 1984, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr JACOBI —I thank the House. In a foreword to the report of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings in 1983, at Helsinki and Seoul, I expressed views, as Leader of the delegation, on the necessity to provide continuing support for the Union and its achievements. In April this year I had the privilege and pleasure of leading the Australian delegation to the first of the conferences to be held under the reorganised procedure adopted in 1983. The procedures now provide for two six-day conferences each year, in April and September, at each of which two study committees meet, with provision for a third committee to meet on any supplementary item agreed to by the Conference under its amended rules. In accordance with the new procedures, the seventy-first Conference was held in Geneva from 1 to 7 April, organised and paid for by the Union's Secretariat. The venue for the Conference, and again for the next Conference in Geneva in September, reflects problems currently facing the Union. Despite the decisions reached in Seoul in 1983, which were at least partially directed at easing the pressures of size and cost, no offers to hold the April Conference were received . The Secretariat of the Union subsequently agreed to hold the Conference on a limited budget and on the understanding, consistent with the decisions in Seoul, that certain previously customary features would not apply or would apply to a lesser extent. Being a member of the Executive, I can say that it took quite some time to sort out precisely what the procedures would be. The lack of offers from member countries to act as host to coming conferences continued at Geneva, where none was received for either September 1984 or April 1985, and the only longer term offer relates to the September 1985 Conference, which will be held in Ottawa, at the invitation of the Canadian group. In addition to the problems of cost and availability of facilities, which understandably restrict the capacity of many members to hold conferences, a political problem arises when national groups find it impossible to adhere to a fundamental rule of the Union that host groups must issue invitations to all member groups to attend conferences-I do not want to canvass that issue, for obvious reasons-a rule which the Australian group has always strongly supported, and I trust will continue to do so. The current state of international affairs, particularly with respect to the participation of certain member groups, is regrettably such that there exists a further restriction on the number of potential host countries. These problems are of considerable concern to the Union and its Executive Committee is giving close consideration to them. For member groups such as Australia it is important that they be overcome and that the Union should continue to provide the opportunity for legislative members of the over 100 national groups to meet and discuss subjects of national and international importance. I acknowledge and express the delegation's thanks-that is, on behalf of all members-for the co-operation and work of the many people involved in running the Conference, but particularly the Secretariat of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which had to accept the considerably greater than normal work load of organising the Conference, with extremely limited resources. The thanks of all delegates are due to the Secretary-General, Mr Terenzio, and all his staff members, who made the Conference the success it undoubtedly was. I express the Australian delegation's very sincere appreciation of the generous and significant assistance provided by the Australian Ambassador at the permanent mission to the office of the United Nations in Geneva, Mr David Sadleir, and to the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, who is also based in Geneva. Both were generous in extending briefings and hospitality to the delegation. David Sadleir, who as we all know, had previously had significant experience as a former Foreign Affairs officer attached to Inter-Parliamentary Union delegations , provided the highest possible level of assistance to the delegation, including the attachment to the delegation of a First Secretary, Mr Noel Campbell. I warmly express the delegation's thanks for all their help and also for that extended to members of the delegation by the Australian Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr Pierre Hutton. I conclude by expressing my very sincere thanks and appreciation for the wonderful support that I received at this Conference in particular from my deputy, Senator John Watson, but also from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and also my very good friend Senator Peter Cook . I thank the House. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —by leave-I will not recapitulate what the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has said, except to say that I thoroughly endorse the comments that he has made and express the same appreciation. I express appreciation also to this Parliament for the opportunity of being a delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference. We express our appreciation to the honourable member for Hawker for his leadership and for the manner in which he tried to involve all of the delegates. We very much appreciated his experience and also that of his deputy, Senator Watson. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have our wives with us also give thanks for the courtesies that the leaders showed to them. I believe the members of the delegation worked together. There was a conscious effort by all members of the delegation to work in accord and I think that that was achieved. It was a happy delegation. I mention only one concern and one disappointment. Of course, this is no reflection on our delegation or its leaders. I admire Mr Cumming Thom and our officers, who have to queue for many hours to try to get speakers on the lists at these conferences. It seems that there is no effective organisation. Despite the fact that they queued for hours, there seemed to be queue jumping and real problems. It is disappointing that if many speakers are on a list we have either to drop a speaker or to curtail the contribution that delegates who speak are able to make. As I say, it is not the fault of any of our leaders. It seems to be a problem of organisation. I hope that it is a problem that can be resolved, although I know that it will not be easy because there are so many countries that send delegates, and we welcome them. The more countries that send delegates , the more effective are such conferences. So many countries send delegates and all of those delegates, of course, want to make their contribution, so it is not an easy problem to solve. I do not know the solution but it seems to be a problem of organisation, and I hope we can solve it. Once again, I express my appreciation to the Parliament for the opportunity to attend the Conference and to those who led us at that Conference, and I pay tribute to their excellent leadership. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —by leave-I was a member of the Australian delegation to the seventy-first Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference, and I join with other members in paying tribute to the people who helped us, especially the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). When speaking in Geneva on the topic of the contribution of parliaments to the success of current and future negotiations leading to the cessation of the arms race, arms control and world disarmament, aimed at ensuring peace, I was critical of the IPU. Amongst other things, I said: Most of the parliaments represented here are not representative parliaments. They are representatives of one party and often of one person or of a small clique. I believe the threat to peace comes from the non-democratic nations, not because their citizens want war but because they have no say. Later on I gave some examples and mentioned the war between Iraq and Iran. The current dispute on the siting of the intermediate range missiles in Europe was to me an excellent example of what I was discussing. I said: We have detailed and to some extent rational discussion in the United States and the Western European countries, but where is the discussion in the Eastern Bloc? We know that the Americans, the British, the Dutch and the West Germans are divided on the issue, but surely there would be divisions of opinion amongst the Russians, East Germans, Czechs, etc., if they were allowed to discuss the siting of the SS20's. I continued: What a farce this organisation is when the 10 million Poles who joined the free Solidarity trade union have nobody in their parliament or at the I.P.U. What a farce that all those Czechs who supported Dubcek and Socialism with a human face are excluded. What a farce that Chile is excluded whilst Vietnam is accepted as having anything resembling a parliament. Neither should be here. I criticised the IPU secretariat which in order to get more contributions ignored the absence of democracy and representativeness of most of the affiliated countries. I more or less concluded by saying that I felt that war and aggression went hand in hand with dictatorial regimes because only they can start them without having to justify them to their people. I continued: Let us forget all the hypocrisy of right and left. Are religious dictatorships like Iran preferable to para-military dictatorships such as Iraq or vice versa? Let those of us who do represent fairly open and pluralist societies emphasise that there is a relationship between aggressive war, a closed society and the absence of democracy. Since making that speech, I have received a letter from Mr Pio-Carlo Terenzio, who is the Secretary-General of the IPU. He commented on my allegations relating to the unparliamentary nature of many of the affiliated countries. I feel it is only fair, since the letter arrived too late for its inclusion in the report of the Australian delegation, to seek leave for the letter to be tabled. Leave granted. Dr KLUGMAN —I will quote one sentence from the letter which refers to my comments that most of the parliaments represented at the IPU were not parliaments as we understand them. Mr Terenzio makes the following point: If we take Parliaments for which candidates, having various political affiliations, run separately for elections . . . then the figure is 53 out of 102 member Parliaments of IPU. The point he is making is that the majority of parliaments-53 out of 102 member parliaments-do have elections. I think this is fair enough. My view would be that the other 49 should have no entitlement whatever to be represented at something called an Inter-Parliamentary Union. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether we could really find 53 member countries of that organisation which have opposition parties and parliaments whose members are chosen in democratic competitive elections through which a government can be voted in and out. It is important for us to remember that. If other people in the organisation feel the same way, it may be appropriate for Australia to try to encourage an IPU which, rather than going for an imitation of the United Nations, should try to concentrate, because it is a different sort of organisation, on having parliaments represented at its meetings, parliaments by implication being bodies which send to the IPU members who are speaking not necessarily for their governments but for themselves or the political parties they represent. Such parliaments should have a number of opposing points of view represented. This is a matter that I have raised before. I do not think it means that we should disaffiliate from the IPU but if something worthwhile is to come from a meeting of parliamentarians it would be much more appropriate to have a meeting of people whom all of us would consider to be parliamentarians, in other words people who have to defend their points of view and who can be attacked by those who hold different points of view in our country. I thank the House for allowing me the time to present my point of view. [COGNATE BILL: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTERCHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 as they are related matters. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.27) —I rise to state the coalition's firm opposition to this Government's two referenda proposals, the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators Bill) 1984 entitled 'A Bill for An Act to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day', and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 entitled 'A Bill for An Act to enable the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other'. I propose to dwell on the first of these referenda proposals in more detail as its consequences have far-reaching significance for the future of Government in this nation. Once again, it is the coalition's task to strip away the blatantly hypocritical mask of this Government. For what the referendum on simultaneous elections is really about is nothing more than a fraud on the Australian people. It is aimed at undermining the role of the Senate, and strengthening that of the Prime Minister. This Government seeks to convince the Australian people that it is improving the Constitution, that it is remedying an oversight, some minor technical defect relating to joint elections for the two Houses. That is the Australian Labor Party confidence trick. The reality is that at the moment senators have a fixed term of six years which can be brought to an end only when pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution, a double dissolution is granted for the House of Representatives and the whole Senate. The founding fathers did not give the Prime Minister or the Executive the power to dissolve half the Senate at will. They did not do this deliberately. The successful passage of this referendum would effectively give the Prime Minister just this power. The Government says that this is unimportant, that it is an improvement in electoral arrangements, but that is not what this proposed referendum is really about. What Labor is plotting is the undermining of the independence of the Senate. This is part of a long term Labor strategy, a long held Labor goal, of doing away with the Upper House altogether as well as State governments. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) said before coming to office: The way to abolish the Senate, or at least to muzzle it, is to white-ant it from within. That was reported in the Canberra Times of 2 July 1978. That is what the first of these Bills is all about. We are talking about not technical modifications, but radical change to our governmental system. We are talking about upsetting a carefully crafted system of checks and balances on the authoritarian tendencies of government. This proposal in effect is about increasing the power of a power hungry Prime Minister. It helps to expose the hypocrisy and the cynical intentions of this Government to look at the brief history of its proposed changes to the Constitution since coming to office. In May 1983 the Attorney-General introduced a package of referenda proposals into the Senate. The package had at its core a proposal for fixed term parliaments. It also included proposals for the interchange of powers , advisory opinions, and removal of what the Attorney was wont to describe as outmoded provisions of the Constitution. The coalition directed its attention primarily to the proposal for fixed term parliaments. This we opposed in fairly strong terms. In relation to other measures in the package, although we were sceptical as to their virtues, we did not, in fact, oppose them. Then, having introduced this package of changes, the Labor Government, in what is becoming a typically cynical fashion, concluded that if the referendum on fixed terms was passed it would compromise its ability to call an early election. As we all know, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not want to do that despite all his promises in February 1983. The Government belatedly realised that its proposed change would have required it to see out almost its full term of office. With the first opportunity for an election being in November 1985, under its fixed term proposal, the Prime Minister, having fallen under the influence of the shady elements of the New South Wales right wing of the Labor Party, did not even have the integrity to admit that he was abandoning the fixed term proposal. Instead, he announced that the referendum to be held in August 1983 was to be postponed. Following that decision, or more aptly non-decision, the Government announced that it would proceed with the referenda containing proposals for a four-year parliamentary term and simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament. The Opposition was attracted to these proposals as a package. We indicated our interest in the package. We thought the proposal for a four-year parliamentary term was an important one which would give stability to government in Australia. As there could well have been public objections to the Senate having a fixed eight-year term, we thought the proposal for simultaneous elections for both Houses was a satisfactory way of modifying the possible effect of an eight-year term for senators. The Government then proposed that the referenda on these matters be held in February 1984. We were going to vote on them in February 1984 . Of course, if that referendum on four-year terms had passed, it would have avoided the need for an election for half of the Senate by 30 June 1985. Certainly, it would have avoided any need for the consideration of an early election for the House of Representatives. Once again, the devious mind of the Prime Minister and his shady advisers from the New South Wales Right woke up to the reality that their devious plans would be upset. So the minders from New South Wales examined the matter and its consequences and woke up to the fact that their excuse for an early election would be eliminated if they pursued this proposal. Despite this, the Attorney-General, always slow to understand the political intrigues in his own Party, was still boring the Senate with the virtues of the watered down February proposals. At the end of last year the Government was anxiously searching for some excuse to abandon its second attempt-it had not even been governing for 12 months-at a referenda package. As was to be expected with this Government, political self-interest was winning out again. The Government then proposed to the Parliament the spending of $2.5m of taxpayers' money on the Yes case for the February referenda-no money for the No case, but $ 2.5m for the Yes case. It knew that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats- the latter on this issue, at least-would take a principled stand and oppose this grotesque misuse of taxpayers' money. When, as anticipated, this proposal to squander taxpayers' money was defeated, it provided the deviant occupant of the Prime Ministership at the moment with the excuse that he was desperately seeking and searching for to abandon the February referenda and the limitations they may have imposed on his ability as Prime Minister to call an early election. The Government has now produced its third referenda package, the most cynical of the three. In fact, it bears little, if any, relation to what was originally proposed. It is a proposal for so-called simultaneous elections. To try to give it some hint of respectability, the Government adds to it the proposal for the interchange of powers. As the Opposition has previously stated, although we recognise the strong arguments against simultaneous election proposals, we nevertheless believe that when coupled with a measure to include the stability of government in this country, such as the four-year term, we could perhaps support it. Our support was always predicated on increasing the stability of government. We are not prepared to support a simultaneous elections proposal on its own, for this is an ugly and cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to extend his powers and those of the Executive by removing one of the checks in the Constitution. The Opposition has witnessed in a short period this Government's deceitful and expedient approach to constitutional reform. It amounts to an attempt to remake the Constitution in a way to benefit the Labor Party electorally and to remake the Parliament according to the Labor Party's authoritarian preconceptions. A question that must also be addressed is why this Government is putting these referenda proposals to the Australian people at the same time as a general election. The answer to me is quite clear and obvious. The ordinary Australian in 1974 and again in 1977 rejected this proposal for simultaneous elections. The Government is hoping that by burying the referenda issues within the general election campaign they will go unchallenged and largely unnoticed. This Government is hoping to sneak them past the Australian public. Well, the average Australia will not fall for that confidence trick. People are already very tired of the shabby tricks of the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party and I am sure we shall hear more of them as we come to receive Mr Costigan 's report. They are waking up to the fact that the Prime Minister having thrown in his lot with this grouping-the crooks from New South Wales-is fast losing his last vestiges of fabricated integrity. The Government said that it would give the people plenty of opportunity to assess alternatives for constitutional reform. The Prime Minister is reported in the Western Australian Press as opposing the joining referenda proposals with an election, as it could make things too complicated. The Government's argument for an early election is that it wants to put the elections for both Houses back into synchronisation. However, if it put through these referenda proposals on their own, at an early date, it would run the risk of losing what little justification it has for an early election. The whole history of this Government 's approach to constitutional reform reveals that there is no intention, no goal , other than to keep its options open for an early election while increasing the power of the Prime Minister. Let me look briefly at the arguments the Government uses in support of the Bill to give the Prime Minister the power to call a half Senate election at his will. The Government argues that by eliminating separate half Senate elections the number of elections will be reduced. The House should need no reminding that we will soon have the thirty-fourth House of Representatives election and it will be the twenty-eighth simultaneous election of the two Houses-28 out of 34. Since Federation, there have been very few single House elections-six in the House of Representatives and only four separate elections for the Senate. To say that there is a problem about simultaneous elections under the existing Constitution is to perpetrate a great hoax. Where is the problem? It is very simple to have simultaneous elections. The Prime Minister can have a simultaneous election as late as May next year, as the Opposition has suggested to him. If by some mischance, he was re-elected, he could then run a full term of three years and have another simultaneous election in late 1987 or early 1988. Let me make this very clear; there is no problem at all about conducting simultaneous elections under the present Constitution. The Government argues that the passage of this referendum proposal will eliminate half Senate elections being held independent of a lower House election , and therefore eliminate so-called unnecessary elections. Again, what is the problem? Since Federation there have only been four such half Senate elections. The average Federal term in Australia is about 2.4 years. This will not be changed by this Bill. Indeed, elections may be more frequent under these proposals as it would make it easier for governments to hold early elections. The Government also claims that its proposal will ensure that the composition of the Senate reflects the current wishes of the people. It is stating the obvious that there will be an election for half the Senate every three years. By comparative international standards this is a short term and the Senate will always be reflective of popular opinion in Australia. Lastly, the Government says that it will provide greater accountability of the Senate to the extent that senators will have to face the people if the senators' actions lead to a premature House of Representatives election. We have here an important point. But what the Government really means by this argument is that whenever the Prime Minister wants to have an early election he should be able to use the Senate as justification for doing so and going early. This is a very different matter altogether. This is what the simultaneous elections issue is all about. As Malcolm Mackerras the very well-known political commentator stated in a national radio broadcast on 1 February 1984 about this proposal: In the case of so-called simultaneous elections my view is that it is quite the most dishonest proposal ever put to the Australian people; the public case in its favour is a series of lies, and it has already been twice rejected, in 1974 and 1977. It is not the purpose of that proposal to give the Australian people the benefit of joint elections for the two Houses. Its purpose is to give more power to the Prime Minister and to weaken the independence of the Senate. These quotations were from Notes on the News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1 February 1984. It is absolutely crucial to the integrity of the legislature and its role in the democratic system that it have some separation from the manipulative powers of a Prime Minister. This is why the founding fathers gave to the States House-the Senate-a fixed term. It is part of those checks and balances which are so important as barriers to the concentration of powers in the hands of one man or his party. The Senate fulfils a vital role as a House of review. The Coalition fully supports that role as set out in the Constitution. Let me make it clear, this proposal is not about simultaneous or less frequent elections. This is a misleading and deceptive argument. It is an attempt to impinge upon the legitimate role of the Senate by giving the Prime Minister greater powers with which to threaten and cajole it into submission. It is the first stage of a concerted attack on the constitutional independence of the Senate and the thin end of the wedge of denying the legitimate role of the Senate in representing the States. The Australian people have had the good sense to reject these proposals twice. I am fully confident that they will reject them again and deny the Prime Minister the power to dissolve the House of Representatives and half the Senate at any time and without Parliamentary reason . Finally, I turn my attention to the proposal for the interchange of powers. This proposal is going before the Australian people in an attempt to give an element of respectability to the Government's other referendum proposal. There are provisions in the Constitution for the reference of powers to the States by the Commonwealth. Possibly these could be improved and there may be some merit in this proposal. But in reality what this is about is to enable the Commonwealth Government to give the States the power to impose excise duties on their people. Labor supports the exchange of powers so that the States can impose indirect taxes on their population. I believe that people should be made aware of the implications of this proposal. The States currently have the right to refer powers under the Constitution as it exists. That they do not do so has less to do with any difficulties about referring those powers than it has to do with their natural reluctance to relinquish powers. We will oppose this particular referendum proposal because it is camouflage for the dishonest proposal to undermine the independence of the Senate, and because it is only for the benefit of Labor politicians who seek to change the Constitution without consulting the people. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.48) —At the outset there are a couple of observations we should make about the Opposition with respect to matters of constitutional amendment and constitutional propriety. First, the Opposition's record on constitutional propriety does not ring very well in the Australian political scene and the electorate knows that well. The electorate that had to go through the experiences of 1974 and 1975 would well remember that the Opposition's record in terms of being the people designed to protect the Constitution is a pretty shoddy one. Really, if we cut through all the verbiage we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), we see that the conservative parties have been portrayed as constitutional hit men when it suits them. The second observation I would make about the Opposition in this context is that it really is clear in terms of the history of Australian politics that the conservative parties have always painted themselves as the great defenders of propriety and the Constitution until it happens that that propriety or that Constitution does not suit them. Then they very quickly break the rules. We saw it in 1974 and 1975. We see it when we are asked to refer matters in Australia to the constitutional umpires in the case of Mr Justice Cross. We found very quickly that the Opposition was not prepared to accept the umpire 's decision in the case of Mr Justice Cross. We found very clearly that in 1974 and 1975 the Opposition was prepared to use the Constitution for its own ends rather than be the great protector of the Constitution. So the people listening to this debate have to understand that members of the Opposition cannot come into this place and be the defenders of constitutional propriety, because their record is too dirty. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been cynical with regard to these constitutional matters. Those of us who remember 1982 will recall the situation concerning the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. When we were to have an election depended on whether his back would give out, whether his mind would give out or whether his political will would give out. So it is just not good enough for the Opposition to ask us to forget that two years ago we were on again-off again in regard to an election. So members of the Opposition cannot paint that picture because the electorate remembers what happened. The electorate remembers also that as defenders of constitutional propriety the Opposition's record is very bad indeed. It should not try on the arguments it puts forward because the community will not accept them and neither will we. The first of these pieces of legislation which will lead to a referendum will do a couple of things. First of all, it will reduce the total number of elections. The record shows that the Australian community does not particularly welcome having to go to the polls all the time. In fact, the experience is that we now have a very untidy system. It is a system that was made more untidy as a result of the premature election in 1983. This Bill is designed to bring together the terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives so that every time there is a House of Representatives election half the Senate will go to that election. That is very important because it means a great saving of money. I am sure that the people in the community will understand that. Let us look at what separate half Senate elections cost. The Opposition has ignored this point in the debate. At present, a separate half Senate election costs approximately $ 21.8m and a separate House election costs $23m. Thus, the total cost of separate elections for the two Houses is now $44.8m. It is a very expensive process. Considering the low esteem in which the Australian community holds politicians- it believes that politicians are generally very expensive people-it is difficult to justify spending that type of money. This proposal would reduce the incidence of elections. If simultaneous elections are held the total cost reduces from $44 .8m to $27m. As a consequence of this measure we would be saving taxpayers' money. That is the first comment I wish to make. It will mean a saving of something like $17.8m. Mr Cadman —We are not arguing about that. Mr Braithwaite —Postpone it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I hear those opposite making comments but, as I said earlier, their record on constitutional propriety is so bad that I am amazed they are even here during this debate. They are just not seen as defenders of the Constitution and they are not seen as people who have a good record in the Australian political scene. The extra point to make about the referendum proposal in this Bill is that we are also trying to bring the Australian electorate into a position whereby it can vote simultaneously on the House of Representatives and the Senate. At the moment the complexion of both chambers can be quite out of key in terms of the mood of the electorate but even more seriously we have the possibility of the Senate behaving in that irresponsible fashion in which it behaved in 1975, causing the House of Representatives to go to the polls with no risk to the Senate itself. I know it suits those people opposite, those people of great constitutional propriety, but that is a very strange system to try to defend in a democracy. The other observation to make in the context of this debate is that it has been very difficult to establish just where the Opposition stands. These proposals have arisen out of constitutional conventions. There has been support for them at constitutional conventions but the present Opposition parties opposed the simultaneous elections proposal in 1974, put it forward in government in 1977, vacillated but supported it in Parliament in 1983, and now they return to their opposition of 1974. Where do these people of great constitutional propriety stand? Mr Hand —They cannot make up their minds. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Melbourne says, they cannot make up their minds. Not only can they not make up their minds but also, as I said earlier, the whole history of Australian politics shows that the conservative parties see themselves as political hit men in Australian politics. They want to use the system to suit themselves and not try to design a system which contains anything about fairness or anything about reducing the cost to the taxpayers. They are two things that we are trying to establish with this legislation. Another issue I want to develop concerns the interchange of powers amendment. This was addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. The interchange of powers amendment, in a nutshell, is designed to enable both Commonwealth and State governments to interchange powers where it would make sense for those powers to be shared in a different way. What are two examples of where it would be sensible for the Commonwealth and the States to have an interchange of powers? One clear example that comes to mind is in the area of conciliation and arbitration. At the moment we have a dual system. It is expensive and its coverage is not complete. I take just one instance within the system of conciliation and arbitration, and that is the role of industrial inspectorates. At the moment we have enormous confusion about the roles of industrial inspectorates. We need to combine the roles of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the respective State commissions so that those inspectorates can work together to police awards. That would be a sensible way to behave. We believe that it should happen and that it has great implications in terms of industrial relations. It is something that this measure would make more possible. The other area is insurance. I refer particularly to workers compensation insurance. There could not be an area of greater burden for the community at the moment, particularly small business, than the absolutely astronomical cost of workers compensation. We want to work towards a single system of workers compensation throughout Australia that would reduce administrative costs. It would certainly go a long way towards eliminating the great cost burden borne by business at the moment. This interchange of powers arrangement would make it far more possible for us to get towards a single system of workers compensation. It would be a sensible system and one that would result in a reduction of costs. I have chosen two examples of where an interchange of powers would make sense. I have given the example of the conciliation and arbitration area where Federal and State commissions could work together in areas of joint operation. That would certainly simplify some of the current procedures. The second area concerned workers compensation where clearly a great burden is being borne by the community. It is a burden that causes many small businesses to be at great risk. This would simplify that situation and we would be able to get towards a single workers compensation system throughout Australia. Let me quickly go over what I have said as time for this debate is limited. In the first of these constitutional amendments we are trying to limit the number of elections in Australia in a sensible way. We do not seek to remove the chance of voters having a say, but seek to eliminate the enormous number of elections we have had. The figures are quite damaging. In the 39 years since the end of the Second World War there have been no fewer than 20 Federal elections of one kind or another-seven combined House of Representatives and half Senate elections, five House of Representatives elections, four separate half Senate elections and four double dissolutions. When we start talking about double dissolutions those opposite should feel uncomfortable. In the last 20 years the pace has increased. We have had 11 elections. Only two were combined, and we have had three House of Representatives elections, three half Senate elections and three double dissolutions. So we are now having a situation in which we have an enormous number of elections. This first proposal is designed to tie together Senate and House of Representatives elections. The second thing we are trying to do is reduce the cost burden. The cost burden on taxpayers is enormous. Why should we continue to impose those sorts of burdens on the electorate? I wish members of the Opposition, as the people of constitutional propriety, could make up their minds clearly over a long period where they stand. Clearly they have some difficulty with that because they are looking for opportunities to score political points rather than to make some sensible constitutional amendments. With the second proposal, the interchange of powers proposal, our intention clearly is to arrange a sensible situation in which the Commonwealth and State governments can interchange powers. I have referred to two areas-conciliation and arbitration and workers compensation-which I believe to be sensible. To sum up, these Bills leading to referenda are about making the machinery of government more sensible. If there is one thing towards which we in this place ought to work if we are to get the respect of people in the community, it is government having some common sense to it, and these proposals are based on common sense ideas about the way Australia should be governed. I am pleased to support these Bills. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.01) —I commence by taking up some of the points made by the last speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). He spoke of verbiage from the Opposition. Has he looked at the reasons put forward by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate? I am sure he has not. I will take him to them. He then spoke of a constitutional umpire and, if I heard him correctly, referred to Mr Justice Cross. Mr Justice Cross was running an inquiry in that racket-infested State from which I must say I come, New South Wales, under the auspices of the New South Wales Government. How he can possibly say that he was a constitutional umpire and portray any understanding of the Constitution is something that I simply cannot understand. Then he cried crocodile tears about costs of elections. The costs are coming from this Labor Government, which has added to the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate and thereby greatly increased the cost of government and the cost of running elections. It is as though democracy can be measured in dollars. What real weight does the Government place upon these issues? We heard a 30- second speech from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) representing the Attorney-General in this place and on the speakers list we see that speakers for the Government are to be the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Stirling, from whom we have just heard. The babies are being sent in to bat. They are big babies, but babies they certainly are. Not one member of the Government's front bench is to deal with what are meant to be two serious constitutional issues. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who has spoken, and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who will be speaking, demonstrate by being here that we regard these matters as important, just as the absence of any Ministers from the other side demonstrates the view that the Government has of these issues. The Leader of the Opposition in addressing this House referred to some of the history of the proposals now before the House. It is worth while taking one or two minutes on the history. The House will recall that on 24 November 1983 the Attorney-General referred to referendum proposals which were to be put forward and issued a public statement on the subject. There were five proposals: Simultaneous elections, parliamentary terms-a four-year term-interchange of powers, the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia and the removal of outmoded and expended provisions. We know what happened. We know that this package was scheduled for February 1984, so it was said. We know that there was objection by the Australian Democrats and by the Opposition in the Senate to the Government's putting forward a one-sided case only. It was proper objection because if the people of Australia are to make decisions on referenda proposals they should have both cases put before them. Nevertheless, that was taken by the Government as a cop-out, as an excuse for not proceeding. Next we see that two proposals are to be put to the people of Australia. These are described by the Attorney-General in the statement of 11 June 1984 as the most important of the five which were to be put to referendum last February. Has he forgotten the four-year term and is that not indicative of what Mr Mackerras has called the tissue of lies which the Government has used to advance its case in relation to the so-called simultaneous elections proposals? If one goes to what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not say and to what the Attorney-General has said, one sees that the Government destroys its own case by what it says; and this is where we come to the Government's verbiage. Let us start with the Attorney-General. He said in the debate in the Senate that a package was to be put to the electors in February. He then said: As you will no doubt recall, the Government decided not to proceed with the referendums in February because of the action taken in the Senate by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats to block government advertising in support of the proposals. Was that really the only reason? Is he running away from important constitutional changes simply because he is not able to get the funding for one case only? Does anybody really accept that the Government is putting the case truthfully to the Australian people? Then what did he say? He said: To put all five of the original machinery of government proposals in conjunction with an election would have been too complex. Oh, really? Why can they not be put separately? They can be. He then said: It is vital that electors have a proper understanding of the issues involved in a referendum so that they can cast informed votes and thereby play a meaningful role in constitutional reform. Oh, really? That came from an Attorney-General and a government who were going to put one case only to the electors. Is that how they inform the electors? Do the electors make a meaningful and informed decision by not being given both cases? Referring to the fact that he really wants to have the electorate informed on these subjects, he then said: That is why the Government is only proceeding with two of the proposals at this time. What arrant and demonstrable nonsense! But that is not all. We have been given by the Attorney-General a statement of the Government's reasons why it is going forward with the so-called simultaneous election provisions. I remind those who would put forward the argument that the two Houses are out of synchronisation that it is perfectly competent for this Government, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, to call an election at any time before 30 June and to put the House and the Senate back into synchronisation. But that is not to be done. I also remind the House that, if these proposals go forward, by force of section 128 of the Constitution they must be put to the Australian people, once they have passed both Houses, in not less than two nor more than six months from their passage. If they go through the House today, 4 November is the first date on which an election can be held and these proposals put and 4 March is the last date. In short, the Government has deliberately limited its own options so that it can go to the Australian people with a perfectly specious argument at a later stage and say: 'We are bringing this election forward because amongst other reasons we want you to consider these very important constitutional proposals'. Does anybody think that in an election, when the issues are concentrated upon the future of this country, upon economic matters and upon matters of great moment, the average elector will give a damn about constitutional proposals and the arguments about constitutional proposals? Of course he will not. Let me go on to examine the reasons which were given by the Attorney-General in the Senate but which were not repeated here by the Deputy Prime Minister. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is a man of somewhat tender sensibilities and I can well understand his flinching from repeating what the Attorney-General said in the Senate. Let us look at some of the reasons given by the Attorney-General. In dealing with the question of simultaneous elections he spoke of the number of elections. That matter has already been dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. Then he went on to talk about money. We know how acutely conscious Labor governments are of spending money. It gets down to weighing democracy in dollars and cents. What a disgusting basis on which to put forward an argument that we should alter the Constitution and have fewer elections. Why? Because it will save a few dollars. Next the Attorney-General went on to say that the fact is: . . . that the elections which are being eliminated are the unnecessary separate half Senate elections, which cannot change governments and which, as is indicated by their much lower level of voter turnout, do not really come to grips with the issues of the day. Of course they cannot change governments but they can and do change the composition of the Senate and the Senate can and does influence, alter, amend or reject Bills put up by this House. It is spurious nonsense to say that for that reason they are in some way unimportant. What was his next reason? He went on to say this about the simultaneous elections proposal: It will ensure that the composition of the Senate at any given time reflects the current wishes of the people more accurately than under the present system and, by ensuring that the people's will is reflected simultaneously in both Houses, it will provide a more satisfactory electoral basis upon which the government of the country can proceed. Translated that means that he hopes to have an upper House which is more responsive to the wishes of the Executive in the lower House. Is that in the long term interests of this country? Is that in accordance with the views of the Constitution which we have held for so many years? Does that support a system of review? Does that support a system of checks and balances? No, it does not, but it most certainly supports the power of the Prime Minister and the power of the lower House at the expense of the Senate. The Attorney-General went on to say: It will also provide greater accountability of the Senate to the extent that Senators themselves will have to face the people if the Senate's actions lead to a premature House of Representatives election. Once more, let me give honourable members a translation. That means that he hopes by this means to place the Prime Minister of the day in a position where he can put a gun at the head of the Senate and say: 'Unless you give me the answer that I propose to get I will force an election'. My view is that it is a very wise thing that we have a House of review and that we should not do anything which would in any way erode the strength of that House because it is central to our system. We do not have here, as in other countries, a democracy which is effectively a dictatorship of the lower House, nor should we ever have that kind of situation in this country. He then said this: A small minority of Honourable Senators opposite have suggested that the Bill is really aimed at undermining the independence of the Senate. Is that not Senator Evans's long term goal? Is that not the goal he has proposed for many years? Is that not the view which is espoused by members of this Government and is that not absolutely and in all ways consistent with the platform of the Australian Labor Party as adopted at the last conference? I will come to that platform in one or two minutes. Senator Evans went on to give the game away, so to speak, in a throwaway line in his second reading speech in the Senate. When referring to the Senate he said: . . . it will retain, for better or worse, all its present power to review, amend or reject legislation. That is the power which has been in the Constitution since Federation and the power which most people believe should be there because most people do not believe that there should be unfettered power in the House of Representatives. What we are now seeing is a step down the road to securing the aims of the Australian Labor Party as espoused in its conference. It is a pity that Senator Evans is not here. We on this side of the House understand that he is making some moves to transmit himself from the Senate down to the House. I would be delighted to see him here. I understand from some New South Wales members of the power-broking fraternity on the Government side of the House that his chances of getting down here are slim. It is a shame but one can understand his reasons for wanting to do so because a person who has such a complete contempt for the Senate would not wish to stay there for very much longer, certainly for any longer than he could. Let me now come to the Australian Labor Party's conference and its constitutional and legal platform. We have a photograph of the Attorney- General, who is looking his best, and next to that we see the heading ' Constitutional Reform'. Let me quote items 4, 5 and 6. Item 4 states: To ensure that the Senate has no power to reject, defer or otherwise block money bills. Mr Beazley —Hear, hear! Mr SPENDER —I notice that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aviation, said 'Hear, hear' to that. Mr Beazley —Indeed he did. Mr SPENDER —We will see what he is saying later in his parliamentary career. Item 5 states: To provide that the Senate may delay for up to six months, but not reject, any other proposed law. Mr Beazley —House of Lords. Mr SPENDER —Item 6 states: To provide that a government enjoying the confidence of the House of Representatives shall be permitted to hold office for the prescribed term. The Minister at the table interjected, and correctly so, 'House of Lords'. The House of Lords is an hereditary system which I am glad to say we do not have in this country. It has a power to defer, but it has no other powers. Those powers were rightly-because it is a non-representative House-taken away from it many years ago. But what would be the consequence of a Senate which had power only to defer something for six months and no more? It would become an empty and sterile debating chamber and all effective political power would vest in this House, which means that all effective political power would vest in the Executive of the day and the Prime Minister of the day. There would be no checks, no curbs, no balancing of that power. That is the aim which the Australian Labor Party espouses and that is the underlying principle behind the proposal to alter the terms of senators. I have referred to the importance of the House of review. I also refer to the Prime Minister's view of the Senate, expressed in the language which is characteristic of him-temperate, balanced and, one might even say, modest! I am reading from a quotation of him by Senator Robert Hill in the Senate which came from the Age of 16 December. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying: I've had enough of this recalcitrant Senate blocking the will of the Government . I am not going to be in a situation . . . where we are dictated to as the democratically elected Government by the mish-mash of opposing forces in this country. If they think they can determine the pattern of the Government . . . they have another think coming. That is most certainly a correct reflection of the views of the Prime Minister, this Government and the Australian Labor Party. It is not a correct reflection of the views of the people of this country. I remind honourable members of some of the things which could not be done had we got rid of the powers of the Senate in the way which has been suggested. For example, we could not have reviewed assets test legislation. We could not have rejected proposed laws which were called tax avoidance or tax dodging laws, which is the usual way of describing any laws that one wants to pass in the field of tax but which in fact have the effect of catching many innocent people. I suppose that consistent with this cutting away of the powers of the Senate it probably should not have committees. Committees can, after all, be most embarrassing to governments. They can investigate matters such as the Age tapes and allegations against Ministers. We all know that on both sides of the Houses. What do committees do? They act as a brake on the authority of the Executive. I have no apologies on behalf of the Opposition in speaking against what is proposed. It is a step towards Labor's stated objective. That objective is, as I have said, to reduce the Senate to an empty and sterile debating in chamber. It is no wonder that Senator Evans wishes to desert that chamber for what he would think would be a happier clime. One would not, after all, want to cut the power from underneath one before one got out of the chamber in which one was going to exercise the power. The Leader of the Opposition has said that these proposals are a fraud on the people, and so they are. If they are to be seriously put forward to the people they could be put forward as separate questions and not in the middle of a general election so that the people could carefully consider and weigh the issues. But that is not being done and the political reasons for what is being done are just too obvious. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.20) —Tonight we are considering two minor referenda proposals which are proposed to be put to the people. I was extremely disappointed by the contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who talked about a racket infested State, which, after all, does give him a living as the people in one electorate in that State send him to Parliament for better or worse. He was obviously not in the Liberal Party when illegal casinos flourished in Sydney. I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament from 1973 to 1976. Illegal casinos in Sydney flourished under the Liberal-Country Party Government of that time. Starting price betting flourished. It was an absolute disgrace that rackets were allowed to flourish. The honourable member for North Sydney has the hide to talk about New South Wales being a racket infested State. I am proud to represent a constituency in Sydney which I think is the most beautiful city in Australia. I know that the people in my electorate are delighted to live in such a cultured city. I really feel that the honourable member for North Sydney should apologise to the citizens of Sydney for attacking that delightful city by calling it racket infested. He totally ignores the history of the corruption that went on in New South Wales for many years under Liberal-Country Party governments. It is a credit to Premier Wran that he closed the illegal casinos. It is obvious that the Liberal Party has perceived in these referenda the possibility that the Australian people may vote to agree with the referenda and that somehow or other it may not benefit if the Constitution is changed. The Liberal Party does not believe in fairness. It believes that unless some situation favours the Liberal and National parties it should not be introduced into the Constitution. I do not really believe that the Liberal and National parties believe in democracy. They want checks and balances, when the Australian Labor Party controls both Houses. They want a complicated system. Yet, they know that the Senate was merely a rubber stamp when they were in government and controlled both Houses. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about the Labor Party's platform. I, together with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), agree that there should be no blocking of money Bills by the Senate. I agree with the Labor Party's constitutional platform. But we are not debating the Labor Party platform in regard to constitutional matters and the people of Australia will not be voting on that. It is proposed that they vote on a referendum to make sure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are held at the one time. Such an arrangement will save an enormous amount of money and reference has been made to those amounts this afternoon. It is also proposed that they vote to enable the transfer of powers between the State governments and the Federal Government and vice versa. Every Australian remembers the appalling constitutional crisis that took place in 1975. It was the worst constitutional crisis that I have ever known. We remember the backlash against the then Governor-General. No one wants to see that situation repeated. I believe that the Liberal and National parties want a re-run of that frightening crisis and want our nation to be brought to the brink of anarchy. They really do not want the Australian people to have a say in referenda on what should happen in these minor matters such as holding elections at the same time. We went through a period in the 1970s when election followed election, when the Liberal Party did everything possible to encourage candidates to stand for election to the Senate. Appalling allegations were made that the Liberal Party did this to make ballot papers inordinately difficult for infirm people and people without much English and ability to write a lot of numbers or to fill out a complicated ballot. It manipulated the system in an atrocious way as other speakers on our side have mentioned. The legislation is of some significance because at present the term of office of a senator is six years. The proposal is that in future a senator will be elected for two terms of the House of Representatives, whatever period that is. Some countries, such as the United States of America and Costa Rica, have fixed dates for elections. However, the Australian people have always given some flexibility to the Prime Minister of the day in the setting of elections. In 1977, of course, Malcolm Fraser brought the election a year ahead of schedule because he wanted to have simultaneous elections, and the people agreed with that proposal. Then, in 1983 he did something that I could not really believe he would do; he put the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives out of kilter. The referendum which is the subject of this legislation will ask the Australian people to ensure that elections must be held for both Houses at the same time. I note that a half Senate election costs $17.8m. I feel that the Australian people will not support such an appalling waste of money. I was also disappointed with the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) who also attacked New South Wales. Apparently, any State that has the courage to return a Labor government is in for vilification in this House from the Liberal-National Party. The Leader of the Opposition also had the hide to mention the report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Costigan report. If ever there was a report that embarrassed and threw the Liberal-National Party out of government, it was the Costigan report and the revelations about bottom of the harbour tax schemes. That report totally destroyed the credibility of the Liberal-National Party to collect taxes fairly. The Australian people will never forget that the Liberal- National Party allowed the allegations in relation to bottom of the harbour schemes to drag on for eight years. I wanted to mention my good friend Mr Malcolm Mackerras whom I have known for many years. I appreciate that Malcolm is opposed to this proposal. I noted in the Sydney Morning Herald that he was able to crank up and drag the Liberal Party in behind him to support his ideas. But 1983 is in all of our memories. That was a cynical exercise in which the Prime Minister of the day called an election a year ahead of time. The poor honourable member for Flinders at the time was not even sworn in. He was elected in December 1982 and he was not even sworn in before we went to the polls. That was a cynical exercise by the Liberal -National Party of the day. This referendum, if the Australian people agree, will stop similar cynical exercises. We are putting this to the Australian people. There are too many elections. The people are browned off with elections. I believe that too many elections are a threat to democracy because people get fed up with compulsory voting. Particularly in the 1970s, many complaints were received by all members of Parliament and the media. People appreciate that elections are expensive. Without wishing to delay the House this afternoon I call upon honourable members to support the proposal in these referenda which I believe are of relevance to the Australian people. The referenda will facilitate the holding of simultaneous elections and the transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth and from the Commonwealth to the States. If the Liberal-National Party agrees with State rights and State sovereignty it should support the referenda too. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.29) — Having heard the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who has just sat down, I can only presume that he just has not been around in Australia for the last few months. He does not seem to recognise that his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is talking about having a premature and unnecessary election, one that is being forced on the Australian people not because it is necessary-- Mr Beazley —By Malcolm Fraser's earlier decision. Mr SINCLAIR —What absolute rubbish. The Minister does not even know the consequence of this election which will be, presumably, a half Senate election. Those who will be elected to the half Senate will, of course, not take up their places until 1 July 1985. Why do we need to go to the polls before then? There is absolutely no reason to do so. The Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill, which are before us, are designed to try to ensure that the Australian people henceforth will have a Senate with the same term as House of Representatives members, so that it will not be necessary, we are told, to have the two Houses going out on different dates. The Prime Minister could very easily exercise his option to have an early election any time up to 30 May, perhaps 30 April if he wants to allow a bit of time up his sleeve. It would be quite practical in that way for the two Houses to be elected together, but there is no need to have the two Houses elected together. This is purely a subterfuge. Indeed, having looked at the two Bills I believe the con of the consensus is like the con of the two constitutional proposals. It is a con. It has been put in such a way as to deceive the Australian electorate. Frankly, the argument that it is necessary to change the Constitution so that we will avoid having different times of elections just does not hold water. The coalition-that is, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-opposes both Bills. We believe that the Australian people too will oppose them. When the referendums to which they give rise are put to the nation I am sure the Australian people will see them, as they do so many of the other actions of this Government, as being nothing more than a cynical exercise of power. We oppose the Bills for very straightforward and plain reasons. We are certain that our stand will be supported by a majority of Australians. These Bills, like so many of the Government's actions-indeed the Government itself-we believe are a fraud. The Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill is not , as the Government has pretended, about fewer elections. It is about more elections. It is about reducing the power of the Senate. It is about increasing the power of the Prime Minister. The honourable member for Lowe suggested that there would be fewer elections. That just is not true. Indeed, quite the reverse would be the product of the support by the Australian electorate of these two measures. The Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill is not, as the Government has pretended, an important step forward in constitutional reform. It is simply a device to throw a cloak of respectability over the Prime Minister's and the Government's attempts to shackle an unco-operative Senate and give further power to a Labor Prime Minister who already shows a dangerous willingness to believe in his own infallibility. These Bills were part of a package of constitutional reforms originally proposed by this Government and supported by the Opposition. The reforming zeal of this Government, or what there was of it, has, of course, long since been spent. What we are left with is a cynical, opportunist attempt to manipulate the referendum process. There is only one reason for introducing these Bills. It is the Prime Minister' s blind determination to push the nation into an early election. If one looks at the faction fighting within the Australian Labor Party and the extent to which members of that Party are currently spending so much more time within the factions fighting one against the other than they are in governing the country, one can understand the Prime Minister's concern to get to the polls early before it all crumbles around him. Nothing and nobody have been allowed to stand in the Prime Minister's way. Labor's election promises, its policies in so many areas, have all been jettisoned. The Government has even thrown overboard any pretence to economic responsibility by bringing down a Budget a fortnight ago that for the sake of a few votes has put lasting recovery and a real increase in the living standards of Australians at very considerable risk. Now we have these Bills which, as I have said, represent a cynical attempt to manipulate the referendum process and the Australian electorate, and are an indictment of the Hawke Government's pretensions as a government of reform. To demonstrate that I will take honourable members on a little tour of the background to these proposals. It all began back in April 1983 when the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans), with a great flourish, announced a series of referenda, including one on fixed term parliaments, to be put to the people in August of that year. Legislation to implement those proposals was, in fact, introduced and, as part of its propaganda campaign, the Government made great play of the decision of the previous Prime Minister to go to the polls early in 1983. However, as we all recall, these proposed referenda were soon postponed. The great reforming Attorney-General was thoroughly and comprehensively rolled by his Cabinet colleagues, who suddenly came to see merit in the ability of a Prime Minister to call an election when he believed it was necessary. From fixed term parliaments we went to four-year parliaments. Legislation for a referendum on this issue was brought into this House in the Budget session last year. It was accompanied by a Bill for a referendum on simultaneous elections for both Houses. The Opposition saw merit in these proposals because it believed they would help bring stability to government. The proposed four-year term was, we believed, an important move, for reasons which have been widely discussed both in this House and outside. It would enable governments to concentrate on the job in hand and particularly on rational and proper economic management, without the constant temptation of forthcoming elections. Indeed, we know that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) believes there are problems in the imminence of elections. We have been told by him that taxes have to be increased. A government cannot possibly plan in the long term if it is planning in the context of an early election. We were told that the attitude which the Minister for Science and Technology has used to bucket the planning within this Budget was part of the original concept for the introduction of these measures. There could well have been objections to the Senate having a fixed eight-year term. We all remember the concern there was as to whether an eight-year term would not be unnecessarily long for a House of review. We certainly believed in a context where a fixed eight-year term was in mind that the proposal for simultaneous elections could be justified, for it would have reduced below that fixed eight-year term the term which those senators would have enjoyed. At that stage, these questions were to be put to the people in February this year. Had they been carried-as I have said, they were supported by the Opposition-there would have been no need for a half Senate election by 30 June next year and no need for an early election for this House to be considered. It was not long, however, before this flickering remnant of the Government's reforming zeal was extinguished. Even these reforms, mild as they were compared with the Government 's original plans, presented too great an obstacle to the great Prime Minister. He wanted an excuse to dump them. That excuse came when the Senate, quite properly, refused to allow the Government to spend $2.5m of taxpayers' money to publicise only its case in the February referenda and no funds at all on the opposing side. This decision by the Senate-as I said, it was a very proper one-was misused by the Prime Minister as an excuse for not going ahead with the referenda. Now we have the final product of the reforming zeal of the Hawke Government. What is proposed, of course, is no reform at all. It is a fraud. The fraud is exposed in the very title of the Bill which is before us today. When it was introduced in the Senate its title was the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. That title, however, has undergone a sudden change. It is now called the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill. That is what this Bill is really about. Let us forget all the nonsense about reducing the number of elections. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. This Bill is about making sure that a hostile Senate or, heaven forbid, even a relatively independent Senate presents the smallest possible obstacle to the wishes of this Prime Minister. That is what this Government is asking Australians to agree to. At present, Prime Ministers who wish to call early elections have a restriction . Elections for the House of Representatives can take place at any time. The Constitution, however, provides fixed terms for senators. Thus if a Prime Minister calls an early election for the House, as the present Prime Minister seems intent on doing, he will be faced with the prospect of another poll later with the prescribed half Senate election. He is also faced with the prospect of continuing separate half Senate and House of Representatives elections unless a double dissolution is called to bring elections for both the Houses back into line. These restrictions act as a powerful brake on Prime Ministers abusing their power to call early elections. They also act as a powerful brake on the number of elections which Australians have to face. They mean that the Senate can perform its proper duties effectively, with a degree of security of tenure and independence of the whims of the Labor Prime Minister or indeed of any Prime Minister. This Bill is aimed at removing those restrictions. There would be two distinct results if the referendum proposed on this issue were carried. The way would be open for more elections. The independence of the Senate, and thus its power would be reduced and that of the Prime Minister enhanced. The National Party believes that neither outcome is in the interests of the nation. That is why we, together with our coalition Liberal partners, oppose this Bill and will oppose the passage of the referendum on this issue. We were prepared to support a proper package of reform which coupled simultaneous elections with a four-year parliamentary term. We will not-we cannot-support this cynical, opportunistic attempt to increase the power of the Prime Minister and to foist even more elections on Australians. We regard the interchange of powers proposal as simply an attempt to put a cloak of respectability over this move. The Constitution already permits the States to refer powers to the Commonwealth. They have not generally done so, for the very understandable reason that they prefer to exercise those powers themselves. This proposed referendum will not change that situation. It is not a demonstration of the Government's commitment to reform; it is a demonstration of its cynicism. The coalition opposes both of these Bills for the reasons I have given. It believes, further, that referenda should not, in general, be put to the people at the same time as an election. By doing so, the Government is preventing the people from focussing on the important issues involved. We believe that this aspect of the legislation before the House is also to be condemned. In my view the two propositions that are being put to us at this time are not ones which should enjoy the support of the Australian people. In our view they are proposals which are cynically designed to increase and not reduce the frequency of elections. We believe the character of the proposals is designed not to enhance the power of the people; it is simply a product of the Prime Minister deciding that this is one way by which his power as Prime Minister can be enhanced and that of the Senate reduced. There is no justification in those circumstances for either this Parliament or the people of Australia giving this Government their endorsement on those two counts. For that reason I urge all Australians to consider very carefully the proposition included within these two referendum Bills and I urge them just as strongly to vote overwhelmingly against them. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.43) —I will refrain from addressing in any great substance that part of the referenda proposals which relates to the terms of senators-the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill. It seems to me that that has been adequately and quite definitively embraced by my colleagues on this side of the House. The only comments I make in that context are the obvious ones relating to the significant costs involved to Australian taxpayers when there are continual elections either for half the Senate or for the full House or when those elections are extended to cover various referenda proposals. The exact amount of money needed in those circumstances has already been addressed, although I thought it might be of some value to instance the number of elections that we have had in the last 20 years. In that time there have been 11 elections, only two having been combined elections. There have been three House of Representatives elections, three half Senate elections and three double dissolutions. If they were to remain out of phase, no fewer than seven separate elections would be due in the next 10 years-three for the House of Representatives and four half Senate elections. My colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) indicated that in the context of a half Senate election the cost to the Australian taxpayer is in the vicinity of $17.8m. We have an Opposition which continually decries the various revenue methods embraced by this Government, so it seems to me to be somewhat contradictory that it is here proposing a course that would inevitably result in an increased cost, an extravagantly increased cost, to the Australian taxpayer which certainly cannot be supported in the context of current economic circumstances or, indeed, in any economic circumstances. I indicated at the outset that I would prefer to concentrate on that part of the referenda proposals which relates to the interchange of powers-the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill-and I intend to do just that. It is worth noting that both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair)-both temporary leaders-addressed the interchange of powers proposal only in very limited detail . The central thesis to their submissions to this House was that the interchange of powers proposal is merely a camouflage, or a puff, in terms of getting through the other more substantive referenda proposal. I concede at the outset that, in terms of attaching some order of importance to those two referenda proposals, it is quite obvious that the terms of senators proposal is more important for a range of reasons. However, that ought not cloud the reality that the interchange of powers proposal is a very important part of the package and one deserving of support by the Australian community. Indeed, in no case has any member of the Opposition offered any substantive reasons why that particular proposal ought not be embraced by the Australian community. As I have indicated, it was opposed only in the context of their perception of it as allegedly being part of a camouflage, giving some respectability to the other referenda proposal that will be put. That seems to me to be an absurdity. Neither speaker for the Opposition addressed in passing the very fundamental reasons why the interchange of powers proposal ought to be supported. What are the problems? Since the decision in the case of Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v. Victoria of 1983-more commonly known, of course, as the Victoria pipelines case-there has been renewed interest in the whole issue of referral of powers, not only from the Commonwealth to the States but also vice versa. In that case, as has been rightly pointed out, the major issue related to excise duties, a cause of much debate in terms of our legal and political systems over many years. The law report books are filled with various cases addressing precisely what constitutes excise duties. But in that case it simply seemed to me to present another example of Federal and State governments balancing their obligations and enabling certain financial issues to be addressed in terms of both what the Commonwealth wants and what particular States may desire. It seemed to me to be a good example of when referral of these sorts of powers may have been of some real value. The reality, in terms of the second proposal before the House, relating to the interchange of powers, is that, unlike the position put by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Bill will definitely overcome any doubts which the States hold about the basis upon which references of power may be made by them to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Bill makes it clear that a reference given by the States will be revocable. That has been one of the ongoing causes of concern relating to referral of powers over the years. It may be given subject to conditions-another area of dispute over time-and include in that context conditions regulating the types of laws that can be passed under it and, further, that such references may be made for a limited period. Designations of matters by the Commonwealth Parliament will be subject to the same provisions as those relating to references by the States in relation to revocation, the power to impose conditions and other related matters. Another part of the proposed referenda relates to Commonwealth places. Of course, this is not a matter of very great moment in terms of day to day politics, but in some areas of litigation it is quite a problem. Since the decision some time ago of Worthing v. Rowell and Muston Pty Ltd significant advances have certainly been made in this area, essentially by agreement between the Federal and State governments. Nevertheless, most observers agree that it is an area that still leaves open to considerable doubt the exact role of Commonwealth and State powers where they conflict in terms of Commonwealth places. Certainly, if we are given the opportunity to redress that problem we should embrace it. The purpose of the proposal in paragraph (c) of proposed new section 108A(2) is to ensure that no exclusive powers of the Commonwealth are beyond interchange with those of a State. Again, this proposal is the result of discussion in the community over a very long period as to precisely what form of agreement should eventually be arrived at. Another important area was explicitly put in the Bill in response to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, who treated this proposal in a somewhat cavalier fashion. I refer to paragraph (d) of proposed new section 108A(2) which relates to the matter of the investing of a specified Federal court other than the High Court with State jurisdiction in matters of a specified kind. Since the decision in Fencott v. Muller the Federal Court of Australia can determine non-Federal issues forming part of a Federal controversy before the Court. That was a pioneering decision that very much reduced the jurisdictional problems facing Federal Court litigants. The situation in the State Supreme Courts has yet to be resolved. Far from waiting for a High Court decision to resolve the issue, it seems to me to be important that it should be contained in part of the referenda proposals put before the Australian people. The object of these proposals is that the Federal Court should have power, where the ordinary tenets of justice dictate, to refer to State courts certain powers by way of remitter. As a natural corollary the proposal provides that State Supreme Courts may do likewise in similar circumstances; in such cases they may remit matters to the relevant Federal court. I shall not go on in any greater detail. As I indicated at the outset I was concerned with addressing myself solely to the issue of the interchange of powers simply because it had not been addressed in any substantive way by any of the previous speakers. I see my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and I am reminded of part of his contribution to this debate which related to the costs involved in running elections. I have already addressed costs in terms of the sheer number of elections we have had and will have over the next 10 years. The honourable member for North Sydney instanced in his contribution the increase in the size of the Parliament. It seems to me that one can continue to put confusing arguments over time and they may or may not be embraced by members of the Australian community who are listening to this debate or who read newspaper reports or whatever on this subject. It bears reiterating that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the relevant Opposition spokesperson on this matter in this House, proposed by way of amendment to the legislation setting up the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that it have as a specific term of reference the matter of the size of the Parliament. So it was by way of an Opposition amendment that that matter was even brought before the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Once the Committee was established the National Party of Australia-not, I might add, the Australian Labor Party because in our submission we made no reference to the proposed increase in the size of the House-made submissions in which it argued, I might add, very cogently, that the size of the House should be increased. For my part as a member of that Committee I was never strongly wedded to the concept although I must say that the arguments put forward had merit. Whilst we would concede on any day of the week that the decision to increase the size of Parliament may be seen as unpopular, it is a decision that simply had to be made in the near future, particularly in the context of the construction of the new Parliament House. For all those reasons, particularly those relating to the interchange of powers, I commend the legislation to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.55) —I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill because unfortunately I seem to be one of the few members of this Parliament today who have a genuine commitment to federalism and the democratic system of government which was established in our Constitution. I wish to address my remarks primarily to the Bill which is referred to as the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill. I note that this Bill now has a more honest title than it had when it was first introduced to this place, when it was referred to as the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. The Government via the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has circulated to some limited extent a document which purports to put the case for these simultaneous elections. The whole case is a total fraud. The document states in part: These measures are very important from the point of view of the quality of government in this country and of our capacity to govern effectively. None of them gives more power to the Commonwealth and none of them changes the present balance of power relationship . . . That is patently untrue. This Bill proposes to remove the discretion of State Premiers with respect to the calling of a Senate election and to put the power into the hands of the Prime Minister. It represents a reduction in States rights . It represents an attempt to make the House of Representatives supreme over the Senate. The whole case is a fraud. I think it should be exposed as a fraud and I am amazed that the Government has succeeded so far in perpetrating what amounts to a miscarriage of justice without any responsible comment, apart from a comment made by Malcolm Mackerras, as to the implications for our system of government. It represents no more and no less than a grab for power. It represents political expediency on the part of the present Government to enable it to be in a position to call an election whenever and wherever it likes. Mr Beazley —What did it represent when Fraser put it up? Mr BLUNT —I would not refer to that. I think I would have a look at what Neville Wran did in New South Wales on 24 March before I started talking about expediency in government. For the honourable member's information, irrespective of what other honourable members on this side of the House may have said before, I have been and always remain implacably opposed to the proposal. Mr Griffiths —All the rest supported it. Mr BLUNT —I think that is a poor defence for what the Government is attempting to do to the system of democracy in Australia. The Constitution is not inadequate in what it proposes to do. There is no need to alter it because its back-dating provisions with respect to senators are deliberate. If they did not exist it would be possible to have a senator there for more than six years. Something that should be considered is the history of Senate elections in Australia. Under a previous Labor Government the Premier of Queensland found it necessary to deny and then alter the provisions for calling a Senate election. Once this Bill is proposed and passed the rights of Premiers to control and agree to Senate elections will go out the window. It will become the prerogative of the government of the day to determine when an election will be called. We saw the cynical use of such powers in New South Wales by the Premier of that State when he called an election on 24 March this year. He went to the Governor and maintained that he could not govern. He asked for an election, rushed back and went to the people, knowing full well that the whole thing was totally unnecessary. He called the election with minimum notice for the people and disenfranchised thousands of people throughout New South Wales. The Bill proposes to give the present Government exactly the same power. It amounts to an attempt by this Government to contrive a political situation which will perpetuate its power and implement the proposals contained in the Australian Labor Party platform and policy. I refer to its policy of centralising control and manipulation of government in Canberra rather than decentralising control to the States, where it rightly belongs. What we see in this Bill is a determined attempt to centralise and to eliminate the rights of States. I am amazed that more has not been made of it in the Press . I am amazed that State governments have not objected to it and I am amazed that political commentators have not exposed it for what it is. I do not understand how the Attorney-General can justify using taxpayers' funds to publish this sort of document which purports to put the case for simultaneous elections. I have put questions on notice regarding how money was allocated, why the documents were not printed by the Government Printer and what has happened to them. None of those questions has been answered. I find it amazing that the Government has been able to get away with making a statement which is patently untrue and which it has not in any way attempted to refute. What we have is a statement made under the authority of the Attorney- General that the Government cannot govern effectively unless this Bill becomes law. This country has been governed effectively since 1901 under the law as it presently stands. These changes do not give more power to the Commonwealth, but they patently give the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Government the power to control the timing of House of Representatives and Senate elections and remove the rights of the State Premiers to influence those things. If that is not altering the balance of power between the States and the Commonwealth, I do not know what is. I find it amazing that the Government can perpetrate such a fraud on the Australian people while pretending to be genuinely concerned with democracy. I recognise what will be the fate of this Bill: The Government will use its numbers on a party line vote to force it through. I sincerely hope that the people of Australia recognise what is being done to them and will resist it when the time comes to mark on the ballot paper their attitude to it. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I will be doing everything I can to ensure that this proposal fails. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.01) —in reply-It is disappointing to have now opposition to the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill. That opposition was not apparent on previous occasions. The rationale of the former proposal, as indicated when it was first introduced, was to give effect to resolutions of the Australian Constitutional Convention at meetings in Hobart and Adelaide. It had strong cross-party support on those occasions. The Australian people must be somewhat mystified to find now that there is an objection to the proposal. At the Convention and also in this Parliament across party lines it was deemed to have a great deal of merit, as indeed it has. Although elections are now out of sequence because of an earlier termination of a previous House of Representatives before its time, it is almost axiomatic that the Australian people when they express views as to who should govern the country in the House of Representatives should at the same time express views as to who their senators should be. The measure in no way detracts from the Senate. We are in the ridiculous situation, because of a failure to grapple with the rights of the Constitution, that if the Senate keeps exercising powers which we have often disputed, that is, the power to refuse Supply, we in the House of Representatives can be continually sent to the people without the Senate having to face the people to judge the merits of what has happened. We nearly destroyed the Constitution in 1975. I make it very clear that if that position were repeated we would divide this nation. It is not possible to gauge the sort of tension and confrontation that could well develop as it did on that occasion, which was brought about purely for political purposes. When the Constitution was framed it was thought that the Senate would be a House of people who had no affiliation with political parties. How wrong were the founders of the Constitution! It is a party political House. It has proportional representation. As we recognise, because of that individuals or splinter groups can exercise influences. In the interests of the efficiency of democracy it is important that we have fewer elections. We are now facing the eighth or ninth election in the last 15 years. It is quite wrong to be now putting forward arguments that the proposals to be submitted to the people will in any way detract from the powers of the Senate. They do no such thing. A half-Senate election costs the taxpayer an extra $18m. I now advert to remarks made on previous occasions. I begin with those made by Mr Doug Anthony in October 1983. He said: The referendum could be held when the next Federal election takes place . . . One would hope that his successor in this place, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), might at least have adverted to that because at that stage Mr Anthony supported the proposals, as did a number of others. Mr Duffy —He has a very selective memory. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point has been made by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, that people seem to have selective memories on these occasions. We now hear arguments being put forward as to why we should not proceed with a referendum at this stage. But in earlier days, on 20 October 1983, Mr Anthony said: I believe also that the Senate should be accountable for any action it takes . . . One way for the Senate to be accountable is for it to face election at the time the House of Representatives does. The Senate itself is due to face an election in a very short space of time. It is inconvenient to have elections at different times of the year when the issues that the people are asked to judge are the same. There will not be separate issues for the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate and the House of Representatives go to the people as political groups. We have the same policies. They are thrashed out by our respective parties and are usually on the economy or such matters. The people judge the issues accordingly. Because of proportional representation there are opportunities for splinter groups to have their representatives in the Senate talk about those matters. On 12 October 1983, Senator Durack said: The Opposition acknowledges that a real problem has existed in Australia for the last 20 years and, in particular, since an early election was held for the House of Representatives in 1963. Senator Durack there talked of simultaneous elections. I heard that in recent days he opposed them. Senator Durack in 1983 spoke about the real problem; it is a basic problem. The people of Australia do not want to have the frequent elections that have been thrust on them. On some occasions the Senate has refused Supply and on others Prime Ministers, because of what is deemed to be political advantage, have called elections, thus putting the Houses out of kilter. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is on record as making a number of statements about the simultaneous elections proposal. He has also talked about the four-year proposal. Mr Spender —Together. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, together. He said: In my view it is a sensible alteration . . . Surely he is not now going to suggest it would not be a sensible alteration to have it on a simultaneous elections basis. A four-year term certainly would not prevent a Prime Minister from going to the polls before the end of that term. That was never the intention. We would love to talk about it, but public opinion and the States are opposed to it. We have to consider it from the point of view of what is feasible. The Opposition does not help to formulate public opinion by opposing the measure in the way it is now doing. It would have been far more beneficial to have talked about the issue. It has become a political issue again and the like of State Premiers and others will use this as they did before to try to defeat the referendum proposals. There is no point in now talking about the fixed four-year term; it has to be looked at in terms of the situation at that time. The other difficulty is that the Senate itself is not prepared to talk about a four-year term or an eight-year term. There is no clear public opinion on that issue. The honourable member for North Sydney weakens his own argument when he says, as he did, that he hopes that the Australian people will accept the proposal. We think they will. We think there is logic in having simultaneous elections rather than having an election for the Senate on a different occasion from a House of Representatives election. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) on another occasion had this to say about simultaneous elections: . . . it will mean that there will be fewer elections . . . there is no doubt that there will be a very significant saving in terms of money . . . Whilst the honourable gentleman from North Sydney is entitled to say that he would favour a four-year term, I cannot see that the proposal is in any way weakened because of its simultaneous aspect. The honourable member made the point: This will be welcomed by the majority of Australian people and will not, I think, injure the Senate's independence. We are not talking about the period here; we are talking about the simultaneous aspect. I could not agree with the honourable member more. On that issue, we now see a complete about-face. The honourable member for North Sydney also said this in earlier days: It is worth while remembering two things: First, the different system of elections which applies, in the Senate. I wish I had read this earlier because the honourable member has said what I have said. He was talking about Australian Democrats when he said: Yet none of the representatives of that Party who stood in the last election or indeed the election before that got anywhere near being elected in the House of Representatives. So it is a basically different concept of election and it is a question of the people having an ability to judge at that time. I am saying that what the honourable member for North Sydney said then still applies now. The interchange of powers proposal is a very sensible and understandable proposition and I cannot see why anyone would want to object to that. A whole series of statements has been made suggesting that simultaneous elections may lead to more not fewer elections because without the restraint of a half Senate election occurring at three-year intervals, a Prime Minister can call an election whenever he wants to. Half Senate elections do not impose a restraint on a Prime Minister to call an early election; in fact the possibility of a separate half Senate election is more likely to be the cause of his doing so. On a number of occasions since the 1960s, an early House of Representatives election has been called in order to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a half Senate election. In other words, history shows that the trigger for an early House of Representatives election has commonly been the prospect facing the country of a separate half Senate election. Another argument is that simultaneous elections will increase the power of the Prime Minister. As was pointed out by Mr Anthony before he retired from the House, the Prime Minister can already create the circumstances for a double dissolution and call out the whole of the Senate if he wants to. He has the power in effect to call a half Senate election at any time within the 12 months before the places of retiring senators become vacant. The other argument is that this is part of a Labor Party campaign to destroy the Senate. That is quite ridiculous. The proposal has no effect on the powers of the Senate. Mr Spender —It is your platform. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The platform has no restrictions at all about the Senate. That was done away with years ago. We now have a Senate in the platform. Cannot the honourable member see the position is that the Senate will be maintained? That is there. Mr Spender —But it was in your last platform. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think you should apologise; you are about 12 years behind. The other argument is: What is the advantage in abolishing so-called unnecessary separate half Senate elections when there have only been four since Federation? That assertion is misleading. It is true there have only been four separate half Senate elections since Federation but three of those have been in the past 20 years. We are really accelerating the pace. Out of 11 Federal elections in that time, only two have been simultaneous elections for the House and half the Senate. We are getting worse because of this problem of manipulation of the situation for political purposes, contrary to the public interest. Another argument is that referendum proposals should not be put at the same time as an election. For the life of me I cannot understand that. Referendum proposals have commonly been put at the same time as an election in the past. There are significant cost savings. Indeed, when the previous referendum package was put before the Parliament some Opposition members argued that the referenda should be put in conjunction with the election. I have already quoted Mr Anthony as saying that as recently as 20 October last year. Then there was the argument against the interchange of powers, that it is of minor significance and has been put up only to give a veneer of respectability. Let us face it: The interchange proposal is designed to foster greater co- operation between the Commonwealth and the States in relation to their powers and can have very significant results, particularly if one looks at it from the family law point of view and the question of adoption, custody and matters of that nature. I am aware that time is pressing and all I want to say is that we in the Government are disappointed that the Opposition for paltry party political purposes has decided today to adopt a stance which was not in accordance with the high principles it espoused earlier. We think that the Australian people will judge this on its merits. It will be put to them and we hope it will be agreed to with the co-operation of all right-minded people. We do not want to go back to the days of separate elections. I do not think that adds to the strength of our democracy and it does nothing for the welfare of the nation. Accordingly I ask that the arguments put forward by the Opposition be rejected. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. 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.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A.C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C. Mr SPEAKER-The result of the division is ayes 69, noes 42. The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority, as is required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C. The SPEAKER-Order! There being 70 ayes and 42 noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority, as is required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. [COGNATE BILLS: SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bills be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill as well as the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.02) —These are very important Bills because they are the first batch of Budget Bills to be debated in detail by the Parliament. I should say at the outset that, because these measures comprise part of the Government's Budget, it will not be our intention to vote against them at the second reading stage. I shall, however, be moving an in-principle amendment at the second reading stage dealing with certain aspects of the timing of the introduction of the proposed tax on Australian and imported wine. Because they are general sales tax Bills, the House is given the opportunity of debating in general aspects of revenue collection by the Government and matters relating to the revenue base. As honourable members will be well aware, sales tax comprises a very significant proportion of the total revenue collections of the Commonwealth and in those circumstances it is entirely appropriate in debating a sales tax measure to say something about the revenue base not only of this Budget but also of future Budgets. Of course, that leads me unavoidably to what I see as the major problem the Government has created for the government of the day next year as a result of bringing down the Budget which was presented to this Parliament by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a bare two weeks ago. The unassailable fact is that next year we will have in this country a major budgetary problem. This year 's Budget has been essentially built upon a fortuitous one-off surge in revenue collections which cannot conceivably be repeated next year. I would like to spend a few moments tonight analysing that proposition and supplying some reasons why I believe that in the interests of a fairly short term political expedient this Government has created a quite worrying budgetary problem for next year. As I think I have said on another occasion, this might not be the first occasion on which an Australian government has fallen into that error. But that does not alter the culpability of this Government for the problem that it is creating for next year, nor will it alter the magnitude of the task that will face the government of the day next year in putting together the 1985-86 Budget. This year it is anticipated that total revenue collections will rise by no less than 10.7 per cent in real terms; that is, after we allow for inflation the total amount collected by the Commonwealth Government through this Budget will be 10.7 per cent greater than it was last year. On its own that does not sound very remarkable, but when we look back through the Budget Papers and find that that is the largest increase in revenue collections to have occurred on any occasion since the end of World War II, we realise that this year is special and we realise the significance of a government relying upon a special one-off increase in revenue collections on which to base a Budget and a Budget strategy. We also realise the problems that it stores up for next year. Another statistic that I think ought to be mentioned and kept in mind in this analysis is that this year it is anticipated that provisional tax collections will rise by 44.7 per cent. That does not mean that everybody paying provisional tax will pay 44.7 per cent more, although undoubtedly some fortunate individuals , or unfortunate individuals, depending on how one looks at it, may be in that position. It means that the total proportion of personal tax collections coming from farmers, lawyers, businessmen and all the other people who pay provisional tax is this year going to be almost 45 per cent higher than it was last year. That is a phenomenal increase in anybody's language and I think compares with an average increase of something like 7 per cent or 8 per cent over the last 10 or 15 years. The reason we have that phenomenal increase this year is fairly easy to understand. It is because there has been a spectacular pick-up in the incomes of many farmers because of the end of the drought. They are not by any long term measure earning huge incomes; it is just that the previous year was so dreadfully bad because of the drought that any improvement this year is going to look good by comparison. Because of that improvement we have this quite extraordinary pick-up in provisional tax collections. But the significant thing which I keep coming back to, the problem that the Government has created for next year, is that there is no way on earth that we will get a 44.7 per cent pick-up in farm incomes in 1985-86. As someone on my staff remarked in a very erudite article in the Australian a couple of weeks ago, 'You can only break a drought once', and of course next year we will not be getting the benefit of that 44.7 per cent revenue surge from provisional taxpayers; it will be back to the normal 8 per cent or 9 per cent which is the order of the day. So what the Government has done in the Budget is rely on a once only surge in revenue collections to lock itself into budgetary commitments that cannot possibly be met in future years without an enormous expansion in the size of the Budget deficit next year. At Question Time today we were promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that, if his Government is re-elected at the election that will be held presumably before the end of this year, taxation levels will not rise next year. He gave that promise when he answered a question, and he cannot back away from that quite deliberate promise. He said: 'Overall taxation levels are not going to rise next year if my Government is re-elected'. He was unambiguous in saying it. If he really means that he has to answer a very simple question. I can promise him that he will be asked that question often enough in the weeks and months ahead. He has to explain to the Australian people how on earth he will reconcile the difference that must inevitably open up next year between his revenue base if he is re-elected and the expenditure commitments that he has locked this Government into, because next year we will not have a 44 per cent rise in provisional tax collections; next year we will not have a 10.8 per cent increase in tax collections in real terms over and above inflation; and next year we will not have those fortuitous one-off circumstances that have presented the Government with an opportunity this year which it has passed up and which I believe the Government and the community generally will live to regret that it has passed up. The truth is that this year revenue collections increased by something approaching $9,000m. The Government has achieved a deficit reduction of about $1 .3 billion of that approximately $9 billion. What has it done with the rest? It has, in plain, simple, old-fashioned language, spent the rest of it. Instead of using the bulk of that $9 billion temporary, fortuitous, once only surge in revenue collections to bring about a reduction in the structural deficit, to bring about a reduction in those on-going commitments of the Government which cannot be attributed to high unemployment, to temporary factors that will go out of the system, it has spent the additional money. That is the worst possible thing the Government could have done. It might appear to be the smart thing in the short term; it might appear that it has done a Houdini trick by reducing the deficit and also providing a taxation cut, but that is almost unavoidable if there is a $9 billion rise in revenue collection. One has to be a bit of a mug Treasurer with $9 billion extra not to be able to give some kind of taxation cut and achieve some kind of reduction in the deficit. But it is the magnitude of what the Government has done that really matters. The Government has applied something like 75 per cent of that once-off surge in revenue collections towards additional expenditure. That is what is going to come home to haunt the Australian community next year because next year we will not have that huge rise in farm incomes. In fact the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is forecasting that next year farm incomes will fall by 30 per cent on what they are this year. I hope that does not happen, but I think it will because, as I said a few moments ago, you can only break a drought once. So the Government has dug the budgetary-making process of this country into a very big hole next year. If we go through the other sources of revenue we do not get a great deal of comfort from them. Anybody who took any notice of what Sheik Yamani said last night during the Copland Memorial Address would realise that crude oil levy receipts will not be a growing source of revenue for the Commonwealth over the next few years. If we look at income tax collections generally we have the ringing statements of the Prime Minister: 'We have reduced them and we will not increase the income tax burdens on the ordinary Australian taxpayer'. That is the claim that is being made. If we go through all the different revenue items we find that next year we will have a problem to which the Government has not addressed itself. This year it has increased expenditure by 6 per cent in real terms after 7.5 per cent in real terms last year. That means that under this Government the rate of increase in government spending is treble the rate that it was under the previous Government. I know that there are many in the community who argue that the level of restraint on spending by the previous Government might have been better, but we were absolute paragons of virtue when it came to expenditure restraint compared with this Government. Obviously it has demonstrated that it does not have any stomach for expenditure restraint, so I ask the question once again: What is going to happen next year? It is all very well for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to generalise but they are hard questions because when the government of the day, whoever it may be next year, gets the first advice on likely revenue projections it will have a very rude shock awaiting it. Instead of a nice, handsome, 44 per cent rise in provisional tax payments it will be told it is about 6 or 8 per cent. It will be told that its on-going expenditure commitments are rising by another 6 or 7 per cent over and above the rate of inflation because the Government has locked itself into ever-escalating expenditure programs. It has run around the country saying: 'We have committed ourselves to enormous increases in education expenditure'. This year health expenditure goes up by 40 per cent over and above what it was last year because the real cost of Medicare is finally coming home to roost. So I get back again to the central question, and it is the great unanswered question of this year's Budget, and that is: What about the problem that the Government is creating for next year? It is not a sufficient answer for the Treasurer or the Prime Minister to say that this sort of problem has happened in the past. It may have, and if it has that is to the condemnation of those responsible. But it does not alter the responsibility of this Government, which brought down this Budget and which has created this problem for next year, to provide some kind of explanation. In addressing some remarks to these sales tax measures I ask the fundamental question which so far has not been answered by the Treasurer, despite numerous questions by the Opposition to the effect: What on earth does the Government believe is to be done about next year's budgetary problem? How can it justify spending 75 per cent of new revenue collections which are not going to be repeated next year? I repeat that they are not going to be repeated next year. If I am wrong on that I would welcome correction from my friend the honourable member from Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), who no doubt will follow me at some stage in this debate. He normally makes very reasonable and sensible contributions to these sorts of debates but he will have to be at his reasonable and most sensible best tonight in order to get out of this one because no one can create money out of thin air; not even the honourable member for Hunter can claim to have the capacity to do that. I do not think anybody on the other side can claim to have that capacity. I would like to hear from the honourable member for Hunter how the Government will replace this amount. He will probably talk about growth because the Government is big on growth. It is the new virtue in the Australian Labor Party. It used to hate growth until it realised that unless there is growth and unless there are some profits it is very hard to employ people. Now it is very big on growth and it waxes very eloquent when it comes to growth. While addressing the Confederation of Australian Industry the other evening the Prime Minister gave the sweeping undertaking that when he restructured the tax scale-he would not tell us how he would do so, and presumably it will be kept under wraps during the election campaign-it would not involve an overall increase in tax. He made this interesting statement: 'You do not need to reduce expenditure in order to reduce the deficit provided economic growth exceeds the rate of growth in government spending'. That sounds a fairly logical, simplistic , fair and reasonable statement to make. I can see the honourable member for Hunter is nodding assent to what his Leader said on that subject. The only problem is that the Government has got off to an awfully bad start because this year growth is projected to be 4 per cent according to the Budget Papers and spending is projected to be 6.1 per cent in real terms. On that sort of scenario the Prime Minister is confirming that next year the deficit problem will be worse than this year. So I advise the Government not to run that one very strongly unless it is able to produce a situation where each year the rate of growth of government spending is less than the rate of expected economic growth. So far on average this Government has chalked up 6.5 per cent in real terms- that has been its strike rate-in increases in government spending in the two Budgets it has brought down. In order to validate the Prime Minister's proposition for each year that the Labor Government has been in power-in my reckoning that is two-it will have to have produced an average growth rate of more than 6.5 per cent. That is just not possible because next year we will fall back to 4 per cent. So I would not run that one. So the Government is left with some very embarrassing questions. It will really need to be a virtuoso performance from the honourable member for Hunter to provide some explanation of where the money is coming from. I turn to those immortal words of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), about which honourable members will hear plenty from us between now and polling day. He made a totally candid statement on The World Today program the week the Budget was brought down. He was lamenting the fact that he had not done too well at Budget Cabinet for his portfolio and how science really was not politically popular enough to merit a big increase in funding. He said: 'You know, ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that three or four months before an election the Government is not really game to bring in all those taxes it needs to bring in in order to fund its expenditure commitments'. My friend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) may well shake his head, not at me but at his colleague, for what he said because-- Mr Duffy —He did not say that. Mr HOWARD —Oh, yes, he did. The reality is that the Minister for Science and Technology was saying what everybody knows; that is, if the Hawke Government is re-elected it will have three options open to it. Given the fact that it has chalked up deficits in two years which are almost as great as the ones we chalked up in seven years and that it has produced deficits which are $3 billion to $4 billion higher than the largest deficit we ever produced, its first option is to live with an unacceptably large deficit next year. Its second option is to embark upon a program of expenditure restraint that it has never even contemplated as a Labor Government and which, of course, it will not have the courage to say anything about during the forthcoming election campaign. Thirdly, Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, really let the cat out of the bag when he said: 'We will have to put up taxes. We will have to impose all of the taxes that we are not game to talk about before the election campaign'. He said that in plain simple language. Of course, he was talking the truth. Out of the mouth of a candid, avuncular, nice, well-meaning Minister came these gems of wisdom. Of course, the Minister for Science and Technology was apparently rebuked by the Prime Minister. He was rebuked for his candour. Mr Fife —For telling the truth. Mr HOWARD —For telling the truth. For a Prime Minister who believes in integrity and all those other things that he regales us about from time to time it was a pretty interesting exercise because what his Minister was doing was really putting his finger on what was going to happen. The honourable member for Hunter knows quite well that if our revenue collections are going to go back to normal, if we are not going to have this temporary surge in provisional tax collections, if we are not going to have all of these other marvellous increases, of course we are going to have problems. I am not the only person who is making these statements. Let me refer honourable members to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, repeated in today 's Age, written by Max Walsh who, over the last few months, has hardly been one of the Government's most unrelenting economic critics. He has hardly won the Pulitzer Prize for criticising the Government over the last 18 months. What did he have to say? He had an article headed 'The Beginning of the End of the Hawke Government'. The burden of his article was that until the last Budget this Government had the right to claim some long term economic credentials. He said that in the last Budget the Prime Minister and the Treasurer passed up an opportunity to do something of a lasting nature about the structural deficit problem of this country. He pinpointed the very thing that from the night the Budget was brought down I have been talking about, and that is that it is built upon a fortuitous once only surge in revenue collections. The Government has done the worst possible thing with that windfall revenue gain-it has spent it. Once it has spent it, that is the end of it; it can never get it back. The Government has created an absolute nightmare of a Budget problem for next year. It is a decision that the Australian community will pay very dearly for in the future. We have heard a lot of nonsense, cant and hypocrisy talked in this Parliament about deficits and national debts. The unassailable fact is, despite all the rhetoric of the Government, despite all the blustering of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on the subject, that this Government in two Budgets has produced deficits of $8 billion and $6.7 billion. The largest deficit the last Government ever produced was $4.3 billion and nothing this Government can do will ever alter that. All the misleading, dishonest statements that are made by the Government to the opposite do not alter that fact. But those sorts of comparisons and arguments will be reduced to pigmy proportions by the deficit problem we will face next year because of the folly and the political expediency that has overtaken the Government in the framing of this year's Budget. I remember when the forward Estimates were released this year-the forward Estimates, I might say, of expenditure because the Government, strangely, interestingly and illusorily enough, did not release the forward Estimates of revenue-we were told that the Government was going to fight very hard to contain the growth in outlays to 3 per cent or 4 per cent in real terms. That is what the forward Estimates said. I found in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald an absolutely fascinating article written by Ross Gittins, an economics writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, a person whom I like immensely although I disagree with a number of the things that he says. Here, let me say that I do not think over the last 18 months the Government has had warmer support from a leading economics writer in Australia than it has had from Mr Gittins, who is a true believer, as he will confess himself, in the prices and incomes accord. I suppose it is on that point that I depart from Mr Gittins. But I nonetheless read his material with very great interest. It is always well researched and he always argues a very tidy intellectual case. He made the very interesting observation that he thought the reason the Government did not release the forward estimates of revenue this year and therefore the forward projection of the Budget deficit when it started its Budget exercise was not that it was too high but that it was too low and that in fact the starting point for the Budget deficit this year was $5 billion. The Government, as he put it, 'struggled and laboured manfully' to reduce that $5 billion to $6.7 billion. There seems to me to be a great deal of compelling logic in what Mr Gittins had to say. He is not the sort of person to make that kind of observation lightly. So here we have the spectacle of this tight-fisted Government struggling against odds to get down the terrible expenditure problem that was facing it and it has been so successful that it has actually 'reduced' the deficit from $5 billion to $6.7 billion. So much for the expenditure restraint stomach of this Government! I simply reiterate that this Government has created a Budget nightmare for next year. Its expedient, opportunistic use of this temporary, once only surge in revenue collections, its totally irresponsible and quite stupid decision to spend it instead of conserving and saving it, is going to come home to haunt the Australian community. Before I sit down I ought to say something more specific about what is in the sales tax legislation. I ought to say something specific-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I was wondering myself about that one. Mr HOWARD —I am grateful for your normal tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your tolerance almost matches your charm on these matters. In the view of the Opposition there are problems with the wine tax proposal that the Government has put forward and my colleagues, in particular the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who understands as well as and certainly not less than any other member in the House the problems of the Australian wine industry, will be having something to say in more detail. Even though, as I think I have said on another occasion, there are arguments in favour of taxation on all forms of alcoholic beverage, the fact nonetheless remains that the timing of the introduction of this tax could barely be worse. Mr Fife —Appalling. Mr HOWARD —As my friend the honourable member for Farrer says, it is appalling. Well may he say that because there are very considerable wine growing interests in some of the newly acquired areas of his electorate. He will no doubt give these areas the same quality of representation that he has given to other parts of his electorate. It is very appalling timing at a time when subsidised European wines are disrupting the Australian wine industry and when an inquiry is proceeding into the future structure of the industry. So we have major reservations about the timing of the introduction of this tax. We believe that the Government is giving insufficient consideration to other taxation measures which may provide something of an offset to the effect of the introduction of this kind of tax. Mr Andrew —No consideration at all. Mr HOWARD —There has been no consideration at all, as the honourable member for Wakefield says. Consistent with the declaration I made at the commencement of my speech that we will not vote against the second reading of this measure, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the impact of the Government's new tax on wine, when taken in conjunction with changes in the taxation treatment of imports of wine, unreasonably and unfairly disadvantages the Australian wine producing and grape growing industry at a time when imports of surplus protected and subsidised European wines are disrupting the Australian wine industry and when there is an inquiry proceeding into the future structure of the industry'. I hope that all members of the House, in particular those members of the Australian Labor Party who represent electorates in South Australia, will give consideration to this issue. It will be very interesting to see whether the rhetoric-- Mr Fife —And also the honourable member for Hunter. Mr HOWARD —My colleague may well say 'the honourable member for Hunter'. He represents one of the great wine growing districts of Australia. He is normally a fine representative. I am sure the people of the industry in his electorate will want to know where he stands on this issue. They will want to know whether he supports the appalling timing of the introduction of this tax. No doubt he will think of some deft way of avoiding that question, as he has done with the broader budgetary problems which I canvassed earlier in my speech tonight. We do have reservations. We think that the Government's timing is bad. We think that this tax is inconsiderate. We think that it has severely disadvantaged the local grape grower and given an enormous advantage to imported wines. In those circumstances I warmly commend to the House the in principle amendment which has been preshadowed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter (8.32) —One would have been forgiven for being under the impression, while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was speaking, that this was a general debate covering questions of the Budget. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. What we are in the process of doing at present is considering three Bills-the Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). Because the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was as wide ranging as it was, I wish to take up a number of issues before I proceed to deal in more detail with the specific provisions of this legislation. The point was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the call was taken up by other members of the Opposition side that in order to reduce the deficit again in the next financial year the rate of growth of government spending must be less than the rate of real economic growth. That point has been made by them repeatedly. It was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition again this evening. Underlying this general concern that has been expressed by members of the Opposition is that some of the surges in government revenue which were experienced during the last financial year and which will be experienced again in this financial year will not necessarily be reproduced in the following financial year. They believe that perhaps those surges in revenue will not be reproduced in the following financial year. They use that belief as a basis for asserting that as a result the Government, in preparing the next Budget, will find itself in very serious difficulties. What those people fail to understand is that while those surges in revenue undoubtedly exist during the current financial year, the way in which that increased revenue has been used in the Budget has had the effect of absorbing that revenue. The assumption appears to be that in the next financial year that increased revenue will not be available. Of course it will be available. It will be available to finance the increased expenditure which this Government quite clearly has undertaken. Let me repeat that. The assumption appears to be that the increased revenue which has been available this year will suddenly disappear in the next financial year. That appears to be fundamental to the argument that has been advanced by members of the Opposition and in particular the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer. One of the most incredible statements made by the Leader of the Opposition-I am anticipating future developments-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during his most recent contribution was that the present Government has been responsible for the largest deficits in recent years. He referred to the realised, the actual, deficit during the last financial year, which was about $8 billion. He referred to the estimated deficit for the current financial year of $6.7 billion . Those figures pale into insignificance when one recalls the deficit that the former Treasurer, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, left for this Government to inherit. I refer to the notorious deficit of $9.6 billion. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to his credit and to the credit of his own personal integrity-I have said this before and I have some respect for his integrity-attempted to make that known to the electorate during the week prior to 5 March last year. The then leader of the Government of the day, the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, refused to allow that information to be divulged. The present Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not deny that that was the information which was given to him. He does not deny that on at least two occasions during that week he sought permission from the office of the then Prime Minister to announce that information publicly. He does not deny that the figure was $9.6 billion. Why then do members of the Opposition become so embarrassed when we continue to refer to the fact that we inherited such a disastrous economic and fiscal situation in Australia? They recognise that that is so. They admit to all of the detail. When we repeat and remind the Australian electorate that we inherited such a disastrous fiscal situation in Australia for some reason they feel that we are not being fair, we are not playing the game, we are misrepresenting the position, despite the fact, as I have indicated, that they never deny the essential facts which lie behind the $9.6 billion deficit that this Government inherited on 5 March last year. What a remarkable, dramatic and magnificent result the Hawke Labor Government has brought about in terms of economic management. While I am not necessarily suggesting that the three Bills we are considering at present are a major or a significant part of that total fiscal, economic management, they do reflect the continuing need on the part of governments to examine, re-examine and restructure the general taxation system. Approaches of this kind will always necessarily be undertaken by governments. What we have to do is to look towards those governments which attempt to restructure the taxation system by bringing into the taxation system greater degrees of equity, fairness and justice. This is in marked contrast to the way in which the taxation system was used by the previous Government as one of the tools in its political armoury and as one of its election campaign methods. Plenty of reference has been made to the notorious situation which existed before the 1977 election. The fistful of dollars was used as a bribe by the Government at that time, the Fraser Government, the coalition, the Liberal-National Party Government, in order to court favour, win support and secure votes from an Australian electorate which was very seriously misled on that occasion. I suppose the bait was successful. The votes were won. The Government was returned, but it took back the money. Of course, the fistful of dollars did not remain with the Australian electors for very long. There has been a remarkable transformation in the attitude, direction and objectives of taxation policy as far as this Government is concerned. Of course, a particular characteristic of this legislation has attracted the most attention and has encouraged quite legitimate concern on the part of the wine industry, particularly that part of the wine industry in my present electorate in the lower Hunter, the producers of magnificent, premium quality, often expensive wines. That section of the Australian wine industry will be the most severely hurt as a result of the imposition of the 10 per cent sales tax. I would be less than honest if I did not indicate my personal disapppointment that the Government found it necessary to introduce that provision at this stage. I have expressed my disappointment, and it is a legitimate disappointment. I do not resile from that position; nor should I. But I indicate that despite the pedantry and the rhetoric associated with the wording of the quite dishonest amendment which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there is no suggestion that the Opposition, given the opportunity, would repeal this legislation. What it is really trying to do is to have a couple of bob each way. It is a change about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was questioned when he addressed the National Press Club. He was asked about the wine tax and, in a report of his answer-the report puts these words in inverted commas, so apparently it is a direct quote-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, responded by saying: . . . 'there are good arguments for equal tax treatment of all alcoholic beverages'. Mr Scott —Who said that? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the gentleman who just addressed this Parliament and moved what I have suggested is essentially a dishonest amendment to the motion for the second reading of this legislation. Of course, the Opposition would not reverse or repeal the legislation. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave to the National Press Club was a statement of some substance. I think the whole industry appreciates that the only question with regard to the imposition of a tax on wine was not whether a tax would be imposed, but when a tax would be imposed. I would have preferred that it was imposed on some other occasion, but not because of any possible threat to me in my electorate. The electors in my electorate are the most discerning, the most perceptive electors in any electorate in Australia. They show magnificent political judgment. That is reflected by the fact that the present incumbent in the electorate of Hunter enjoys a majority of about 70 per cent. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I am sure the honourable member's feelings are shared by every member of the House. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are more than generous and I echo the complimentary remarks that were made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in connection with your good self. I express concern, as I indicated earlier, about the way in which the taxation system was used as part of the political armoury of the present Opposition when it was in government. It used taxation rates, tax collections, tax concessions, the tax structure generally and the taxation machinery as its private province and as a means of dispensing patronage to its cronies and to the numerous pampered and privileged sections of the Australian economy which it basically represented. As a result of its seven years in government the Australian tax system became increasingly distorted, inequitable and unjust, and increasingly the burden was placed on those sections of the Australian community which were least able to bear that burden. For seven years that situation developed. I have some sympathy for the former Treasurer because I know that his Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, increasingly cut off all of the options which were available to him. I have said before that he is honest. I know that if he were asked whether that was the position, he would have to say that that was the position. It left him like a bird without a feather to fly with. I am sure that it has occurred to the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, that there is some evidence that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) will make the same mistake. I prevail on the shadow Treasurer to ensure that that mistake is not made because if at any time in the distant future the Opposition is returned to this side of the Parliament-God forbid-I would not like to see it in a position where all the options that may have been available to it to increase the equity, fairness and sense of the taxation system were denied it. By way of background I point out that the present sales tax legislation consists of a number of separate Acts. The Sales Tax Acts Nos 1 to 9 specify the rates at which sales tax is payable. Those Sales Tax Acts Nos 1 to 9 are then supported or complemented by Sales Tax Assessment Acts Nos 1 to 9, which provide the machinery for the assessment, collection and administration of the tax imposed. In addition to those two sets of Acts we also have the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Act. These Acts are referred to specifically in the three pieces of legislation that we are dealing with tonight. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act formerly contained five schedules which listed the various classes of goods and the tax that was applicable to those classes of goods at the various specified rates. Schedule one, for example, listed all of those classes of goods that were exempt goods in relation to sales tax. The second schedule listed those which were taxed at 32.5 per cent. The third schedule listed those taxed at 7.5 per cent, and the fourth and fifth schedules listed those taxed at 20 per cent. The present amendments, of course, provide for the addition to those schedules of another schedule, a sixth schedule, which will identify those goods which will be taxed at 10 per cent. Those goods are, of course, Australian produced grape wine. This wine tax must be seen in the context of a total package of taxation proposals on alcohol which are designed to rationalise the total arrangements. As I said before, I express some personal reservation about the timing of those changes. But it is part of a total package and I think it needs to be seen in that way. That total package includes low alcohol beer, the light ales. The excise has been reduced by 8c to 58c a litre. Very low alcohol beer- that beer which contains less than 1.15 per cent alcohol-could not previously be taxed as a soft drink because it was not a soft drink. It had a lower alcohol content than beer, so it could not be taxed as beer. In order to rationalise the absurdity of that position, the Government has provided in the Budget for the imposition of a sales tax of 20 per cent on very low alcohol beer-I think it is sometimes referred to as non-alcoholic beer-which is the same as the tax imposed on soft drinks. The sales tax of 10 per cent on wine and on alcoholic ciders is perhaps the major provision in the Bills and the one which quite clearly has caused the greatest amount of concern. The excise collected from the tax that was applied last year on fortifying spirit is to be refunded in full. I know that there is some thought within the wine industry that an approach of this kind is much more appropriate than that which was adopted last year. The tax on fortifying spirit was sectional. It was discriminatory and I know that many of those interests within the wine industry which do not produce the fortifying spirit were of the opinion that an overall tax would have been more equitable. Of course, that is the effect of this legislation. The previous 20 per cent sales tax on alcoholic non-grape wines has been lowered to 10 per cent. I wish to express some concern about the change relating to imported wines. Reference has been made to some of these imported wines coming from the European Economic Community which quite clearly are being dumped on the Australian market at present. I wish to express my concern that that is happening and that it is being tolerated. I understand that in the United States , for example, some Italian wines have been dumped at a price of something like $US4 a dozen. That is an absurd situation. If we are not very careful in Australia we will get to that situation as well. As a result of the change in sales tax on those imported wines which has been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and the Customs duty of 10 per cent which has been imposed to take the impost up to 20 per cent, we are placed in an unfair position in relation to sales tax on the wine we produce. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.52) —In the exercise of self-congratulation that we have just witnessed from the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) precious little time was spent focusing on what is at the heart of the Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills and cognate Bills we are considering tonight. It is not surprising that even a member as courageous as the honourable member for Hunter has been prepared to spend so little time focusing on these Bills because the cognate debate on these Bills is the culmination of 18 months of deception. This legislation is in fact a bibliography of blatantly broken promises. It is a litany of misrepresentation on the part of the Hawke Labor Government. The seeds of the legislation we have before us tonight were sown in deceit. They took root in the political expediency that is so much a part of Australian Labor Party politics, and they blossomed at Griffith in February 1983 when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was prepared to stand boldly and say, 'Labor is pledged', pledged, mark you, 'not to introduce a sales tax on wine'. It is easy for the Prime Minister, day after day in this Parliament just as we witnessed today, in his rasping and arrogant way to take to task the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for statements he may have made while he was a back bencher. It is easy for the Prime Minister to use Question Time to throw back at the Opposition things he alleges it said. It is easy for the Prime Minister, as he did today, to play to the House and ask it to savour the delectable words he is about to repeat. But it was cynical and hypocritical of him not only to make such a statement today but also in February 1983, for the sake of political expediency, to say to the grape growers of Australia: 'Labor is pledged not to introduce a sales tax on wine'. Never was there a promise or an act so cheaply based. Never was there a commitment so lightly thrown away. That promise was given without any intention to honour it, and it was given by the present Prime Minister, that man of integrity who claims to lead this nation. That promise, given then and since broken twice, was nothing more than a cheap political stunt designed, the Prime Minister hoped, to win the seats of Kingston and Riverina. Unfortunately he was successful in Kingston and fortunately he was unsuccessful in Riverina. This Prime Minister jets around Australia trailing his banner of consensus and integrity when in fact he has been prepared blatantly to mislead the wine grape growers and the citizens of this nation. Not once but twice has he broken the specific promise he made to the wine grape growers who make up the electorates principally represented on this side of the House. Where now is this much vaunted integrity? Where now is this much vaunted principle? 'O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!' In this case the deception took place not once but twice. The first time was just six months after the Prime Minister made his promise when in the Budget of 1983 he brought down the disastrous 2J spirit impost. Not satisfied with one mistake, an admitted mistake , the Government has repeated the performance in the 1984-85 Budget of two weeks ago. Today the industry finds itself in a confused web of government unpredictability. Just after it had been promised by the Prime Minister that for the first time in its history it could be assured of three years of tax-free existence it discovered that that tax-free existence did not even last six months. The Prime Minister in his dealings with the grape industry has proven to be utterly unprincipled. He was deceitful to the industry in Griffith, and he is guilty of having paraded consensus and reconciliation but of refusing ever to talk to the industry about what would be in its and in the nation's best interests. There was no consensus and no consultation with the grape industry prior to the introduction of the 2J spirit tax or prior to the introduction of these Bills that we are debating in the House tonight. It would seem that the Prime Minister's concept of consensus is: 'Consensus means doing it my way'. This deception perpetrated on the industry at Griffith in 1983 is bringing an essential Australian industry, and an essential South Australian industry, to its knees. Just a glimmer of honesty would have helped the industry to feel that it could get some sense of purpose and predictability from the Government. But there has not been one iota of honesty. We have seen one expedient political step after another. The honourable member for Hunter said: 'Well, I am uncomfortable about this legislation, but it has been done to rationalise our tax structure'. ' Rationalise', what a glorious word! It really tells us nothing at all. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) declared that the legislation had been introduced in the interest of equity. Equity! Any comparison between the beer and wine industry which the Treasurer has been so fond of barrelling out is quite erroneous. Do honourable members realise that in the egalitarian days of the Chifley Government beer attracted the same impost as spirits? In 1984 the beer industry is taxed at barely two-thirds the rate of spirits. Is this the sort of equity the beer industry and the Hawke Labor Government want to return to? Do the brewers again want the same tax impost as that which the spirit producers currently bear? Any comparison between the brewing industry and the wine grape industry falls apart when one looks at the way they are structured. They bear little in common at all. The wine grape industry is made up of small businesses. It is labour- intensive. It is dominated by numerous wineries and wine grape growers. As we know, the beer industry involves big business and its turnover occurs inside a six-month period while the wine industry may well take seven years from wine production to maturation. The 10 per cent tax contained in these Bills is a tax on a labour-intensive industry. Beer already has a large percentage of the Australian drink market. It is true that percentage is falling but it is not true to say that it is falling because there has not been a sales tax on wine. It is quite erroneous to believe that the wine industry does not pay taxes in any way. The wine industry is in one way or another a substantial taxpayer. It is true that a specific sales tax has not been imposed on it, but the brewing industry cannot say that the absence of a sales tax on wine is the reason that brewery sales have fallen. They have fallen principally because of the changing lifestyles of Australians and those further complicating features such as penalty rates for hotel staff, as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is well aware, and random breath testing. This Bill, far from achieving better brewery sales, is nothing more than a blatant attack on the very grape growers the Prime Minister had the audacity to say he would protect. Tonight the Opposition is saying that the timing of this particular tax could not be more wrong. It will be alleged that the timing of any tax is never right. The Opposition will agree. But the timing of this tax on grape growers in Australia could not be worse. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that last week I asked a question without notice of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I asked the Minister whether incomes or employment prospects in grape growing areas have improved under his Government? The Minister stood up and answered in one word: 'No'. Mr Hawker —At least he told the truth. Mr ANDREW —I thank the honourable member. I pay a tribute to the Minister for having been honest. But the honesty of the Minister is not in question. It is not a part of the debate tonight. We have acknowledged that the Minister was absolutely honest. The problem is that it is not his honesty that is in question ; it is his potency. The Minister for Primary Industry has in fact failed to score for the wine grape industry in Australia and has failed to score for primary producers. He is full of good intentions, but he has yet to deliver the goods. The timing of this tax could not be worse. Let us look at the grape industry in Australia which is about to be subjected to this ill-advised tax. The dried fruit portion of the grape industry in Australia is currently subject to an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry, such is its dilemma. The brandy industry in Australia is almost non-existent, thanks to the Whitlam Government's decision to remove a provision provided under section 31A of the Act. The grape industry is currently undergoing reconstruction to enable it to adjust after the disastrous way it has been treated by the Hawke Government, the Whitlam Government and, I confess, from time to time by the Fraser Government. Mr Robert Brown —Deplorably by the Fraser Government, deplorably! Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Hunter has refused to acknowledge it, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), has said that there are good reasons for an equitable tax treatment for alcoholic beverages. The Opposition does not retract from that. The honourable member for Hunter has conveniently hoped that we would retract; we do not. What we declare is not that what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said is wrong, but that now is not the time. In fact, it is difficult to envisage a worse time. The Opposition amendment currently before the House, the amendment to which I address myself, simply asks the Government to look again at the timing of his tax. Thanks to what successive governments have done, thanks to the removal of the 31A provision, we no longer have a brandy industry in Australia. It was the brandy industry that provided the wine grape industry with a safety valve. Were there excessive dual purpose grapes that could not find their way into the dried fruit industry or the wine industry, those grapes could be moved into the brandy industry. There is no longer a brandy industry. Those dual purpose grapes are seeking a home in the dried fruit industry and the wine grape industry. The dried fruit industry door has been shut by export pressure, because the dried fruit industry is principally an export industry. Now the Hawke Labor Government is about to close again the wine grape industry door, having jammed it shut with the 2J spirit excise and prised it open again, it is callously about to slam it shut again. The honourable member for Hunter said that the 2J spirit excise was not all that well advised, but that the Government is going to refund the money. Frankly, big deal! The money will be refunded, but it will not be refunded with interest attached. It will be refunded, but it was collected inequitably. What is being refunded is a mere $6m. What is being collected from the 10 per cent wine tax from an industry already on its knees is estimated to be somewhere between $62m and $67m. If there is one area to which I want to address the attention of the House tonight and one area that justifies our claim that this amendment ought to be passed and that the 10 per cent tax ought to be reconsidered, it is the area of imports of wine into Australia. When I addressed the House in the grievance debate last week, I said that the import area was a matter for major alarm. It is a matter for alarm because while 12 months ago something like 730,000 litres of wine were imported into Australia, in the last 12 months that figure has escalated to 1.3 million litres. This wine is coming into Australia as subsidised wine. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document that was provided by the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association that illustrates the changes for imported wine as a result of the Government's 10 per cent tax. Leave granted. The table read as follows- An example illustrating the changes for imported wine is shown below: IMPORTED CHAMPAGNE Average unit value (1983/84) $8.51 per litre Before After Budget Budget $ $ Customs value (C.V.) 8.51 8.51 Customs duty .48 .48 . . .94 (11% of CV) 8.99 9.93 Add 20% as specified in Section 4 (1) of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) 1.80 1.99 Value for sales tax purposes (VFST) 10.79 11.92 Add sales tax 2.16 1.92 (20% of VFST) (10% of VFST) Wholesale value 12.95 13.01 AUSTRALIAN CHAMPAGNE Suppose a wholesale value (equivalent to value for sales tax purposes) of $10.79 per litre Price 10.79 10.79 +10% (=$11.87) Mr ANDREW —The table shows that as a result of the changes to Customs duty and sales tax on imported wine in the documents that we are considering tonight, far from the Australian industry being protected, in reality imported wines go up a mere 6c a litre while Australian local wines go up by 10 per cent. In fact, it shows that the price of the imported product is virtually not changed, while the Australian wine has increased in price by 10 per cent. Therefore, Australian wine is disadvantaged relative to imported wine. The Bills before the House tonight are nothing more than documents to promote imported wine. They are nothing more than documents designed to burden already overburdened grape growers. They are an attack on a proud Australian industry which has always been competitive and which is, in fact, a major employer. They are an attack on an industry which has long been exposed to, and has encouraged within itself, competition, but which now faces imported subsidised competition which it cannot live with. There can be no comparison between the unprotected Australian grape growers and the threat of this legislation and the sort of protection that we give, for example, to the steel workers of Australia. This Bill is a result of no consultation, no consensus. Even the Labor Premier of South Australia, Premier John Bannon, had but 20 minutes notice, he said, of what was happening in this House. He has been as critical as any member of the Opposition of the moves of the Government with these Bills. In fact, in an effort to be as accommodating as I could be of the Treasurer, and fearing that he was receiving advice from the wrong quarters, as early as June 1983 I wrote to him warning him of the consequences of taxing the wine. Clearly, that letter bore no fruit at all. What we are witnessing tonight has been tried in fact three times before-in 1942, 1970 and 1983. It is now to be tried again in 1984. On every occasion, so disastrous has a wine tax proven, it has had to be repealed. Tonight the Opposition stands before the House with an entirely unambiguous stance. The honourable member for Hunter has conveniently and, I add, dishonestly said that the Opposition is not prepared to state its case. It is prepared to state its case. It is that, following the next election, we will repeal the legislation currently before the House. Mr Robert Brown —Have you had approval from the shadow Treasurer to say that? Mr ANDREW —For the benefit of the honourable member for Hunter I will repeat the statement that the Opposition stands ready to repeal this legislation, if elected at the next election. We seek tonight to carry an amendment so that, in fact, the grape growers of Australia will be spared the thrust of this Bill prior to their being done irreparable damage. We are seeking to carry an amendment so that the legislation before the House no longer attacks the frail and burdens the disadvantaged. This amendment allows the Government not to proceed with the 10 per cent tax; to look again at the threat of imports to the wine grape industry; to look again at providing the wine grape industry with some form of protection in the form of stock valuation adjustment; and to look again at consulting with the industry as to how it might best be asked to bear what is seen to be its share of the tax burden. My colleagues all support this amendment. The Liberal members from South Australia are united in their support of the amendment. It is interesting to note that in 1978 the tables in this House were turned when foolishly we were proposing a similar sort of exercise. On that occasion there were members of the Liberal Party Government who were courageous enough to cross the floor and vote in support of the grape growers. The challenge tonight to the Labor Party is this: Will the honourable member for Hunter and will the South Australian members of this House be prepared to show similar intestinal fortitude and cross the floor in the interests of the grape growers of Australia? Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.11) —It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) tonight. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has already made clear in the House earlier in the debate, these are the first of the Budget Bills to come before the House. As he took a considerable time to make some comments about the Budget in general, I feel that I must reply briefly-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I was very pleased to see that each of the previous speakers did return to these Bills towards the end of his speech. Mr BRUMBY —I have a great deal of information to make available on the Bills, but I particularly wish to make some points on the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the Budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition provided , in an indirect way, a warning to our Government that when framing our next Budget we should be careful about the degree to which we let Budget deficits in total work ahead for the 1985-86 Budget. He suggested that we had used an opportunity to reduce further Budget deficit. I have been pleased to hear, both in his speech and in a number of other speeches from members of the Opposition, an acknowledgement that if there are any difficulties in the context of framing the 1985-86 Budget they will be difficulties that face this Government and not the Opposition. We are pleased to stand on our record in terms of budgetary and fiscal management. Since March 1983 we have produced two Budgets which have been well received by the Australian economy and the people- Mr Tuckey —They have been Budgets with the highest deficit in Australia's history. Mr BRUMBY —They have not been Budgets with the highest deficit in Australian history, as the honourable member for O'Connor has suggested. In fact, as I will indicate in a moment we have done a remarkable job in very difficult circumstances in bringing that deficit down. We are prepared to stand on our record. The Budget is the major economic tool of any government for creating economic management, economic decision making, employment growth, business profits and so on. In that sense it is important-it is imperative in a way-to look at what we have managed to achieve in the space of just two Budgets, compared with what the Opposition achieved in the space of seven or eight years of government and an equivalent number of Budgets. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will recall very well the situation when we came to government, prior to framing our 1983-84 Budget. In 1982-83 real gross product had fallen by 2 per cent. Real manufacturing output had fallen by 11 per cent. Private investment in dwelling construction had declined by almost 25 per cent in the year in question. Also by the end of 1982-83 that private business investment was some 30 per cent lower than its pre-recession peak level and it was still falling. Of course, we all know that the labour market had deteriorated sharply. There had been a fall in employment of almost 2 per cent. Aggregate hours worked were falling rapidly and unemployment increased by some 250,000 people to more than 720,000. That was the situation when we took government. In our 1983-84 Budget we provided the framework for sustained economic growth. The effect of that Budget has been in every way to generate economic growth throughout our economy. We have seen employment rise by some 250,000 jobs; we have seen interest rates fall by more than two percentage points; we have seen a consistency of wages and prices across the board through the very successful incomes and prices accord; we have also seen a significant fall in Australia's rate of inflation. That is the situation in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests to us that we should be looking with caution to future Budgets. If we look at total tax revenues and the claim that has been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we find that total tax revenues in the 1984-85 Budget are estimated to increase by some 17.9 per cent. That is a significant increase. It largely reflects strong economic growth and it also indicates the full year effects of the Medicare arrangements and the prescribed payment system. Although that is a strong growth in tax revenues, we should note that the gross pay as you earn income tax collections will grow by a much more modest 10.7 per cent over the year and that both gross and net pay as you earn taxes after refunds will represent a smaller proportion of gross domestic product in 1984-85 than in either 1981-82 or 1982-83, the last two years of the former Government. We must put the claims of the Opposition in terms of this Budget deficit in that context . I will repeat it-gross and net pay as you earn income taxes will represent a smaller proportion of GDP in 1984-85 than in either 1981-82 or 1982-83, the last two years of the Fraser Government. I make one final point on that matter. If we look at the total Budget situation and we exclude the Medicare arrangements, total Commonwealth tax revenues in 1984-85 are estimated to be equivalent to 24.7 per cent of GDP compared with 25 per cent under the previous Government. So there is no substance to the claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in terms of this Budget deficit. We have acted responsibly in reducing that deficit to a level of below $7 billion. We managed to reduce the previous Budget deficit from a projected $9.6 billion-a figure which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition readily affirms-and slice some $2 billion off that amount. We have managed again in a fiscally responsible way to reduce the Budget deficit for 1984-85. The three Bills before the House are concerned basically with the taxation of wine. Within my electorate of Bendigo there are a large number of very high quality wineries. Within the Bendigo area itself there are such noted wineries as Balgownie and Chateau Leamon, and further north we have wineries such as Passing Clouds. It is called Passing Clouds because the clouds just keep passing over and it never rains. As a result it produces a delightful wine which has won many awards. The area that is proposed to be included in the new seat of Bendigo includes the Pyrenees wine making area of Victoria with such noted wineries as Taltarni, Mount Avoca and Chateau Remy; and the Stawell wine making area which includes the wineries of Bests, Boroka, Seppelts and Great Western. They all produce quality wine. All of those wineries have made a major contribution to tourism and to infrastructure development and economic growth in the area. As a consumer of those wines I can only say that I am exceptionally proud of their development over the last decade. Honourable members might be interested to know until 1906 Bendigo was Australia's premier wine producing area. At that time the grapes were destroyed by phylloxera and it has really been only in the last decade or two that we have seen a resurgence of wine growing in that area. As I say, I am proud of our wineries. They make a great contribution to the region and to the tourism structure of the area. I now come to the question of a tax. Like my good colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), of course I am disappointed that the Government found it necessary in this Budget to introduce a wine tax. Mr Andrew —So are we. Mr BRUMBY —I note that the Opposition is also disappointed. I am pleased that there is some disappointment about this tax. The point does have to be made that whenever any tax is introduced, no one in the Government and I dare say no one in the Opposition likes seeing that tax introduced. But there are several reasons why this wine tax had to be introduced. The first is that it was inevitable that a wine tax would be introduced throughout Australia. Over recent years successive State governments have filled the vacuum created by there being no Federal tax. South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria acted last year to put a tax on wine because the Federal Government had not acted. Of course it is much better, if there is to be taxation, for it to be handled at a national level by the Federal Government. Mr Robert Brown —That is a very good point. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Hunter says that is a good point. In recent years we have seen a wider range of taxes taken up by the States but in many cases it is preferable that those taxes be levied by the Commonwealth because that removes some of the distortions that can sometimes occur between the States with varying levels of taxes. So it was inevitable, and I am sure members of the Opposition acknowledge that. In fact, the Opposition's only amendment to this legislation concerns the timing of the tax. The fact that its only amendment relates to timing suggests that there is an inevitability about such a tax. The other main reason a wine tax was introduced is that there are very strong arguments on the basis of equity. It has been mentioned previously in debate that if one compares the rate of tax that previously fell on wine compared with that which applies to other alcoholic beverages, it is fair to say that wine was virtually excluded from excise and taxation arrangements. It alone was excluded. I compare wine to beer, which is very heavily taxed. If we applied the rate of tax on beer to wine, we would have an 80 per cent tax on a bottle of wine and probably a 155 per cent tax on bulk or cask wine. They are very hefty levels of tax and certainly no one on this side of the House advocates them but there are fairly strong arguments on the grounds of equity for saying there was some inevitability about the introduction of a wine tax. There is also the argument concerning equity that over recent years it has been possible, because of the distorting aspects of those taxes, to buy in many cases good quality wine at a cheaper price per part alcohol per bottle than beer. I refer particularly to much of the champagne that has come on to the Australian market in the last year or so. It is Australian champagne but in terms of a price per product, in terms of its alcohol content, it is coming on to the market at a lower price than beer. We all have to think seriously about whether that is desirable in terms of equity and overall resource allocation. Consumers frequently put to me other comparisons concerning a wine tax. For instance, those who do not drink wine ask why wine should be free when beer is so heavily taxed, and why mineral and soda water is taxed at 20 per cent when there is no tax on wine. Finally, it has to be said that the effect of heavy taxes on beer has had some effect on its consumption. Since 1976 beer consumption has fallen in real terms by 10 per cent, yet wine consumption has increased at a per capita rate, in real terms per annum, of about 7 per cent, giving an overall percentage increase of some 46 per cent since 1976-77. So wine has certainly done well. I encourage and support that development and believe, as I said, that it has made a great contribution particularly in my area to tourism and local economic development. In regard to the question of timing, raised in the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) was honest enough to say that there is always debate as to when is the right time or the wrong time to introduce a new tax. Of course there never is a right time. There can never be any right time to introduce a new tax on any industry and if a government is going to do it, if a government is going to decide to make that decision, it has to do it. We have made that decision and stick by it. I want to refer also to what I consider to be the somewhat cynical approach to this debate taken by some members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Wakefield stated categorically that the Opposition would repeal the wine tax. I can only be guided, as my good colleague the honourable member for Hunter is guided, by the remarks of the shadow Treasurer and former Treasurer of this country, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong. When asked by an Adelaide News journalist at the National Press Club on 29 August, the honourable member for Bennelong said: I would have to agree with you that there are good arguments for equal tax treatment of all alcoholic beverages. If we come down to being honest, he is saying that there are good arguments for equal tax treatment for all alcoholic beverages. He could implement such treatment only if honourable members opposite ever get back into government, and I do not think they will for many years. Let us examine his statement. The main tax is levied on beer. I have already said that the rate of taxation which applies to beer, which is consumed by many Australians, is 80 per cent. The tax we have introduced is 10 per cent. Mr Robert Brown —Does the honourable member for Bennelong want 80 per cent on wine? Mr BRUMBY —I am asked by the honourable member for Hunter whether the honourable member for Bennelong wants an 80 per cent tax on wine. I do not know what rate of tax he would like to put on wine but he said that there are good arguments for equal tax treatment. If we put an 80 per cent tax on a $5 retail bottle of wine, its price would be jacked up to $9. I would then agree that that would devastate the industry. Of course it would. If we put a 155 per cent tax on cask wine, we would destroy that part of the industry too. But let us look at the effect of this 10 per cent tax. What will it actually mean in terms of price? If we assume a 40 per cent mark-up on retail, a bottle that retails at the moment for $4-by most people's standards that would be a reasonable bottle of wine-would have a wholesale price of $2.40 and if we add a 10 per cent tax, which is equivalent to about 14 per cent on retail because it will be marked up, the net effect of the tax is to lift the price of that bottle from $4 to $4.56. That is the total effect. That is quite different from an 80 per cent tax which would lift it from $4 to nearly $8. We have to get up to the top end of the market and a retail price of $7 or $8 a bottle before the tax would add a dollar to the price. Of course the effect on consumption is important. I acknowledge the concerns expressed about the effects that any tax might have on any industry and I acknowledge the concerns about the effects this tax will have on the wine industry. I can assure honourable members that I will be watching the effects of this tax very carefully. But in terms of the effect on demand, there have been a number of studies on the price elasticity of demand for wine. There have been studies by Tsolakis in 1982; by Clements and by Murphy. Tsolakis concluded that the elasticity of wine is -0.43. Clements estimated an elasticity of 0.43 and Murphy estimated an elasticity of -0.31. Based on those results we can assume that the price elasticity for wine is about -0.3 to -0.5. That means that the maximum effect which a 14 per cent increase in price would have on the demand for wine in Australia would be a reduction in consumption of 5 per cent. That is the maximum effect, on all evidence available to the Government. To put that in context, it is very difficult to predict the future of the Australian wine industry. If we assume a continued growth of 7 per cent or 8 per cent in real terms per annum, as I think we should, no producer in Australia will be selling less wine than in the past because of this tax. In the last eight years there has been a growth in real terms of 8 per cent per annum. The worst effect that this tax will have is a reduction in demand of 5 per cent. We will still see an increase in demand for wine in Australia of more than 3 per cent in real terms. So producers will not be devastated. My final point is that wines for export, a growing sector of the Australian market, are totally unaffected by this tax. There will not be a 10 per cent sales tax on any wine produced for export. I think that is terrific for encouraging the development of export markets for Australian wine. I know that with the stronger economic conditions and the strong growth in wine production in Australia over recent years we will see increasing export of our wines in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(9.32) —I do not intend to speak for long because I know that many honourable members want to speak on this Bill, particularly those whose areas depend on regional development. This Bill to impose a 10 per cent tax on wine will affect them very dramatically. I would like to take the House back to 20 February 1983 on which day I remember driving past the Yoogali Club in Griffith. I saw a great crowd gathered at the front. I was about to go into the club for a squash, as I usually do, but thought I had better not do so because it would be too difficult to get in. Then I realised what was going on. This was the famous deputation that the Australian Labor Party had sent to Griffith to make sure that it won the seat of Riverina. The Labor Party had thought that if the seat of Riverina fell it would be in government, so it brought all the big guns down to Griffith to see what they could do about the situation. As I recall , at that meeting were the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), at least two senators and the State Minister for Agriculture. Mr Ian Cameron —He wouldn't help. Mr HICKS —No, he did not help at all. There were also a number of Labor Party dignitaries present. All those people were on the stage and a great crowd gathered in the hall. A speech was given which is now quite infamous. A number of promises were made in that hall on that day. Many of the people as they came out of the meeting said to themselves: 'At last we have a saviour of the primary industries of Australia. Wonderful promises have been made to us. We are right now. We are on the upward trail'. I will just recall one of the promises made then. It was a statement made by the honourable member for Wills, now the Prime Minister. He said: The wine industry is beset with problems. The industry is faced with a need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability if the industry is to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. Labour has pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. That was not just a statement but actually 'a pledge not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine'. Mr Andrew —How long ago? Mr HICKS —This was in 1983. To continue: We will seek co-operation with the States to facilitate the establishment of grower regional councils. The Labor Government will examine the special problems faced by co-operative wineries and supplying growers. The taxation disadvantages suffered by the wine makers with respect to stock holding will be objectively examined on the basis that wine making is a primary production process, not a manufacturing industry. One of the things we have tended to forget tonight when talking about the wine industry is that it is primary production and not a manufacturing industry like beer production. I do not think anyone is really surprised that many of the promises made on that very hot day in Griffith were not kept. I have a book full of promises that were not kept. I will not go into all of these promises because there are so many of them that my 10 minutes would be up before I got through them, so I will leave them. My advice to members of the present Government is that, if they want to make a rural policy speech for the next election, they should not for heaven's sake go to Griffith or into the Riverina because I am sure that they would get a warm welcome which would not be the type of welcome they would expect. In August 1983, not long after that promise was made, the excise on fortified spirit was brought in. It was $2.50 a litre, which was really $2.61 because it was indexed almost straightaway. It was only because of the great number of representations by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), myself and other Opposition members that that excise was nearly halved. It went down to $1.50 a litre. Of course, that was only a token gesture. I think the Government then realised the terrible mistake it had made. It had drawn one of these schemes out of a back cupboard but it did not go into it to see what effect it would have on the industry. I know that in the Riverina in particular, in South Australia, as the honourable member for Wakefield will agree, and in Victoria, as the honourable member for Indi and the honourable member for Mallee will agree, the Government almost destroyed the fortified wine industry. Fortunately just as it was about on its knees the Government decided to relent and did away with the iniquitous excise. Mr Millar —Divine intervention. Mr HICKS —It could have been. It certainly was not because of any thinking on behalf of the Government. The Government realised the mistake and said: 'We will not have this excise. We will take it off'. Some of the people involved said: ' Gee, this Government is great. It has done a great job for us. It put an excise on. Now it has taken it off and it looks as though the Prime Minister at last will keep his pre-election promise. Everything will be rosy in the garden'. Of course, a number of the wine makers making fortified wines decided that they were not going to make fortified wines. They would fix the Government; they just would not make it. But some of those trying to employ people and to keep the wine industry going decided they would make it. After a great deal of representation by the honourable members I mentioned previously, fortunately it was decided that this excise would be refunded to those wineries on which this impost had been put. I know that as of last week certainly a number of those wineries still had not seen the colour of the money. I hope that there is 20 per cent interest on that money, as is imposed on those who do not pay their back taxes. I am looking forward to that. The wine industry certainly had a little breathing space then. Those in the industry thought: 'We are right now'. Of course, then the Budget came down. What did we find in the Budget? When I first saw the Budget I thought: 'Hello, the Labor Party has done it again'. We remember that some years ago Mr Whitlam dropped section 31A. When I first became a member of the Parliament in 1980 the wineries still had not paid back the moneys owing because of the impost by the Government of that day. I just cannot work out what the Labor Party has against the wine industry. Mr Ian Cameron —Labor doesn't like farmers. Mr HICKS —I am sure of that. It is quite evident that Labor does not like farmers, the man on the land or small business of any type. Mr McGauran —They don't like the family. Mr HICKS —That is right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Order! Mr HICKS —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very difficult. I would like to tell the House a true story. I was in a place called Buronga, which is on the other side of the river from the electorate of the honourable member for Mallee. I went to speak to a market gardener there. He was working and I went to say hello. He was very upset. He was a gentleman of Italian origin, and we all know what good farmers those people are and how close they are to the land. He almost had tears in his eyes and he said: 'I had a bit of an argument with my son this morning. I was working in the glasshouse and around the farm and my son came to me and said : ''I hope you are not working like that for me from daylight to dark getting the return you are getting. If you are you can forget about it because there is no way I am going to work like you and get the return that you are getting. I would rather be one of those 1,500 people that Mr Hawke is putting on in the Department of Social Security and other departments. The life is a lot easier and you do not have to work as hard''.' This gentleman was very upset, and I think that really is the understanding of many people on the land. Let me mention some of the costs that are being imposed on the people on the land; there are so many that they will soon not be able to survive. The 10 per cent tax on wine is just one small indication of what the Government thinks of the people on the land. There is also a 15 per cent tariff on headers. We also have the deal that the Government did with the liquefied petroleum gas. Mr Hunt —What a shocker that was. Mr HICKS —It was a shocker; it was quick footwork and the Government dropped the $80 a tonne subsidy on LPG and then gave a little bit back. Everyone thought that was wonderful but the man on the land and in the country lost on that. There are excises on fuels, loss of markets through lack of government action overseas, strikes, increased prices and increased labour costs. Let me say that when there is a strike it is a looloo, and it is costing wheat growers and the people on the land. It is not only the primary producers but also the people in the provincial towns and cities who are having to pay for all of this. It is not good enough, and it is about time something was done about it. We are hearing so much about the prices and incomes accord, and I think it comes into the area of the 10 per cent sales tax also. The accord seems to me to be okay for big unions , big business and big government and, of course, it helps those governments who are big spenders. I come back to the wine tax. A lot of people here are saying tonight that the imposition of a wine tax was bad timing. I am one of those people who are totally opposed to the wine tax. I know that the brewing industry has mounted a campaign in trying to have a tax imposed on the wine industry, and I can understand the beer industry's problem because it is taxed to a very high degree and I think it is about time that stopped. This Parliament seems to be talking all the time about adding taxes on. I think it is about time we started taking taxes off and stopped the big spending. If we would do that I think the nation would be far better off. I could not agree more with what a number of honourable members are saying here tonight: The timing is bad. We have troubles not only in the wine industry but also in the dried fruit industry. The honourable member for Wakefield, the honourable member for Mallee and myself were at a conference the other day when the troubles of the dried fruit industry were shown to be very great indeed. There is an overproduction there which could go into the wine industry. I have here a letter from the Australian Dried Fruits Association addressed to Mr Keating, the Treasurer. I must admit that I am deleting reference to grape spirit tax and inserting a reference to a tax on wine. The letter states: Dear Sir, The imposition of- a tax on wine- will place a financial burden on all grape growers, and particularly on the producers of Dried Vine Fruits. The nature of the dried fruits industry, with its guarantee of equal returns on all fruit varieties delivered, means that the industry will be the ultimate recipient of most grapes diverted from the production of . . . wines. The Dried Vine Fruits industry is already experiencing a severe recession. I know that the Treasurer in his Budget Speech said that a committee would investigate the problems within the wine industry. I wonder whether he is still talking about the committee that was promised during the election campaign and which was mentioned during a speech in Griffith. If it is, it is a long time coming. We keep getting these promises. Mr McGauran —It is too late; the tax is on. Mr HICKS —That is right. We have so many problems in the industry that I really think it is about time something was done. One thing that really surprises me is how Government members who are from the wine grape growing areas can stand up and support these Bills. That is the most surprising thing I have ever seen. Even Mr Bannon, the Premier of South Australia, had this to say under the heading 'Bannon astounded': 'I am astounded that the Federal Government could have made this decision given the arguments that have been put before it over the past 12 months in relation to this industry,' . . . Mr Hunt —Is he a Labor Premier? Mr HICKS —He is Labor to the bootstraps. The article continued: During the debate in the House Mr Bannon said he had not been told there would be a tax until 20 minutes before the formal Budget announcement. He said he had complained 'very vigorously' in discussions with Mr Hawke yesterday morning. It was hard to estimate in precise terms the immediate effect of the tax. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics had predicted a 4 per cent drop in sales in the short-term and 'over time' 13.5 per cent. Here is the crunch, Mr Deputy Speaker: 'If that happens then that would cause very severe problems indeed,' he said. The Department of State Development in the past had suggested that 300 jobs could be lost in the short-term and 1300 in the long-term. I would say that that position would also be reflected in the Riverina. Mr Ian Cameron —And the Maranoa. Mr HICKS —And Maranoa, as the honourable member for Maranoa says. Finally, I quote what the President of the Wine and Brandy Producers' Association, Sir Don McWilliam, told the Bulletin. He said that many problems facing the grape growing and wine industries could be resolved if they were 'left alone' for five years and the setting of minimum prices for grapes in South Australia was ended. I stress that. It is time that many industries were left alone. With high taxes and imposts from the Government in particular, the prices that the producers have to pay for their fertilisers, sprays, water, rates and everything is cruelling primary industry, and the wine industry is no exception. It is time they were left alone. I am sure that if the wine industry had been left alone, if the committee had been set up when the Government said it would be, it would not have the problems it has today. I totally oppose this 10 per cent tax. I go along with the amendment and I would like it to be on record that I oppose any tax on wine. I do not agree that the Government can say that because there is a tax on other alcoholic beverages wine has to be taxed. It is like saying: 'If I cut my arm off, you cut yours off too'. That is no reason at all. I would just like my feelings to be known. I totally support the amendment and I am sure that all members of the Opposition also support it. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(9.48) —When I put my name forward to debate these relatively minor Bills, the Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), I intended to speak about the inequity in the excise system, about the sales tax avoidance issue in terms of sales tax for exporting and reimporting, and particularly to make some comments about the reduction in the excise on low alcohol beer. Then I saw the list and discovered there were eight speakers from the Opposition, so I went through the Bills again thinking: 'Gosh, eight speakers. They will be finding some things that I must not know about'. I could not find what they were looking for so I thought I had better sit in and listen. I thought I must not miss a single word because obviously there will be a lot of gems of wisdom about things that are not apparent. I have now sat through three speeches and I ask honourable members to consider what has been said. The previous Treasurer spent 25 of his 30 minutes talking about the Budget in general, and he was the lead speaker. I thought that if the issue warranted eight speakers the Opposition would make its lead speaker talk about the issue and the secondary speakers could go off on tangents. We have not yet had a reasoned argument about the legislation. There has been no mention of the tax avoidance issue or of the reduction in low alcohol excise. All we have had has been a lot of ranting and raving. In fact the last speech was, without doubt, a campaign opening for the seat of Farrer, not the seat of Riverina. Clearly it was aimed at Farrer. At the campaign speech for the seat of Riverina in February of last year another promise was made, the promise of a million dollar loan to the Leeton cannery, which the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) handed over. He did not mention that promise tonight. That million dollars was handed over by him as promised by Mr Hawke in that campaign speech in February 1983. There was not one mention of that promise being kept, and being kept promptly and properly. Mr Deputy Speaker, what we have had is rather unfortunate. I would have thought that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, would show us the areas in which he has credibility, such as immigration. Mind you, he was four months too late, but still the credibility was there. But for him to start speaking about promises, projections, Budget deficits and the like just does not wash with the Australian community. Very clearly his record over five years as Treasurer has sunk in very profoundly. The man lacks credibility. He lacks capacity and standing in the Australian community on economic matters. His record is such that it is not to be respected or believed. In fact, in the last few days of the election campaign in 1983 when word was about that the $6 billion projected deficit was shonkey, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was publicly forced to back down and say: 'Mind you, we assume that they have told us the truth'. He has since proven that that was a false assumption. In effect that whole campaign was based on a set of deceitful and false assumptions and premises put forward by the government of the day. Those who had access to information misled not only the public but also the then Opposition. In fact, as I said, it was not with any great relish that the then Opposition had to give a warning in the last few days of that campaign which was based on what was happening. Mr Ian Cameron —What has this to do with the wine tax? Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I am speaking about a 25-minute speech on this legislation-25 minutes of rhetoric from a discredited ex-Treasurer. It is obvious why he is the ex-Treasurer. The fascinating part of the 25-minute speech was this final comment: 'Well, we are not really opposed to the idea or the concept-it is only the timing'. It is quite clear that the Opposition cannot oppose these amendments in principle because they are sound amendments. All that it can put forward as a campaign topic is timing. Of course, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) made the fascinating comment: 'We all agree that with taxation any timing is bad; however, this is worse than most'. That is a fascinating piece of mental arithmetic. The mental gymnastics involved are quite fascinating. That particular gentleman suggests that he is the one who knows when is best or when is worst. I find that quite interesting because the shadow Treasurer in his comments a few weeks ago did not mention timing. He mentioned only the equity as being a reasonable thing to put forward. Suddenly, timing is important. Of course, the irony is that no member of parliament would oppose the proposition that taxation increases of any kind are always difficult. One of the problems of this country has been the shirking of responsibility by those who have occupied the treasury benches for 31 of the last 35 years. As a result we have perhaps one of the most secular and most discriminatory revenue raising systems in the world because they always avoided the difficult issues. I think we are seeing tonight just how and where this has happened. I thought that my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) put forward some very interesting and sound arguments. They were arguments that in fact I would have expected the Opposition to put forward if the data were different. Clearly the data is such as to white-ant its capacity to put forward any constructive argument. The fact is that no facts can be put forward which substantially demolish this legislation. The timing is the only argument that the Opposition can put forward. I think we will hear more about timing in the months ahead when the Opposition tries to avoid its responsibility and tries to duck-shove around what it would do based on the record of what it has not done in the past. I also find fascinating the suggestion by the honourable member for Riverina-I should call him the new honourable member for Farrer-that as a result of his Party's representations the fortified wine tax was halved. In other words, on the one hand the Opposition is helpless and powerless against this dreadful Government and, on the other hand, the tax was halved last year because the Opposition is so effective. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It is either ineffective or powerless or it is effective. If the Opposition were effective this tax would not have to be imposed because it would have found grounds as to why it should not be imposed. Let us get to the real issue of the fear the Opposition is creating with regard to the import of wines. The import of wine is a serious matter, as is the import penetration of any Australian market. The fact is that the import problem will not be solved by not applying sales taxes or varying sales taxes. If imported wine is being subsidised by other governments appropriate action is available. Not one speaker tonight has raised the question of actions available to deal with dumped goods in Australia. If wine is being dumped, why has not one of the three Opposition speakers who have taken part in this debate suggested that positive courses are available? In fact, quite separate machinery is available to deal with tariff-import penetration. One does not use sales tax in competition with imports if the imports are being unfairly brought into the country or unfairly costed. There is machinery under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to address that. Why has not that matter been raised? Why has it not been mobilised? All the ranting and raving on the other side is in fact just that. Honourable members opposite have not addressed the question of import penetration. If this is a serious matter-and I suspect it is-let us address it in a positive and constructive way and not use it as some half-baked excuse as to why the wine industry should not in fact be dealt with equitably within the alcoholic beverages industry. Speaking of equity, I notice in recent days the fascinating paradox that the excise increase in the last Budget of about 2.5c on a schooner of beer caused quite a massive outcry in the brewing industry and in the hotel industry in particular. In fact, I notice last week a suggestion that the 3c a schooner decrease in the excise on low alcohol or light beer is in fact too small to pass on. In other words, it is not substantial enough to pass on to the consumer whereas the increase last year, which was slightly less, was in fact the cause of major concern and created a major outcry. I am most disappointed that the hotel industry has not seen fit to convey back to the consumer one of the benefits of the recent Budget, which is a positive incentive to try to reduce the alcohol content in liquor that is being consumed. We on this side of the House of course must express disappointment because any taxation revenue raising will not be easy for any government but that is no reason why we should run away from the issue. The amendments put forward in this legislation are in fact serious ones because they seek to remove anomalies in tax avoidance then produce an incentive for people to consume lower alcohol beer . They bring into the taxation area wine consumption, which is important. The Opposition has trumpeted its support for a consumption tax for a long time. This is a consumption tax. In that sense this tax is very equitable when compared with other taxation. When we bring a consumption tax forward the Opposition suddenly says: 'Hey, you should not-it is the wrong time'. Yet, we heard a 25- minute speech on how this Budget will increase the structural deficit and cause massive problems in the next Budget. But at the same time the Opposition opposes the introduction of an equitable consumption tax that in fact contributes to revenue. I find the contradictions most apparent and I do not doubt that the Australian public will find them equally apparent. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.58) —I was interested in the parallel that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) drew in relation to the question of the tax on wine and the desirability of it not being on the basis that the tax was desirable but simply because it was a new tax it was not a matter that the Government itself should run away from. Taking his analogy to its logical conclusion, one would equally expect him to be standing up in this place arguing in favour of a capital gains tax about which we hear from time to time, simply because it is a new tax and something that the Government should not be running away from. I suspect that because a capital gains tax is likely to affect far more people and is not a sectional tax in the way in which the wine tax is which is likely to impact in specific electorates, it will not be a course to which the honourable member will address himself at least before an election. Some comments were made by Government members who preceded me about the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). They have suggested that it was perhaps somewhat unusual that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition addressed himself to the wider budgetary references in his address tonight. I would simply say that if one looks at the Government's timetable for consideration of legislation one would appreciate why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have addressed himself to the wider budgetary implications of this legislation and other aspects of the Government's Budget because, quite frankly, considerable hours were to be allocated this week for discussion of the Appropriation Bills. It will be appreciated by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other honourable members that under the new program that has been submitted to us Budget Bills and other Bills are being brought in and the discussion of appropriation generally is not proceeding. The obvious implication from that is that the Government is desirous of getting its legislation through and is not providing for proper discussion of the Budget itself. The Government is doing this to facilitate its objective of getting to the polls with as little discussion as possible of the Budget and the important issues that are involved in it. I do not apologise and I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not apologise for addressing the wider implications of the Budget in this opportunity to discuss the first Budget Bills that have been introduced by this Government. The legislation at which we are looking relates to what is known as broadly based indirect taxation. We are dealing with a number of sales tax Bills. I wish to address myself to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill. That Bill covers a number of matters. It picks up some particular questions relating to the Government's new tax on wine. The only extent to which I will refer to the wine tax is simply to note that there was a time when the area that I represent claimed some credit in relation to wine growing. I was formerly the member for Parra- matta. We took great pride in the district. Parra - matta was the first place in which wine was grown in Australia. Mr Fisher —The first place for criminals. Mr RUDDOCK —It was the first place in which many things took place. Flight was one matter which was mentioned. There was also the matter of wheat. Many agricultural products were first grown in Parramatta. In my electorate of Dundas there is the very well known and highly regarded James Ruse Agricultural High School which is of great agricultural fame. The character of the electorate has changed over time, with the exception of the James Ruse school. We do not have the same grape growing or wheat growing industries. We have other industries. For that reason I will address myself to the sales tax implications of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act because it does impact upon my electorate and upon particular businesses that operate from my electorate. I hope that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, will take note of the points I intend to make in the short time allotted to me. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give consideration to amending further this Act of Parliament at the first available opportunity. If they do not, no doubt I and my colleagues will give consideration to this question after the election. The matter I raise concerns the plight of some 20 companies in Australia which manufacture souvenirs and stuffed toys with musical movements, particularly the koala. In item 43 of the second schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act we find that musical boxes and other goods incorporating musical movements are covered. Products falling into this category are taxable at the rate of 32.5 per cent. Yet similar items which do not have musical movements are taxed at the rate of 20 per cent. Historically, musical movements have always attracted the highest sales tax category there is. The musical movement component in the manufactured item is only a small part of the production cost of the finished article. Yet because the manufacturer seeks to make his product more attractive to the market he is penalised to the tune of an extra 12.5 per cent. I have been told that seven companies in New South Wales are involved in this industry; two in South Australia; six in Victoria; three in Queensland and two in Western Australia. It is estimated that those companies employ directly some 2,000 people. That is certainly not a major industrial group, but nevertheless it is an important industry. In view of the emphasis that has been placed on the growth in tourism and ancillary services the manufacture of these items is an increasingly important industry. I hope that honourable members will take note of the state of this industry which estimates that its work force has probably halved over the last five years or so. The information I have is that this has occurred as a result of the way in which the industry has been discriminated against, as a result of the differential arrangement in the way in which the sales tax is levied on the koala, depending upon whether it has a musical component incorporated in it. The industry would like to see items manufactured here, with or without musical components, attracting the same rate of tax. At a time of heightened national spirit, when all Australians are looking towards our bicentenary celebrations in 1988, surely it behoves the Government to look closely at this matter. Manufacturers are able to show that koalas which include a musical movement-I have some here which I will show honourable members-which play tunes such as Waltzing Matilda are definitely of more appeal to both local and overseas tourists than those without a musical movement. However, the additional cost resulting from the 12.5 per cent sales tax on the musical component puts them well behind in sales competitiveness. That is the reason their sales have dropped. There has been a reduction in the number of people involved in the manufacture of these novelties. Musical movements such as I have described are not manufactured in Australia. There is limited scope for the establishment of such production. Many of the koalas and similar items are hand made. Manufacturers estimate that between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of their costs are labour charges. Government action to alleviate the problem I have raised would certainly assist the manufacturers in stabilising employment prospects and security within the industry and should, therefore, appeal to a government which purports to be concerned about increasing unemployment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have with me a musical movement. Perhaps like the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) you can see that it is only a fairly small item. I am sorry that it is playing. I had not wound it deliberately. That item is covered. It can be incorporated fairly easily in a bear. As honourable members can see, the koala with the red ribbon is the one that has not had the component incorporated in it. The koala with the blue ribbon has had the musical component incorporated in it. The people who have the opportunity of making a choice would, I think, take the one that has a musical component in it if it could be incorporated for a lower price. I understand that the component costs about $1.36. If the manufacturer chooses to use that item in his production he increases the price of his koala. The koala with the blue ribbon would have a price of something of the order of $9 over the price of the koala with the red ribbon which does not have a musical component incorporated in it. In 1983 a size 8 koala without a musical component retailed at $22 while a koala with a musical component carrying the extra 12.5 per cent sales tax was priced at $29. For visitors to Australia who are on a budget the difference of $7 is considerable. Certainly it is enough to sway them to the cheaper product despite the fact that they would perhaps prefer the model with the musical component incorporated in it. I hope that the Government will review the differential pricing of these products. I hope that the sales tax can be levied at the same rate and not at a higher rate simply because one item has a musical component included in it. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.09) —It has been an interesting debate tonight. I had the impression that most of the time would have been spent discussing the merits of the specific pieces of legislation. If not that, I would have thought there would have been a discussion in general terms about the desirability or otherwise of an extension to the indirect tax base. That would have seemed to be the logical way for the debate to proceed given the current consideration of the whole issue of broadly based consumption taxes and so on. But we seem to have had a range of peculiar digressions, the last one being the most bizarre of all, when we had a discussion of soft toys with musical movements, which I thought might have been part of the Opposition's internal deliberations to find a new leader after the next election. The broad issues associated with the imposition of the new tax and its impact on the wine industry have been addressed. There has been some discussion about the effects that the introduction of this tax will have on the consumption and sale of wines. Again, I find it extraordinary that members of the Opposition, the overwhelming majority of whom would presumably want to put people in prison for consuming marihuana, are being so terribly upset about the introduction of a tax or an impost which they fear will bring about a reduction in the consumption of a product which, accordingly to all available medical evidence, is demonstrably more harmful to people's health than marihuana. It is an amazing and an astonishing double standard and one which will never cease to amaze me. In speaking on this legislation, I am in the fortunate position of not actually representing a wine producing electorate. Mr Robert Brown —Good consumers. Mr BALDWIN —By the same token, as the honourable member for Hunter points out, Balmain, which is part of my electorate, is renowned for its activity at the consumption end of the industry. Unless we have a debate about whether the tax falls primarily on the producers or the consumers, which is an interesting point to pursue, arguably I do not have quite the same need to defend the wine industry and its current production levels as do, apparently, those honourable members who represent wine producing electorates. Mr Ruddock —I thought the Gucci marxists might be concerned about the price. Mr BALDWIN —That is what I was saying; not that there are any of them in the Australian Labor Party in the Sydney electorate. This legislation is not a major part of the Government's budgetary processes or economic strategy. It represents a marginal extension of the indirect tax base, a new product brought within the ambit of the wholesale sales tax and some rationalisation of the rates at which taxes are levied on different forms of alcoholic beverage. There is a range of other provisions within these pieces of legislation, but I will talk about that in general terms. It is interesting to look at the whole issue of indirect tax. It is one illustration, I guess, of the extension of the indirect tax base where it is unclear what will be the effect on the equity of the overall tax system. The general presumption-and it is a presumption that is embodied in the prices and incomes accord, which is the centrepiece of this Government's economic approach- is that there is a general aversion to the idea of extending the indirect tax base. This matter, as I am sure most honourable members would be aware, was debated at the National Conference of the Party. The fear within the trade union movement is that a broad based consumption tax would reduce the overall equity of the tax system. When this issue is generally discussed it is normally couched in terms of a very broad based overhaul of the tax system that would include the introduction perhaps of a broad based consumption tax, along with some other forms of new taxes which aim to restore a degree of equity in the tax system which was lost by the introduction of a new type of indirect tax. That implies the introduction of taxes on capital gains, wealth or wealth transfers. That is the sort of broad issue that must be considered. It is unclear in this case what would be the effect of the introduction of a wine tax and whether it would impact mainly on those people who consume cask wine or those who consume bottled wine. Obviously, there is a significant differentiation between the sort of people who consume those two types of wine. It is unclear whether in effect one would be taxing a luxury good or a good with a widespread consumption. It is an interesting illustration of the point that extension of the indirect tax base is not necessarily a bad thing in equity terms. I will make some brief remarks about the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to this debate. Again, it was a contribution that seemed to pertain only in the most marginal sense to the actual substantial matters that are before the House. He took the opportunity to launch into a wide -ranging attack on the Government's macro-economic strategy as outlined in the Budget that was brought down two weeks ago. In some ways it was a little difficult to follow his argument. He seemed to talk about a number of different things. On the one hand he focused on the fact that estimates of the growth in real outlays, which are estimated to be 6.1 per cent in 1984-85, outstrip the projected real growth in the gross domestic product. Of course he ignored, as he did the other week in his question to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the fact that the introduction of Medicare is a one-off factor in which there has been the transfer of what was previously a private consumption expenditure to the public sector, which therefore produces a one-off boost in the size of outlays. If one is trying to draw any broad conclusions, that is not really valid. As the Treasurer pointed out at the time, if we take out the introduction of Medicare, the growth in the real outlays figure falls from 6.1 per cent to 3.9 per cent which is roughly in the same range as the growth in GDP, as projected in the Budget Papers. Even without doing that, we are looking at a marginal increase in outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product from 30.5 per cent to 31.1 per cent; in other words, a 0.6 per cent increase, a very marginal increase if we look at the proportions that apply to other comparable advanced countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is not an exceptionally large figure. To draw some broad inference that disaster waits around the corner as a result of such growth is simply ludicrous. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed to hint at a quite separate point- that is, the issue of the deficit. He referred to the one-off boost in receipts arising from the very rapid growth in provisional tax receipts and so on, which is certainly true. That is a one-off factor. But it does not therefore follow that the problems with the Budget deficit will become intractable next year. What needs to be borne in mind is that hopefully the economy will continue to move closer to a full employment position over time. The projections that have been made about growth in output and employment growth suggest that that will happen. If that occurs, we can expect a continued decline in the so-called cyclical component of the Budget deficit. Hopefully, that would mean a reduction in the overall Budget deficit. Even though the very substantial receipts growth that we will see in this financial year might not be repeated in subsequent financial years, it does not necessarily follow that, taking all things into consideration, we will see a blowing out of the Budget deficit which, as I say, is a separate point from the first point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I also make the obvious point that the tax cuts that have been introduced do not entail any movement in the threshold areas in the tax scale. They also involve the introduction of a new 48 per cent band, which, assuming that inflation continues at some level, implies that the normal effects of the fiscal drag of people moving into higher tax brackets would result in the recoupment of some of that tax cut. Possibly, that is not the sort of thing that one should say. Nonetheless, if one is looking at the broad picture down the track, there is no particular reason to suppose that the problems associated with the Budget deficit will become intractable. I will conclude at this point because we have been told to cut back our remarks so that the leg- islation will be passed tonight. I have canvassed some points relating both to the legislation and to some of the arguments and points that were put in the course of the debate. As I said, some of them bore only the most marginal relationship to the specific pieces of legislation that are before the House. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.19) —The Federal Government has said that it is committed to economic growth. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) promised on 20 February 1983, in a desperate bid to win a couple of federal electorates that 'Labor will not introduce a wine tax'. It is difficult to understand how it has allowed itself to be coerced by the brewing lobby, in a desperate attempt to raise money to pay for its high spending programs. This tax is an act of stupidity. In the near future it will be seen to be so. As with the infamous fortified wine tax which had to be removed because it was destroying the industry, so I believe will this tax. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) earlier in the debate expressed concern about this tax and attempted to justify its implementation. I challenge them both to show their real concern for their electorates, to cross the floor and vote against this legislation. They have outstanding large and small boutique winemakers in their areas, but of course they will not cross the floor. They have signed their social manifesto. In the 12 years that I have been in this place I have yet to witness one member of the Australian Labor Party crossing the floor on any issue . Because of this they simply just cannot represent their electorates. Their electorates will be most severely affected by this tax as will the electorates of many members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Bendigo also mentioned an outstanding Australian product, that outstanding champagne, Great Western, but this legislation clearly indicates to me that the socialist Government members on the other side of the House much prefer Bollinger to Great Western. In my view they have certainly developed a preference for the French rather than for the Australian grown wines. Mr Porter —Champagne socialists. Mr FISHER —That is exactly right. I believe this legislation will have the effect of increasing the percentage of imported wines that are consumed in this country, wines which now have a 10 per cent advantage on our local product which they did not have prior to the Budget. Successive Federal governments have recognised the fragility of the entire wine industry for years and have avoided threatening its long term viability through taxation. One previous attempt to impose a similar tax on wine failed and was subsequently repealed. The 10 per cent sales tax will have an adverse effect on the industry at a time when it is faced with overproduction of grapes, intense competition and diminishing returns . The tax will severely reduce wine sales without promoting an increase in beer sales. It will threaten employment in the wine industry and will exacerbate the plight of grape growers. Of course, it will increase dumping of overseas wines especially from the European Economic Community wine lake. This tax will result in a fall in consumption of an estimated 40 million litres of wine per annum, equivalent to the grape growers throughout Australia of some 50,000 tonnes of grapes. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) mentioned that this tax was only marginal. Of course it is only marginal to the 15 million consumers in Australia but it is not marginal for the few thousand grape growers who will have to pay up to $62m a year extra tax because of this measure. The grape growing industry, which the Industries Assistance Commission has identified as being in a disastrous state, will be placed in jeopardy. Average grape production in Australia amounts at present to some 800,000 tonnes of which up to 100,000 tonnes is already surplus production channelled into dried fruit production and presently exported at a massive loss. The only alternative use for these grapes is increased wine production, and this outlet will now be denied the grape growers of Australia. Grape production in Australia is located in a number of decentralised rural communities and the economic hardship caused by the sales tax on wine will be disproportionately borne by these communities. The grape industry is a vital source of employment for some 7,300 people employed in the grape growing sector and for another 5,600 in wine production, with thousands more employed in distribution and retailing. The devastating consequences of any recession in the Australian wine industry will be felt more strongly in South Australia, Victoria , New South Wales and Western Australia. These States have defended a burgeoning industry against the selfish, short-sighted attacks of those who place their own needs above the long term stability of a valuable industry. This new wine tax, as I have said, is expected to cost the industry up to $62m in a full year. I am concerned that there will be a massive loss in production and a short fall in revenue to the Government. This will make the Government realise its stupidity, as it did with the ill-conceived fortified wine tax and it will be forced to reduce this severe impost. The decision to refund tax collected under the fortified wine tax had to be made or double taxation would have been imposed on the wine industry. We have now seen the Hawke Government in its two years in office introduce two taxation measures to the detriment of thousands of small grape growers. One does not have to believe members of the Opposition to see how disastrous the effect will be on the industry. I will quote from a letter that the Premier of South Australia has written to the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating). The letter states: I wish to express the deepest concern about the unexpected decision by the Federal Government to introduce a general sales tax of 10 per cent on wine. This decision will not only be regressive in terms of its effect on the industry but will have a discriminatory impact on South Australia and the regional economy of the Riverland in particular. These arguments have been put before and were reflected in your press statement of 22 June 1984, announcing the removal of the excise on grape spirit. I am astounded that the Federal Government could have made this decision given the arguments that have been put before it over the past twelve months in relation to this industry. Particular aspects of this tax that seem to have not been properly evaluated in making your decision are: 1. The discriminatory impact on this State- the Premier could have said 'on all wine growing areas of Australia'- which is likely to occur because of reduced Australian wine sales and hence grape intake following the 10 per cent sales tax impost. South Australia produces over half of the wine made in Australia and harvests more than half of wine grapes grown. 2. In view of the well-authenticated existence of vast 'wine-lakes' in European Economic Community countries and their heavy subsidisation of wine exports, it is surprising to read at page 21 of your speech: 'This reduction in protection is not expected to result in any significant increase in wine imports.' No one on this side of the House could have better put the effects on the grape growing industry as did the Labor Premier of South Australia. I believe the Government has compounded its stupidity, at the same time as it applied an impost, by announcing that an inquiry would be undertaken into the problems of the grape industry. I would have thought that an inquiry into the problems of the grape industry should have come before imposing the impost. Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude simply by saying-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should note the occupant of the Chair or I might be forced to take some action. Mr FISHER —I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I had not seen the changeover. Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that this Government should immediately introduce anti- dumping action against dried vine fruit, wine and spirit imports from the EEC. It should immediately introduce trading stock valuation adjustments for stocks of alcoholic beverages, particularly where they must be seen as the result of federal legislation, for example, the maturation of brandy. I believe the Government must immediately instigate a conference so that the local alcoholic beverage industry-wine, beer and spirits-can negotiate a rational and equitable tax policy both for domestic production and imports to include consideration of the imposition of State liquor taxes. What the grape growing industry in this country needs is a predictable policy. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that horticultural farm incomes in 1983-84 will fall from $209 to $153 per week. Mr Andrew —How much? Mr FISHER —From $209 per week, which is well below what is estimated to be the poverty level in this country. I believe that these figures indicate that it is hardly the time to further burden grape growers with even more taxation. I represent thousands of small grape growers. I do not necessarily support this impost on the consumer but I do believe the consumer can probably bear it. I am absolutely certain that the grape growers cannot bear it. For that reason I totally oppose the legislation, and we will repeal it when we are in Government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.29) —The Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills and cognate Bills are Budget measures and as such they are about revenue to the Government. The revenue that is to be collected comes from two areas, namely, taxes on wines and sales tax on what I choose to call 'below one per cent beer'. These taxes will return the Government in the vicinity of $68m in a full year, and it will be another case of taxation by stealth because after the initial shock there will be no means whatsoever by which the consumer, the person this Government claims to represent, will have any idea of what this tax means to them. This is because it is a wholesale tax and as such will disappear with the- - Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY —A matter of great interest to me is why the Government wanted to impose this particular attack on the wine industry, principally, at a time when even by its own admission things are very difficult for that industry. Why is it necessary to go chasing after another $60m in wine tax when the Government will already have an increase in revenues from other tax sources of 8.6 thousand million dollars? Why was it necessary to do this irreparable harm to these people? I will not accept the argument of equity. There is no equity in what has been done to the beer industry; neither has there been much benefit. I make it clear that this is an area I know a lot about, having been an owner of hotels for a long time. I will come to that area shortly. I know the effect that price increases of even 10 per cent in a very competitive market today will have on the selling prospects of certain products. I know that that section of the community, the people who could be best described as the occasional drinkers , will reduce their consumption with price increases. For the information of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) these are not the people who harm their health by enjoying the odd bottle of wine with a meal. Of course, that is further borne out by the advertisements appearing in Western Australian papers. One such advertisement reads as follows: REDGATE WINES of MARGARET RIVER wish to announce THE CESSATION OF PRODUCTION OF PREMIUM WINES as a result of economic sabotage to the wine industry in general and to the small grower in particular emanating from THE FISCAL POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVT. contained in the last budget. That is what people are buying space in newspapers to say about this attack on them. Of course, we have to look at the same time at the effect they know that the imported situation will have. In his Budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) with his usual sorts of promises, said: This reduction in protection is not expected to result in any significant increase in wine imports. I am talking about the reduction in protection for Australian wines against imported wines. What do I pick up? The Sunday Times in Western Australia of 2 September 1984 in an article headed 'Sales tax hits local wineries' reports: Willyabrup Wines rang its usual dealer this week for orders but told there was 'no room'. The liquor dealer had just spent $100,000 on French and German wines and said he did not have 'the money nor the room' to stock Willyabrup wines. That is the evidence we have already. We have not even seen the effects that will come. What about the wonderful talk about the brandy tax refund? We know where half of that will go. If and when the cheques arrive, they will go to closed doors. They will arrive at addresses where nothing happens any more. The brandy industry is extinct because of the experimentation of this Government. Let us consider finally the statements of Premier Bannon from South Australia and Premier Burke from Western Australia. People on this side of the House have said they approve of those statements; I believe they probably do approve of them. It is gross hypocrisy for these two Premiers who campaigned just recently to make such statements. In Western Australia there were bumper stickers saying 'Burke-Hawke'. The message was to Australian winegrowers, particularly the people of the Swan Valley, who changed their vote and voted out a Liberal candidate in the State election. They were told that all they had to do was to vote in Brian Burke and his great relationship with Bob Hawke would guarantee them all the things they wanted. Now Burke is whingeing to Bob Hawke. Burke stands condemned-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister as such. Mr TUCKEY —I was referring to the bumper sticker. He was not the Prime Minister at that stage, he was Hawke. The facts of life are that there is not one excuse in the world for these State Premiers to whinge about what they and their partners in Federal Parliament have done to the wine industry. It is about time that we got that straightened out. There is another issue that has not been touched on very greatly tonight. I am terribly disappointed that the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), has left the House. I believe she has a genuine interest in saving people's lives on the road. She has a complete and total lack of knowledge of what alcohol in beer means. The other day when I got up and attacked the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) when he sanctimoniously talked about the great interest that this Government has in road safety-he was, of course, referring to its penurious $2. 9m expenditure on road safety promotion-I asked him why it was necessary to increase the cost of low alcohol beer. He knows so little about it that he thought I was talking about the 3 per cent alcohol beer that this Government has reduced the excise on. Three per cent alcohol beer has a lower alcohol content than 5 per cent or 6 per cent alcohol beer which is the most popular drink in Australia. But the new beer produced, known as Swan Special Light, which is the subject of these Bills, and which is to be taxed at 20 per cent, is just below 1 per cent in alcohol content. That is achieved by a special process. The process is one of taking normal 5 per cent or 6 per cent alcohol beer and with the aid of a vacuum process evaporate the alcohol content. It is real beer. The honourable member for Lilley said the other day that it is not real beer. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, so stupidly said, 'It is not real beer; I refuse you the right to market it as beer'. The best thing in the world that could be achieved for Australia and the road toll is to convince every Australian not only that it is real beer, but also that they should all drink it . If they did drink it, as has been confirmed and is now publicly advertised, they would drown themselves in the stuff before they could achieve a 0.05 or a 0 .08 blood alcohol level. If anybody suggests that they could not do that with beer with a 3 per cent alcohol content, they should think again. It takes a little longer to get drunk, but one can still achieve all the criminal activity on the road with the aid of 3 per cent alcohol beer as one can with 5 per cent or 6 per cent alcohol beer. This Government has done two things; it has compounded the problem. It has reduced the price of a beer that can still cause danger on the roads and it has increased the price of a beer that does not cause such danger. The compounded problem is that the Government has created a financial disincentive of 10 cents a can, roughly 20 cents a large bottle, against drinking the product that would save lives on the road because it is impossible to drink it and be a drunk driver. But then, of course, Premier Wran-- Mr Fisher-But there's profit in it. Mr TUCKEY —Oh, yes. There is profit in this. There is $6m a year profit to the Government in this. Of course, out of that it is taking $2.9m for road safety promotion. We would not need road safety promotion in many respects if we could create circumstances where people had an acceptable drink on social occasions which did not affect their driving ability. That is what I am talking about with that particular beer. But as I said, the Premier of New South Wales would not even accept it. He would not have it declared a beer. He did not want people to want to drink it. He would rather that they drink 3 per cent beer so that he could send out his constables on to the roads because he has another great revenue component from the fines he can collect from some people who accidentally take that extra glass. So there is a real problem in this regard and one for which the Government can take equal blame. It can count the deaths on the road from here on in and claim a percentage for itself because that is what it will mean. I think this is a disastrous situation and one which shows completely the economic tunnel vision of the Government. It never thinks of the real costs. As a member of the Road Safety Committee I heard figures such as $200m a year thrown around as the real cost to the Australian people of road accidents. Of course, there are many costs there. I appreciate that this is all the time I have to speak tonight, but I think it was worth raising those few points. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.40) —I also rise to express my concern and the concern of all South Australian members on this side of the House about the effect that these taxes will have on the wine industry throughout Australia and particularly in South Australia. It should be remembered by the House that just before the last election the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said clearly and unequivocally in Griffith that he would not impose a sales tax on wine. I do not think that a statement could be much clearer, but despite that promise, the Government appeared to be determined to break its word and it did so in the first Labor Budget. In that Budget the Government imposed a tax on fortified spirit. The Opposition at the time warned of the disastrous consequences of that tax and when our warnings rang true the Government first reduced and then dropped the tax. Now, big heartedly, it says it will refund the revenue collected. The question I ask is when? Perhaps the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, in wrapping up the debate will give an indication of when that revenue will be refunded. After the first sortie into this field by the Government one would think that it would have learnt a lesson-- Mr Andrew —They are slow learners. Mr PORTER —Indeed, as the honourable member for Wakefield rightly says, unfortunately for the wine industry this Government appears to have more than its fair share of slow learners. After the first sortie the wine industry is still feeling the effects of that tax. One would think that the Government could not be so foolhardy as to rush back into the chaos it had created and impose another tax at this time, but unfortunately for the wine industry that is not the case. I refer to the timing of the imposition of this tax. What will be the effect on the wine industry? I refer to a document from the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association which estimates lost sales to wine makers of 40 million litres per annum in the long term and reduced intake of grapes from grape growers of 65,000 tonnes which would result in lost income to grape growers of $ 15.6m per annum. That is the effect that the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association believes this tax will have directly on wine growers and wine makers in Australia. In addition the situation facing the dried vine fruits industry is very pessimistic with the prospect of surpluses and the loss of export markets. Not only is the industry faced with losing export markets, but now the opportunities to sell to wine producers have been killed off as a result of this Government's wine tax. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association's figures clearly show that wine producers will not be increasing their intake of grapes this year , but will be reducing it. The dried vine fruits industry is facing a very serious situation and, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said, has now had another door slammed in its face. The timing of this tax is even worse when one considers the plight of this industry, given the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimate over the last two years that the real farm cash operating surplus for horticulturists has dropped from $290 a week to an estimate this year of $153 a week. The failure of this Government to appreciate the direct and indirect effect of this tax is horrifying. Not only is the timing disastrous, but also the tax itself, imposed on domestic wine producers and advantaging importers, is quite wrong. The effect of the tax will be that imported wine will continue to be landed at around the same price as before, while the price of Australian wine has been increased by 10 per cent. In the face of increasing dumped wine imports, the growing wine surpluses in the European Economic Community, the subsidised EEC production and the protection against competition in the EEC, the Government has moved to increase the competitive advantage of wine imports. This outrageous action highlights the Government's total failure to comprehend the consequences of its action. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has admitted this discrimination against domestic producers. I quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review of 23 August which states: He-- that is, the Minister for Primary Industry- conceded that the introduction of a 10 per cent levy would reduce the effective level of protection against imports from about 34 per cent to 25 per cent . . . The article continues: The general manager of Montrose Wines, Mr John Swann, claimed Mr Kerin told a Wine Press Club function in Sydney last June that at least five year's warning would be given before the Government imposed any tax on wine. Mr Andrew —It has lost track of time. Mr PORTER —It must have lost track of time. I wonder just what statements issuing out of the mouths of Ministers of this Government can be believed. Before the last election the Prime Minister said there would be no wine tax. Now we have seen the Government impose two wine taxes. The Minister for Primary Industry said before the election that there would be no wine tax. Subsequently he said if there were, the wine industry would be given five years notice. Obviously, Ministers of this Government cannot be trusted. Their word is not their bond. The Minister and the Government have not been so forthright about the consequences of their action, but the Budget Papers are more revealing. The Budget Papers forecast that the new Customs duty on imported wine will raise $3m this year and $4m in a full year. The same Customs duty on imported wine in 1982 -83 would have raised around $2.8m. The revenue increase therefore is from $2.8m to $4m for a full year. What does that indicate in relation to the expected imports of wine? Clearly it indicates that the Government believes there will be a 40 per cent increase in imports of wine as a result of the discriminatory action against local wine producers. The resulting reduction in domestic wine sales will hit hardest in the areas which can least afford it, for example, the Riverland in South Australia. The Government belatedly heeded the warnings of the Opposition and the industry in its previous attempts to tax this industry. It must act immediately to withdraw this untimely tax. Finally I raise a matter of serious concern regarding the campaign suddenly launched before the Budget by the beer industry in favour of a tax on wine. Normally such a campaign would be launched in the formulative stages of the Budget. Why this year was it launched almost on election eve? One can only guess that it was a Government inspired campaign to soften up the electorate before the untimely tax was imposed. I repeat that the Government has broken its promise to the wine industry; it is up to its neck in skulduggery and for the sake of the thousands of people who will suffer as a result of this untimely tax , it must be repealed. Debate (on motion by Mr Drummond) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. [COGNATE BILLS: SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.50) —I appreciate that it is late in the evening and that I have been allowed a little time during this debate on the Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills and cognate Bills. There have been many good contributions from both sides of the House. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) and others who have vast areas of vines within their electorate have indicated a great deal of sympathy for the plight of the wine grower today. I do not want to canvass the matters that have been canvassed so adequately by honourable members on both sides tonight other than to make a couple of points. The first point that I do not think anyone has raised is that the growing of vines for the production of wine is a primary industry. It involves planting and cultivating vines and nurturing them for five to seven years before full production is achieved. It is not like turning on the tap or the vat at the local brewery or soft drink factory. It is one of those primary industry areas in which something has to be grown for a number of years before full production is reached. To put a tax on wine is like putting a similar tax on beef, grain or lamb. Why do we not tax any of those primary industries that go through the same machinations to get to a production stage? The second point is that the important segment of quality wine production comes from the south of Western Australia-from Margaret River in the far south-west and the Plantagenet Shire in the lower Great Southern region. I have represented Margaret River since I entered the House in 1972. Plantagenet remains in the seat of O'Connor, though it is very much a part of the Albany region which I will once again represent after the next election. From the outset I must stress that the uncaring ignorance displayed by this Government affects not only the wine growers but also the whole local economies of the two major parts of the seat of Forrest. This can apply to any part of Australia too, and to the electorates of honourable members who have spoken tonight. Wine production in the south-west and Great Southern areas is very much a pioneer primary industry. Its relationship to large scale alcohol manufacture and hence to the rationale of the new 10 per cent sales tax is tenuous in the extreme. Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Sales Tax (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills Less than 20 years ago, in 1965, the first vines were planted at Forest Hill and Plantagenet. The following year we saw in the Margaret River area the beginning of the Vasse Felix vineyard. The pioneers of the south west wine industry took a shrewd punt on the similarity of the climate with that of the Bordeaux area in France. The relative coolness of this part of the State assists in the development of quality wines. The record since 1966 has not disappointed those pioneers, despite problems with birds and other natural pests. Top international awards, for our chardonnays particularly, speak for themselves. Wine growing is a relatively labour intensive industry which provides seasonal employment for many young people who otherwise might not find work. Moreover, it has become the focus of a growing tourist industry. Visits to celebrated wineries are often the highlight of trips to the south west. Other industries such as arts and crafts have been able to grow in tandem with this development. Of course tourist promotion by wineries is a means of boosting sales through tastings but a general impact on the local tourist industry must be acknowledged . As much as 15 per cent of profits, in other words 15 per cent of the quantity of wine a vineyard produces, can be used in that kind of promotion. When a sales tax of 10 per cent is imposed at the wholesale level and is thus levied on wines used in tasting, something has to give. If nothing else, if the Government persists with this tax it should consider lifting the tax on the 10 or 15 per cent of the product used by vineyards for wine tasting. Wine tasting in my electorate has led to a vastly improved tourist industry in the area. This tax must concern all vineyards that have cellar sales and cater for tourists in this manner. The vast majority of the wine they use is reject wine. The bottles may be chipped at the top or something may have happened to them in the production process. There is nothing to do with such wine other than to dispose of it or use it for tasting. But under this wine tax, the wine used for those tastings will be taxed. I think that will be a great disincentive for wineries to be involved in that area. The effect on tourism will be swift should the wineries be forced to restrict or even cancel their tourist promotion activities, as some have already done in the Forrest electorate. In a more general sense, a 10 per cent sales tax and price rise naturally has a greater relative impact on more expensive quality wines such as those produced in the seat of Forrest. The extra dollar on the price of a bottle of chardonnay could well dissuade the middle or lower income consumer. The extra 40c on the price of a cask of riesling will trouble him far less. The Hawke Government has wilfully ignored the estimate of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that a 10 per cent price rise in the retail price of wine will cut sales by 5 to 7 per cent in the short term and by 13.5 per cent in the long term. Such an impact will fall more heavily on the small, quality winery. It will put many out of business. These percentage figures translate to a projected drop of over 41 million litres of domestic wine production for this financial year, affecting an industry with 12,000 jobs Australia-wide. The close relationship to tourism that I know to be so real in the south-west extends to other areas of Australia. The Hunter Valley is our top international tourist attraction. People do not go there to gaze at the coal. However, a few years of the Hawke wine tax might leave coal as the sole tourist attraction. It should not be thought for a moment that the 10 per cent sales tax on wine is the main concern of the coalition parties. The Hawke Government dealt its second major blow to the wine industry when it reduced the differential between Australian wines and imports. However the decision may be dressed up, the previous 20 per cent sales tax on foreign wines now becomes a duty of a mere 10 per cent, with both the imported and local product thereafter attracting the same 10 per cent sales tax. Protection is therefore cut by half. The Government correctly points out that under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade sales tax must not vary between imported and domestic products. It has not explained why it did not retain the existing protection by imposing a duty of 20 per cent rather than 10 per cent on imported wines. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek leave to make a personal explanation on the basis that she has been misrepresented? Mrs DARLING —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed to correct the misrepresentation. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) during this debate misrepresented me by claiming that I had said that drinks such as Export Light were not real beer. I wish to correct this because in his speech he also implied that as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety I condoned support for a move which was against the interests of road users. What I said was that brewed drinks with less than one per cent alcohol, such as Export Light, were technically soft drinks tasting and looking like beer. I wish to make it clear that I encourage consumption of such drinks as an excellent and responsible alternative. They will still be priced competitively with soft drink and I encourage their consumption. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond correcting a misrepresentation. Mrs DARLING —I was trying to correct not just that sentence but also the implication and tenor of the speech that went further into the road safety area. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member, who occasionally occupies the chair of the House, that the purpose of indulgence is to correct misrepresentation and not to extend it. I ask her to round off her explanation. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am trying to make that correction. As Chairman of that Committee, I make it clear that, regardless of this misrepresentation, I support the reduction of excise on light beer which has a higher alcohol content than Swan Special Light and Export Light but which is significantly lower than standard beer. The Federal Government's incentive to beer drinkers is a clear contravention-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is flouting the indulgence. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.02) —in reply-In closing the debate, I thank all honourable members who took part for their contributions. There was one specific question from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) about the refund of the tax on fortifying spirit. I can tell him that the necessary amendments have now been made to the Excise Regulations to allow these refunds to be paid to the persons due to receive them. They could submit their applications to the Collector of Customs in the State in which they have their business at any time from now on. We will seek to process those applications as quickly as possible. It must all be completed by 30 June 1985, so I hope that people will get their applications in quickly. Mr Porter —But will they be paid? Mr Hurford —I am sure that they will. It will be a mark of the good faith of the Government that they will be paid as quickly as we can process those applications for refunds. I need only otherwise draw attention to the second reading amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition to the next Bill. I notice that the Opposition, in the wording of that amendment, has been very careful not to say that it is against the tax. It has drawn attention to the competitiveness with imported wine that has resulted from these changes. There is very good reason for this. A number of members of the Opposition, some in very influential positions, recognise that this tax was inevitable and that the sooner it was applied the sooner the necessary adjustments and restructuring in the wine industry would take place. The Government is also very concerned about the competitiveness of the imported wine. We want to make absolutely certain that the industry readjusts so that it is competitive with those imports. We want to make sure that that will happen sooner rather than later. As a great trading nation we have to take notice of our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was one of the reasons why the measures turned out as they have. It limited our actions. However, we shall continue to monitor the situation very carefully and we will once again give all the encouragement and help we can to the restructuring so that the Australian wine will be competitive. We are confident that that will happen and that the wine industry will pursue the necessary actions to put its house in order so that it is competitive with imports. Of course, the Government will be opposing this foreshadowed amendment, which is mere rhetoric. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith. Bills (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Mr Howard) proposed: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the impact of the Government's new tax on wine, when taken in conjunction with changes in the taxation treatment of imports of wine, unreasonably and unfairly disadvantages the Australian wine producing and grape growing industry at a time when imports of surplus protected and subsidised European wines are disrupting the Australian wine industry and when there is an inquiry proceeding into the future structure of the industry'. Mr Andrew-I second the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Snow, J. H.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.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 MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.16) —As time goes by it seems the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and his Department are paying less attention to the need for an efficient and humane health service and occupying themselves more and more with the exciting and enjoyable game of worry-the-doctor. The word 'worry' in the name of the game carries two of its common meanings; that is, causing uncertainty and despondency, and snapping at and sinking teeth in whenever possible. The game is really great fun for a socialist Minister and, I must admit, has some enthusiastic spectators in the community. It is also true that some doctors deserve to be worried. But in the course of the game the Minister and his bureaucrats tend to forget their real job; that is, making sure that Australia has an efficient and humane health service. I shall instance one recent example of this. When a general practitioner refers a patient to a specialist there is a special form to be filled in. Without a properly completed referral form, Medicare will not pay its share of the bill for the specialist consultation. The requirements for the form are laid down in section 10 (2) of the Health Insurance Regulations . Unfortunately, the printed form supplied by the Department to general practitioners does not comply with the regulations. The form shows three things the general practitioner can ask the specialist for. Mr Dawkins —I raise a point of order. Is it in order for former senators to read speeches in this place? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROCHER —The first is an opinion, the second is immediate treatment and the third is continuing management of the present condition. On the same form below that appears the words: 'Strike out item(s) inapplicable'. The plain meaning of this is that a general practitioner can refer a patient to a specialist for any one, or any combination, of these courses of action. However, the regulations imply that the general practitioner must specify one and only one of them. The sensible approach would be to notify doctors of the discrepancy in the form and immediately set about changing either the forms or the regulations. In fact, it would be preferable to change the regulations for reasons I will come to in a moment. The Health Department's approach was to send in the Gestapo-that is the abbreviation for 'die gesundheitstaatspolizei'. These people raided the surgery of a constituent of mine who is a distinguished consultant surgeon. They left the impression that they were policemen, not just Health Department bureaucrats. They accused my constituent of medifraud for treating patients whose general practitioners had not literally struck out, by drawing a line through, two of the three options on the referral form. By this interpretation there would hardly be a single specialist in the country who has not committed medifraud and who is not liable, under the legislation, to five years gaol. That is worth a hundred points in the game of worry-the-doctor, but in real life it just shows up the stupidity of the system and the vindictiveness of the Minister and his Gestapo. Remember, the cause of the trouble is that the form and the regulations are not complementary. What is worse, if the regulations were strictly enforced, specialists would time and again have to decide whether to break the law or to deny patients proper treatment. If a patient was sent for 'an opinion', and the opinion was that 'immediate treatment' was essential, the specialist could not give that treatment. He would have to send the patient back to the GP to be referred again to the specialist with a new referral form-if the patient lived that long. A patient sent to a cardiologist for 'an opinion' might have a heart attack in the consulting room. The consultant is allowed to save his life-in fact he is duty bound to save his life-but if he tries to get medical benefits for it, that is Medifraud. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(11.22) —The Australian International Eye Bank and Research Foundation-AIEBRF-has campaigned for eight years for a network of non- profit community based eye banks in Australia to provide corneal grafts. It is a charity registered in New South Wales and among the sponsors are Sir Douglas Nicholls, Kamahl, overseas identities and the founder-President, Mr Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis II, who is in the Gallery tonight, of the Medical Centre, 103 Young Street, Sydney. He has been occupied for 14 years as director of a family company in the United States of America and Australia which is active mainly in pathology laboratories registered with the Federal Government. He has donated some $60,000 of his family's resources over six years to promote the concept and has visited eye banks in most countries except the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. He proposed last year a restaurant complex in Sydney to raise funds for eye banks and a venue for conferences. This was rejected for support as a community employment program project. The then New South Wales Health Minister, Mr Brereton, offered to investigate the proposal on 24 November 1983 in a letter reference 83/7806 to Sir Douglas Nicholls, and there has been no further decision. Police are investigating records of 7,500 patients' eyes illegally removed after their death since 1956. The Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists was told by Sir Douglas on 7 December 1983 that the AIEBRF was renewing its appeal for support for the project. Previous responses from the Royal College were in effect to claim that there were already sufficient facilities. For example a letter to Mr Fitzroy- Mendis on 9 May 1978 states: There have already two excellent eye banks in existence in Sydney-one at Sydney Eye Hospital and the other at Lidcombe. An affidavit signed by Leslie Phillip Vorbach states that he worked as medical technician at Lidcombe from 1956 to 1978 and removed eyes at the morgue on directions of Drs Carter, Shirley Sarks, Scarf, Hooper and Hale and on request of eye doctors Hart, Hipwell, Gregory, Butcher, Williams, Selwar, Milverton, Pickering, Thompson, Shirley Sarks, Du Temple, King, Chabra, Ong, Kennedy, Professor Hollows, Bulman and Kappagoda. He sought no permission from any person other than the doctors concerned and believes no permission was obtained before his instructions. About 1,000 of the eyes, he states, were supplied to Dr Shirley Sarks who did research at Lidcombe. He supplied documents to Mr Fitzroy- Mendis and Professor Leo Landhuis, President of the Eye Banking Association of America, after the 1980 launching of the AIEBRF at the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney in 1980, and these documents were kept confidential until the failure of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists to reply to the 7 December 1983 letter. On Sunday 27 May this year 60 Minutes produced the documentary evidence that eyes were illegally removed. Following this telecast, a phone call to 60 Minutes from a two-month previously retired technician of a teaching hospital in Sydney was to the effect that the illegal practice continues in all major hospitals. There is documentary evidence that two eye doctors, Roger McGuinness and N. Banks of Sydney, treated Mr Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis II with chlorocort for a mild follicular conjunctivitis after which his visual acuity was reduced so much that he was medically advised not to drive or write. An optometrist noted: 'Corneal surface deficiency'. A letter to the Medical Journal of Australia on 14 April 1984, at page 510, repeats a warning previously published in 1964 and 1982 against using chlorocort or its active ingredients and similar combinations of corticosteroids with antibiotics and calling for Federal action. The response of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is printed on the same page. Some derogatory allegations have been made in reference to the pending divorce of Mr Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis II. I have seen documentary evidence from independent specialists which leaves no doubt in my mind that these allegations are malicious defamation . In the light of the recent development of medifraud in many countries, one can only speculate on the motives of some doctors who have thrown suspicion on so many of their colleagues by participating in illegal practices which have been covered up by eminent eye specialists. The only offspring of Mr Stanley Fitzroy- Mendis II- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.27 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill, and an International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill. Mr Willis to present a Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill. Mr Young to present a Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill. Mr Beazley to present a Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. Mr Hurford to present a Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill. Mr John Brown to present a Bounty (Computers) Bill, an Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2), and a Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill. Mr Uren to present a Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 4 September 1984: Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 198. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 208 Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 209. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1984-No. 6-Monthly collections of lending commitments by financial institutions and collection of annual data from financial institutions. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 205. Defence Act-Determination-1984-No. 35-Overseas Allowance. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 206, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-1984-No. 3-Meat Orders ( Amendment No. 3). Health Insurance Act- Statement of particulars of disqualification pursuant to section 19C in respect of Dr John Blake Pavious Lewis, dated 22 August 1984. Statements of particulars of ministerial determinations, made pursuant to section 106AA relating to- Dr Serge Kunstler, Dated 25 May 1984. Dr Jagdish Swarup Pathak, dated 30 July 1984. Dr Normal Weiner, dated 22 June 1984. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 203. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 202. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 200. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 199. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-1984- No. 7-Marine Orders, Part 44. No. 8-Marine Orders, Part 45. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 210. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 201. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-Postal-1984-Amendment No. 3. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 211. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 204. Seat of Government Administration Act- Ordinances-1984- No. 29-Sewerage Rates (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 48-Dog Control (Amendment). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 571) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: Has has attention been drawn to a full page advertisement on the back page of the National Times in the 16-22 September 1983 issue for a 'Modulion Home Oxygen Regeneration System' and other 'Bionic Products'; if so, does his Department have any evidence to support such products; if not, will he draw the attention of the Trade Practices Commission to this apparent breach of the law. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. I have also noted that the advertisement was approved by the Australian Publishers' Bureau which is the body that approves advertisements in the print media in accordance with the Voluntary Code of Advertising drawn up by the Media Council of Australia. My Department has insufficient evidence to support some of the claims made for these products. Companies are allowed to import negative ion generators into Australia provided no therapeutic claims are made regarding their use. The National Health and Medical Research Council at its 94th Session reiterated earlier recommendations adopted at the fifty-second and subsequent sessions, that: 'the is no reliable evidence to indicate that negative ions promote health; some negative ion generators produce unacceptable levels of ozone; the generators are of no intrinsic value in dust control; and Council believing that insufficient medical evidence is available on the therapeutic value of ionisers in the treatment of patients with asthma, hay fever, allegies and respiratory conditions, recommends their use should not be encouraged.' The attention of the Australian Publishers' Bureau has been drawn to my Department's views on the use of negative ion generators and it is unlikely that similar advertisements will be approved again in those newspapers which are members of the Media Council of Australia. In these circumstances I would not propose drawing the matter to the attention of the Trade Practices Commission. (Question No. 591) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Is he able to state (a) whether the Victorian Health Commission Planning Division this year reported on average 2.85 teeth decayed, missing or filled-DMF -in five-year-old children and 3.56 DMF in seven-year-old children using school dental services and fluoridated water, (b) whether seven-year-old children at Ballarat, Victoria, without such services of fluoridated water, have an average of 3.46 DMF and (c) what the difference was in hours of care per child by the South-Australian school dental scheme in fluoridated compared with non- fluoridated areas in the first eight months of 1982. (2) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Medical Journal of Australia of 11 February 1978 which claims a 78 per cent improvement in the teeth of North Sydney children between 1961 and 1974 due to fluordiation. (3) If so, was this improvement (a) 60 per cent or 7.5 per cent per year in the pre-fluoridated period 1961-68, (b) 0.5 per cent per year for 1968-72 and (c) assessed in 1972-74 only in 2 per cent of the child population including schools with above average numbers of sound mouths. (4) Were the 1968 DMF averages in this study equal to those of children at Tamworth, New South Wales, who had used fluoridation for nine years. (5) Does he endorse the recommendation of (a) Cooper Laboratories Pty Ltd to expectant mothers to take 3.3 milligrams of sodium fluoride daily in non- fluoride areas and 1.65 milligrams daily in fluoridated areas or (b) Protea Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd that sodium fluoride crosses the placental barrier and is not to be used during pregnancy, if so, why; if not, why not. (6) What steps are taken to ensure that flaws, inconsistencies and errors in fluordation assessment, promotion and information are detected, prevented and published. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. The Victorian Health Commission's Planning Division reported that in the period January to September 1982 Victorian children aged five and seven years had mean dif indices-deciduous teeth decayed, requiring extration or filled-of 2.83 and 3.56 respectively. These figures referred to children using both fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. The mean DMF indices-permanent teeth decayed, missing or filled-for children aged five and seven years were 0.02 and 0.71 respectively. (b) Seven-year-old children at Ballarat, Victoria, were reported has having an average of 3.46 dif teeth. The Victorian Health Commission made no attempt to separate Ballarat children according to their use or non-use of fluoridated water. Some children living in non-fluoridated areas would have spent part of their lives in fluoridated areas, and vice versa. (c) The South Australian Health Commission has advised that in fluoridated areas in the first eight months of 1982, children required 0.97 hours of treatment by dental therapists compared with 1.15 hours in non-floridated areas. However, the Commission pointed out that in non-fluoridated areas dentists provided a great proportion of treatment than in fluoridated areas so that the difference in total treatment time would have been greater than stated above. Futhermore, the South Australian Health Commission has advised that the treatment time per patient was assessed by assigning time-units to each item of dental care. In fluoridated areas the average filling would tend to be smaller and require less time than in non-fluoridated areas. This method of assessment would tend to understate differences between the two groups. (2) Yes. However it was reported in the article that 78.6 per cent of children in northern Sydney in 1974 did not require teeth filled, compared with 8.1 per cent in 1961. The reasons for improved dental health were stated to be that ingestion and application of various types of fluoride, improved oral hygiene and diet, and more regular treatment. (3) (a), (b), (c) It has not been possible to reconcile the statistics in the question with those presented in the article. However, the article reports that a considerable improvement in dental health took place before fluoridation of water in Sydney in 1968. (4) The article concerning dental health of children in northern Sydney does not present information about mean DMF indices. It is understood that this information is not available. However, the article contains the following statement: 'The caries-free figure of 58 per cent in these northern suburbs in 1967 was equal to the figure obtained in Tamworth after nine years of fluoridation of water supplies'. (5) (a) The National Health and Medical Research Council has not recommended fluoride supplements during pregnancy because they have not been shown to be effective in reducing dental caries of the child. I support this point of view. (b) The fluoride tablets marketed by Protea Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd contain 20 milligrams of sodium fluoride, and are for use in the treatment of osteoporosis and some other bone abnormalities. In view of the high fluoride content of the tablets they should not be used during pregnancy. (6) The National Health and Medical Research Council examines new evidence and allegations concerning the use of fluorides in the control of dental caries. In addition, my Department and other health authorities, including particularly the World Health Organisation maintain a close examination of the use of fluorides in the control of dental caries. Recommendations and pronouncements of the National Health and Medical Research Council are circulated widely in the reports of Council's Sessions. These reports are distributed to health authorities and organisations, universities and other tertiary education bodies, and various libraries; they are also available to the media. (Question No. 752) Mr Shipton asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Have plans been made with, or through the Australian Tourist Commission for a domestic tourism promotional campaign; if so, what plans. (2) Has a national committee been formed to devise the campaign; if so, what industry bodies or individuals are members of the committee and is the Australian Federation of Travel Agents a member. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Federal and State Governments and the tourism industry have joined forces in mounting a domestic campaign to encourage more Australians to see more of their country and to see it more often. The campaign is being co-ordinated by the Australian Tourist Commission and was launched nationally on 22 March. It consisted of a television commercial featuring Paul Hogan and a 100-page information and motivational booklet entitled 'Australian Made Holidays' published as a supplement to the April edition of the Australian Women's Weekly. So, 1.2 million copies of the booklet have been distributed in this way, with a further 800,000 copies being made available through travel sellers around Australia. Reaction to the Television commercial and the 'Australian Made Holidays' booklet has been very positive and there are real signs that the public is responding to the motivational thrust of the campaign. The level of inquiries to advertisers in the booklet is an indication of the high impact being achieved by the campaign. (2) Following a Tourist Ministers' Council-TMC-directive in May 1983, the Australian Standing Committee on Tourism ASCOT, in consultation with the Australian Travel Industry Association ATIA, established a domestic tourism committee to develop and implement an integrated domestic tourism marketing and awareness campaign. In its initial year, the Committee has comprised: 1 representative of the Australian Tourist Commission-Chair 1 representative of the Commonwealth 2 representatives of the States South Australia and Western Australia 2 representatives of the ATIA 1 representative of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. (Question No. 738) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 November: (1) When is a decision likely to be made on 11 new regional radio studios for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2) Have priorities been determined for the order of construction of these new studios; if so, what are they. (3) What is the estimated cost of all the studios. (4) When is construction likely to start. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In August the Prime Minister announced that detailed planning of the ABC's second regional radio network would begin in 1983-84. I will be establishing a task force to examine a number of aspects of the network. Once the task force has undertaken some preliminary work and reported to me, I intend to make a detailed public statement about the intended nature of and philosophy behind the ABC's second regional radio network. At this time I am not in a position to answer in greater detail. (2) No. (3) $15.42m. (4) Construction of the studios will begin in 1984-85. (Question No. 772) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were no special mailing arrangements for the Department or agencies within my portfolio during the Canberra mail strike. (Question No. 785) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether some States have increased their budgets for tourism promotion in 1983-84, including a 97 per cent increase in New South Wales. (2) Has the Australian Capital Territory tourism promotion budget fallen in real terms by 11 per cent. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the view of prominent members of the Canberra community that the industry in Canberra is sick and tired of seemingly hollow promises of improvements to the Tourist Bureau's structure, convention centres, new airport facilities and improved road and rail links that will never eventuate; if so, what steps does he intend to take to rectify this problem. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I am able to say some States did increase their budgets for tourism promotion in 1983-84. On the information I have, the increase in New South Wales is calculated at 95 per cent-that is, an increase from $1,023,000 to $2,000,000. These figures are for the allocation described as tourism promotion and advertising in the budget of the New South Wales Department of Leisure, Sport and Tourism. (2) Yes, the Australian Capital Territory tourism promotion budget has fallen in real terms by approximately 11 per cent; that is, the specific allocation to the Canberra Tourist Bureau which is operated by my Department. However, the promotion of tourism to the national capital is being fostered in a number of ways. The Government's decisions in respect of major national institutions such as the new Parliament House and the Museum of Australia and the approval of the hotel-convention centre have been taken consciously with the aim of focussing national and indeed international attention on Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory will also benefit from the Government's greatly increased support for our national tourism promotion body, the Australian Tourist Commission. The Commission's budget was almost doubled to $19.5m, for 1983-84. It is promoting the attractions of Australia with greater effect not only overseas but also, with the introduction of the Domestic Tourism Campaign in March this year, to Australians themselves. Canberra, now one of our major tourist destinations, must benefit from this. Finally, the Australian Capital Territory tourism industry has shown in recent times that by combining its forces it can achieve a significant voice for Canberra in the holidaying market. The Canberra Tourist Bureau, the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau-which also receives assistance from the Government-and other bodies representing elements of the industry through their concerted efforts have produced a steady, healthy visitor growth during the 80s. (3) Yes. However, because of the neglect of the previous Government, we had to give priority to housing, welfare, and land servicing in the 1983-84 Budget. At my direction, my Department has recently made a submission to the Public Service Board for an upgrading and reorganisation of its tourism administration, to enable it to meet the increasing demands placed on it. Improved road access to the Australian Capital Territory will be facilitated by the Australian bi-centennial roads development program. In respect of rail links , I draw the honourable member's attention to the introduction of XPT services to Canberra in August 1983. Upgraded airport facilities embracing improved passenger terminals, aircraft manoeuvring arrangements, and car parking facilities are also presently being investigated by the Department of Aviation. (Question No. 807) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify that for each form of assistance. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The only form of financial assistance provided to private business from my Department is the provision of funds to Queensland to subsidise the cost of diesel fuel used for power generation by Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. The subsidy is paid to eligible tourist operators at a rate of 7.155 cents per litre. (1) (b) and (c) The Department provides general advice on day to day requests from industry relating to Government policies. (2) (a) The Queensland Government is responsible for administering the diesel fuel subsidy scheme and in this respect the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation-QTTC-is the initial point of contact for obtaining assistance under the scheme. The Commonwealth provides grants to the QTTC upon receipt of claims from Queensland. (2) (b) To qualify for a subsidy for this purpose resort operators must be located within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region-as defined in the Schedule to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975-and have no access to reticulated power. (Question No. 812) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements that have to be met to qualify for each form of assistance. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) Financial-Australian Industry Assistance-AIA-funds are utilised to provide non-recurring cost support or enhancement of capabilities of defence significance. These funds are allocated to individual major defence equipment acquisition projects and to miscellaneous minor tasks. They are also utilised to conduct studies on the feasibility of production in Australian industry of defence equipments, the research and development for which has been conducted in Department of Defence laboratories. 1 (b) Technical-General technical advice is provided to interested industry which seeks to be involved in defence equipment acquisition and in technologies of defence interest. This advice is given in parallel with discussion and negotiation associated with the investment of AIA funds mentioned above. Specific technical information is available on a wide range of Department of Defence standards and military specifications-both local and overseas. Advice is provided on the technical and financial aspects of invitations to register interest, request for tender and contract matters. 1 (c) Other-A directory of defence and offsets oriented industry is maintained to inform overseas suppliers who have an obligation to place work in Australia. The directory identifies most relevant Australian firms and their capabilities or products. Day to day contact by the Department is maintained with local and overseas industry. A continuing schedule of industry seminars is maintained in Australian capital cities and regional centres. Details of proposed Department of Defence major equipment procurements are promulgated through an extensive mailing list to local and overseas industry. The services of the Department of Defence Support's overseas representatives and offices in Australian Embassies and High Commissions overseas are utilised to maximise this distribution. The Commonwealth purchasing policy of preference to Australian-New Zealand made goods, is applied. Machinery and plant is available for loan and/or hire. 2 (a) The Department's central office or regional offices located in the major capital cities are the contact points for industry seeking involvement in Department of Defence major equipment procurements and technologies of defence interest. The contact point for Australian offsets program assistance is the Department's central office in Canberra. There is also a central office element which co-ordinates the activities of these regional offices. Relevant details are: Assistant Secretary Industry Strategy Branch Defence Industry and Purchasing Division Department of Defence Support Anzac Park West Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Telephone: (062) 48 2739 The Director Industry Development Branch N.S.W. Region Department of Defence Support Level 21 59 Goulburn Street Sydney N.S.W. 2000 Telephone: (02) 218 8106 The Director Industry Development Branch Victoria/Tasmania Region Department of Defence Support 11th Floor 339 Swanston Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 Telephone: (03) 665 6892 The Director Industry Development Branch South Australia/Northern Territory Region Department of Defence Support 8th Floor, National Bank Building 26 King William Street Adelaide S.A. 5000 Telephone: (08) 213 2179 The Director Industry Development Branch West Australia Region 5th Floor, Primary Industry House 239 Adelaide Terrace Perth W.A. 6000 Telephone: (09) 325 2334 The Director Industry Development Branch Queensland Region Watkins Place 288 Edward Street Brisbane Qld 4000 Telephone: (07) 226 2754 2 (b) For item 1 (a), the expenditure of AIA funds in a particular firm or firms is determined after an analysis of the defence benefits of a particular project and a survey of industry with the capability or potential capability required. Subsequent actions follow normal Australian Government purchasing procedures of public tender or certificates of exemption-on a case by case basis . For items 1 (b) and 1 (c) there are no specific requirements to be met. Other than the purely informational forms of assistance, the prospects for involvment by industry are determined again on a case by case basis and after discussion with the particular firm. (Question No. 819) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: Is he able to say (a) which countries are presently members and users of the SARSAT/COSPAS international search and rescue project, (b) how many SARSAT/ COSPAS satellites (i) are in orbit and (ii) are planned, (c) what the difference is between SARSAT and INMARSAT, (d) whether SARSAT and INMARSAT are complementary or whether they overlap and (e) how successful are the SARSAT and INMARSAT projects. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on advice from the Department of Transport, is as follows: (a) Canada, France, United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are evaluating the SARSAT/COSPAS project with Brazil, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway and the United Kingdom participating in the test program. (b) (i) and (ii) Three satellites are known to be in orbit; and others are planned. (c) SARSAT is a distress alerting and locating satellite system, while INMARSAT , the International Maritime Satellite Organisation, provides global communications for ships. (d) SARSAT and INMARSAT are likely to be complementary if both systems are adopted for use in the proposed global maritime distress and safety system being developed by the International Maritime Organisation-IMD. (e) SARSAT is currently under evaluation. As an increasing number of vessels are being equipped to use the INMARSAT satellite based communications system it is considered to be successful. (Question No. 851) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) (a) (i) My Department participants in the following inter-departmental committees: National Airports Facilitation Committee (Standing Inter-departmental Committee ) Alternative Employment generating Projects to Gordon below Franklin scheme Inter-departmental Committee on Information Policy (1) (a) (ii) My Department chairs the following inter-departmental committee: Inter-departmental Committee on the Australian Institute of Sport (1) (b) (i) Instrumentalities under my control participate in the following inter-departmental committee: National Airports Facilitation Committee (Australian Tourist Commission) (1) (b) (ii) Instrumentalities under my control do not chair any inter- departmental committees. (2) Advice on the subject matter of the committees not chaired by my department is a matter for other Ministers. The subject matter of the committee chaired by my Department is as follows: Inter-departmental committee on the Australian Institute of Sport-To report to Government on the objectives, strategies and future development proposals for the Australian Institute of Sport. (Question No. 860) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Defence Support, 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 Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Subject matter has only been provided in respect of committees chaired by the Department of Defence Support. 1. (a) (i) Defence Committee-co-opted member-Committee on Occupational Health and Safety in Australian Government Employment; Interdepartmental Committee on the Security Assessment Manual; Interdepartmental Committee on Commonwealth Purchasing Manual; Interdepartmental Committee advising Departments on preference matters. 1. (a) (ii)-Defence Industry Development Committee; Board of Management for Defence Aerospace; Board of Management for Munitions; Board of Management for Defence Shipbuilding-see note 1; Production Board; Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Offsets; Interdepartmental Working Group of Security of Explosives- see note 2. 1. (b) (i) Nil. 1. (b) (ii) Nil. 2. Subject Matter-Effectiveness of programs for defence industry development; Management and direction of the Department's aerospace industry activities; Management and direction of the Department's Munitions manufacturing establishments; Management and direction of the Department's defence shipbuilding and ship repair establishments; Major expenditure proposals and all annual programs of the Department's production establishments; Formulate and implement the Australian Offsets Program; Regulatory control of explosives and review of the Commonwealth's protection of explosives. Notes: (1) To be established within the next 6 months. (2) Disbanded in February 1984. (Question No. 912) Dr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the article 'From OPEC to ODEC' in The New Republic, 28 November 1983. (2) If so, is he able to say whether (a) Wall Street and other private bankers are lending 20 times their capital assets for indefinitely extendable periods, largely to the Third World, with no more significant security than short term borrowings from OPEC countries and the capitalist expectation that developed Western bloc countries will underwrite defaulters by incurring inflationary government deficits to protect private banks at the expense of national reserve banks and Western taxpayers and (b) Third World citizens are being squeezed into famine to meet International Monetary Fund lending conditions. (3) Will Australia reject the irresponsible approach of socialising losses and capitalising gains for private financiers before again underwriting or participating in any extension, renewal or replacement for IMF or World Bank agreements and rely on the Reserve Bank of Australia and not the IMF or World Bank for future advances to meet international trade, aid and loan requirements; if not, why not. (4) Will he produce, with other Ministers, proposals for public information, discussion and participation in view of irresponsible, anti-socialist, elitist and unsound economic/financial mis-management. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) I understand that it is the case that a number of private banks in other countries have exposures in developing countries which exceed their capital bases. I am unable to comment on whether the private banks expect their lending to developing countries to be underwritten by developed Western bloc countries. Any such expectation would certainly appear to be dubious security. The current situation is that these banks, far from having their lending specificially underwritten by Western governments, have chosen to reschedule repayment obligations and, in conjunction with institutions such as the IMF, extend new loans (rather than to occasion default) to a number of developing countries experiencing difficulties in repaying external debt. I cannot offer any specific comment on what security the private banks have on these loans. However, presumably the main security for lending to governments and government agencies is represented by the credit rating and past performance of the governments concerned and the export-earning capacity of the borrowing countries . With respect to short term borrowings from OPEC countries, it seems extremely unlikely that private banks would regard these borrowings as security against Third World borrowings given that they are not assets of Third World borrowers. In any case, OPEC deposits have represented only part of the supply of funds to international banks and, in aggregate, those deposits are now no longer increasing due to the substantial current account deficit of the oil exporting developing countries as a group. (b) A number of the developing countries experiencing difficulties in servicing their external debts have borrowed funds from the International Monetary Fund. Most borrowings from the Fund are subject to economic policy conditions which are designed to restore the balance of payments and more general economic viability of the borrowing countries. With regard to any question of Third World citizens being 'squeezed into famine' to meet IMF lending conditions, there are three points which should be made: IMF lending has proved to be a catalyst for additional private bank lending; Without IMF loans, adjustment programs by countries experiencing severe debt servicing difficulties would have to be implemented over a far shorter period. This would usually involve a drastic cut in imports, the level of domestic economic activity and, as a consequence, living standards over the short term. In that sense, IMF loans can be regarded as easing the conditionality which would otherwise be imposed by the market; In many cases the need for balance of payments support from the IMF arises largely due to the inappropriate economic policies of the countries concerned. If IMF lending to such countries were unconditional it would merely postpone, rather than correct, a balance of payments crisis. At some later date, far more stringent adjustment policies, with even greater effects on living standards, would be necessary. (3) I know of no basis for any suggestion that the IMF and World Bank take the approach of 'socialising losses and capitalising gains for private financiers'. The question also raises the issue of relying on the Reserve Bank of Australia, rather than the IMF or World Bank, for future advances to meet international trade, aid and loan requirements. This suggests that the Bank could be regarded as an alternative to those international bodies for the provision of assistance by Australia to Third World countries. It is a view I would not accept. The Government regards the IMF and World Bank as having pre-eminent roles in providing balance of payments support and longer term aid and fully supports their efforts. Where balance of payments support is involved, Australia prefers the provision of such support to be multilateral, via institutions such as the IMF, rather than bilateral. Balance of payments support provided on a bilateral basis would: Normally require support by a number of countries and involve extensive coordination efforts amongst those countries. Such arrangements are difficult to put in place and frequently result in duplication of effort and greater inefficiencies; Tend to be politicised, rather than being provided on objective economic criteria as at present. This could be to the disadvantage of smaller and poorer countries; and Make it extremely difficult to apply appropriate economic policy conditions and to require adherence to agreed repayment schedules. The net effect of the bilateral provision of balance of payments support would therefore be to reduce the efficiency of the international monetary system. However, with respect to the provision of foreign aid it could be noted that Australia does provide about 74 per cent of its official development assistance on a bilateral basis. This mainly reflects our particular strategic, political and economic interests in the region. This aid is allocated through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, in consultation with relevant departments. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, tabled the report of the high-level committee set up by the Government to review Australia's aid program on 7 June 1984. This report considers, inter alia, the desirable balance between bilateral and multilateral aid and the role of international agencies in the delivery of Australia's aid program. (4) The meaning of this part of the question is unclear. I would draw the honourable member's attention, however, to the regular publications programs of both the IMF and the World Bank which explain the role of these institutions in assisting their member countries cope with current pressures. Particular publications of relevance include their respective annual reports, the IMF Survey (published fortnightly) and the quarterly Fund/Bank Journal, Finance and Development. (Question No. 943) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for community employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. (b) The programs administered by my Department and the agencies within my portfolio are primarily directed at assisting sport, recreation and tourism activities at a national level and usually are not directed to specific regions. It is therefore not appropriate for my Department to apply for CEP grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray. This is more properly the responsibility of State and local governments. (Question No. 947) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make an application for Commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Communications, AUSSAT Pty Ltd, Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), Special Broadcasting Service, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (a) No. (b) No. The Department, AUSSAT Pty Ltd and the above statutory authorities have no offices within the electoral division of Murray and therefore no scope exists for program development. Australia Post (a) No. (b) In responding to any call for nominations for additional projects, Australia Post will give consideration to possible projects throughout Australia which meet the program's guidelines. Whether any of these will be located within the electoral division of Murray is not know at this time. Telecom Australia (a) No. (b) Telecom has been engaged in negotiations with officials of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations with a view to identifying projects and activities which could receive support under CEP. When Telecom has completed consideration of all the relevant factors, it may seek approval for several projects under CEP. Whether any of these will be located within the electoral division of Murray is not known at this time. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a) No. (b) No application is contemplated because the ABC does not maintain offices in the electoral division of Murray. The Radio Australia transmitting station at Shepparton is operated under contract to my Department, by Telecom Australia. (Question No. 966) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Can the Attorney-General say whether the Commissioner of Taxation is experiencing or anticipating problems in attempting to collect outstanding tax from large tax avoidance participants and promoters where the individuals have, over a period of time, divested themselves of income-earning assets and other assets to family trusts. (2) If an individual organises his assets in this way can he still retain effective control over the trust assets by way of being (a) the appointor of the trust, (b) a shareholder and/or director of the trustee company, (c) the trustee of the trust or (d) named as guardian of the various beneficiaries. (3) If an individual goes bankrupt in this situation can the trustee of the bankrupt estate have recourse to any controlled assets where it could not be proved that the divesting was done with the specific intention of defrauding creditors. (4) Can a bankrupt be a beneficiary of a trust and simply request the trustee of the family trust to refrain from making any distributions of income to the bankrupt during the period of the bankruptcy; if so, is it possible for a bankrupt to have control over assets valued at many hundreds of thousands of dollars and have the income produced by these assets directed to other beneficiaries such as other family members, allowing the bankrupt to refrain from making payments to the creditors of the bankrupt estate. (5) Have family trusts proliferated during recent years; if so, are any changes proposed to the Bankruptcy Act to ensure that interests in family trusts are available to creditors and particularly the Commissioner of Taxation. (6) Can the Attorney-General say whether professional advisers have been advocating the method referred to in this question as a means of avoiding paying the Commissioner of Taxation if a tax scheme ultimately fails. (7) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the 'West Australian' of 20 July 1983 alleging that in the bankrupt estate of a K. MacKenzie, an ear, nose, throat specialist, the Official Receiver accepted contributions of $1000 per month from an income of $160,000 per year; if so, does the Bankruptcy Act limit contributions in these cases to such a low level. (8) Is it a fact that a person who is bankrupt can maintain an extravagant lifestyle receiving amounts such as $160,000, less tax of approximately $86,000 and contributions of $12,000 to the estate. (9) Are steps available to creditors to force the bankrupt-where the conditions of section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act have not been breached by the bankrupt-to make contributions to his estate for a longer period; if so, what steps. (10) Do present provisions of the Bankruptcy Act allow bankrupts with large incomes to remain bankrupt for only three years with the creditors receiving only minimal distributions. (11) Is any action proposed to ensure that the apparent available abuses of the Bankruptcy Act are stopped; if so, what action. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that he has experienced problems, and anticipates problems in other cases, in collecting outstanding tax from tax avoidance participants where individuals have over a period of time divested themselves of assets to family trusts. (2) Yes. It is possible for an individual to retain some control over assets transferred by that individual to a trust. The degree of control exercised by the individual in any given case will be determined by the provisions of the trust instrument. (3) Yes. Section 120 of the Act enables the trustee to take action to set aside a settlement of property made within two years before the commencement of the bankruptcy, regardless of whether there is or is not an intention to defraud creditors. However some settlements, for example, settlements made in consideration of marriage, or a settlement upon a purchaser made in good faith and for valuable consideration, are exempted from the operation of the section. Certain other settlements made within five years before the commencement of the bankruptcy, and not involving an intent to defraud, can also be set aside unless the parties to the settlement can prove that the settlor was at the time of making the settlement able to pay all his debts without the aid of the property settled and that the settlor's interest in the property passed to the donee upon execution of the settlement. (4) Trusts known as discretionary trusts for maintenance are encountered occasionally by Official Receivers. If there is an absolute discretion in the trustees to apply the income for the maintenance of the bankrupt, his family or any of them in such manner as the trustees see fit, then the Court will not interfere with the bona fide exercise by the trustees of their discretionary power. If the arrangements involve a fraudulent disposition within the meaning of section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act, however, that section would apply and the fraudulent disposition would be void as against the trustee in bankruptcy. Section 120 of the Bankruptcy Act may also apply, and this is referred to in the response to part 3 of the question. Accordingly, the answer to the question is yes in that the trustees may, in certain circumstances, exercise their discretion to direct income away from a bankrupt beneficiary. (5) Bankruptcy administration does not maintain records of the kind which would be needed to answer the first part of the question. As to the second part of the question there are no proposals at this time to amend the Bankruptcy Act specifically to address the issue of family trust, but see the answer below to part 11 of the question. (6) The Attorney-General is aware of one case involving possible collusion between a debtor and his financial advisor with a view to the concealment of assets from the debtor's creditors in a subsequent bankruptcy. The persons involved in this affair are the subject of proposed and pending proceedings, both of a criminal nature and of a civil nature, directed to recovery of the assets for the benefit of the creditors. The Attorney-General is not aware that such behaviour is a common practice. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised he has no evidence that professional advisers have been advocating arrangements for the predominant purpose of preventing recovery of debts by creditors. However, the Commissioner advises there are indications that this is at least a secondary consideration. (7) Yes, the Attorney-General's attention has been drawn to the affairs of Dr K . I. MacKenzie who was declared bankrupt on 22 July 1980. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that he also is aware of the case. In that case the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Perth and another creditor made application under sub-section 149 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act to enter an objection to the discharge of the bankrupt from the bankruptcy. On 19 July 1983, Smith J. of the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that a prima facie case had been made out that the bankrupt was able or was likely, within five years from the date of the bankruptcy, to be able to make a significant contribution to his estate. Secondly, the conduct of the bankrupt in the period before his bankruptcy was unsatisfactory in that he had contributed to this bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculation. Thirdly, that within the period of six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition upon which he became bankrupt, when unable to pay his debts as they became due, he gave an undue preference to some of his creditors. His Honour said that he was not seeking to make, nor did he make positive findings in relation to other allegations which would be fully dealt with when an application for discharge from bankruptcy is made. In the meantime, action is in train to seek a further contribution from the bankrupt's income to the trustee for the benefit of creditors under section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act. In response to the second limb of the question, the Bankruptcy Act does not ' limit contributions' to any particular level. Rather, the Act provides-by section 131-that subject to any order of the Court pursuant to sub-section 131 ( 2), a bankrupt who is in receipt of income is entitled to retain it for his own benefit. This provision is discussed in more detail in the response below question (8). (8) The Bankruptcy Act provides that certain property of the bankrupt, styled ' divisible property', vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee then is obliged to realise the divisible property and distribute the proceeds amongst the creditors. The Act provides that, subject to any order of the Court pursuant to sub-section 131 (2) of the Act, a bankrupt who is in receipt of income is entitled to retain it for his own benefit. Case law has established that the level of contributions from income which is reasonable is a subjective assessment in each case. The amount of income which the bankrupt may retain for his own benefit is dependent on the bankrupt's occupation and station in life. Each case must therefore be considered on its own merits. Consequently the question of what is an 'extravagant lifestyle' is a question to be determined having regard to all the circumstances. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that it is his view that in a number of cases bankrupts have been able to maintain an extravagant lifestyle, paying what is considered to be a minimal contribution of income to the trustee for the benefit of creditors. In a number of such cases, the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt has been indemnified by the Commissioner to enable action to be taken to seek an increased contribution of income from the bankrupt under section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act. (9) The effect of discharge from bankruptcy is to release the bankrupt from all provable debts, subject to certain specified exceptions, eg. a liability under the maintenance agreement or maintenance order. There is no power to compel a bankrupt to make contributions from income following discharge. In the event that the Court has made an order under sub-section 131 (2) appropriating portion of the bankrupt's income for the benefit of the creditors then such an order ceases to have effect upon the discharge of the bankrupt. This is provided for by sub-section 131 (5) of the Act. This provision was inserted as recently as 1980, by Act No. 12 of that year, in order to remove any doubt that may exist as to the law in this area. (10) Historically, bankruptcy is based upon the distribution of the bankrupt's divisible property among his creditors. As mentioned in the answers to preceding questions, this source of money may, in limited circumstances, be supplemented by contributions from income. These circumstances are very limited as, subject to an order of the Court pursuant to sub-section 131 (2) of the Act, a bankrupt who is in receipt of income is entitled to retain it for his own benefit. Regarding discharge from bankruptcy, case law has made clear that it is the intention of the Bankruptcy Act that a bankrupt be entitled to automatic discharge from his bankruptcy after the expiration of 3 years from the date of his bankruptcy unless one or more of the four grounds specified in sub-section 149 (4) exists. (11) As stated in answer to (5) above, there are no proposals at this time to amend the Bankruptcy Act specifically to address the issue of family trusts. However, the Commissioner of Taxation advises that he proposes to challenge arrangements of the kind referred to in the Question if he is so advised by Counsel. Accordingly consideration may need to be given to amendment of the Bankruptcy Act in the light of the outcome of these proposed challenges. (Question No. 1007) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Did his Department give instructions to staff at Launceston Airport, Tasmania, in November 1983, to implement alternative flight paths for aircraft taking off for mainland routes; if so, were these instructions designed to eliminate aircraft noise over the suburbs of Launceston. (2) How many aircraft with an unladen weight of 5,700 kilograms or more (a) took off from Launceston for mainland ports, (b) were (i) passenger flights and (ii) freight services, (c) took off in a (i) southerly direction and (ii) northerly direction and (d) took off between 20.00 hours and 06.00 hours in each of the months January to December 1983. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 4 November 1983, amended instructions for nomination by air traffic control of preferred runways for noise abatement purposes were introduced at Launceston Airport. The amended procedures entailed the use of a southerly take- off direction, if operationally acceptable, at all times. Previously this was a requirement only during the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. The amended procedures were designed to reduce aircraft noise over Launceston suburbs by increasing the height at which these areas were overflown. (2) Full details of all flights during 1983 are not available, however the following data was extracted for Departmental purposes from records of flights for the months of August to November 1983, and for February 1984. This relates to the periods 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m.-7 p.m. 7 p.m.-7 a.m. August 1983- Take-offs into the north 185 89 Passenger flights 160 12 Freight flights 18 77 Miscellaneous flights 7 Nil Take-off into the south 37 35 Passengers flights 34 4 Freight flights 3 31 Miscellaneous flights Nil Nil September 1983- Take-offs into the north 199 90 Passenger flights 177 23 Freight flights 15 67 Miscellaneous flights 7 Nil Take-offs into the south 39 38 Passengers flights 33 1 Freight flights 4 36 Miscellaneous flights 2 1 October 1983- Take-offs into the north 161 64 Passenger flights 132 14 Freight flights 22 50 Miscellaneous flights 7 Nil Take-offs into the south 63 53 Passenger flights 50 6 Freight flights 11 47 Miscellaneous flights 2 Nil November 1983- Take-offs into the north 162 74 Passenger flights 132 9 Freight flights 20 65 Miscellaneous flights 10 Nil Take-offs into the south 65 42 Passenger flights 54 3 Freight flights 9 39 Miscellaneous flights 2 Nil February 1984- Take-offs into the north 172 52 Passenger flights 149 5 Freight flights 15 47 Miscellaneous flights 8 Nil Take-offs into the south 55 41 Passenger flights 45 4 Freight flights 9 37 Miscellaneous flights 1 Nil (Question No. 1014) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) How many mobile telephones (a) have been rented from Telecom Australia since they were introduced, (b) were in use as at 30 November 1983 and (c) have been returned to Telecom after the initial rental period. (2) What were the charges applicable to mobile telephones as at (a) 1 January 1983, (b) 1 July 1983, and (c) 1 December 1983. (3) Does Telecom pay any licence fee to his Department as do other operators of a similar service. (4) Does Telecom consider the introduction of these telephones to be successful . Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) 3,044-as at 18 April 1984; (b) 2,845-includes 711 outright purchases; ( c) Statistics on the number of services cancelled after the initial rental period are not available. However, overall service cancellations to 18 April 1984 totalled 679. (2) (a) (b) and (c) Charges applicable to the mobile telephone service are detailed in the following table: (a) and (b) as at 1.1.83 (c) and 1.7.83 as at 1.12.83 Service connection fee $350 $150 Installation fee Varies between private sub-contractors Service (maintenance) charge- Within business hours $45 per call out $45 per call out Outside business hours . . $130 per call out Network rental $200 per quarter $200 per quarter Mobile unit rental $250 per quarter $250 per quarter * Mobile unit purchase (incl. sales tax) $4,990 $3,990 * Discounts apply to purchases in excess of one unit. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (Question No. 1044) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Has Bona Vista, a National Trust mansion in South Yarra, Victoria, been empty for over 10 years in possession of Telecom and, at one stage, was it occupied by low income homeless persons. (2) Will he ensure, with his colleagues, priorities for use of public housing. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Telecom vacated Bona Vista, from an operational viewpoint, in June 1977 and a caretaker vacated the premises in about December 1978. The property was occupied by squatters from 4 September 1983 to 7 December 1983. The property has been sold recently by Telecom to a private purchaser. (2) The Minister for Housing and Construction has informed me that he is concerned to provide as much public housing as possible. As a first step, the Federal Government has substantially increased funds available for such housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Minister has written to the Minister for Administrative Services urging that suitable surplus Federal staff dwellings be allocated to public housing where practicable. It is understood, however, that there is limited scope for using such dwellings for this purpose. The stock of civil departments staff housing totals less than 3,000 nationwide, and much of it is in isolated locations. Surplus dwellings are identified and usually re-allocated fairly quickly. The Minister for Housing and Construction has also urged the State governments to ensure that surplus State owned dwellings are used for public housing where possible. The Department of Housing and Construction is represented on the inter- departmental committee on vacant servicemen's housing. Servicemen's dwellings owned by State housing authorities are returned to the States for use as public housing when the dwellings are no longer required by the Services. (Question No. 1078) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) None. (a) (ii) None. (b) (i) None. (b) (ii) One female has been employed by the Australian Tourist Commission for the months of January and February 1984. (Question No. 1091) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) How many women from the Philippines have entered Australia in the last 12 months as fiancees of Australia citizens. (2) Does he envisage any future social problems occuring as a result of this practice. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During 1983, 537 female fiancees, who stated on arrival that their country of last residence was the Philippines, entered Australia as settlers. Both Australian citizens and permanent residents can sponsor fiancees, however, the numbers in each of these sponsorship groups are not separately identifiable. (2) The entry of fiancees is a standard component of the immigration program. As far as people from the Philippines are concerned, like any other small fairly recently arrived group, they sometimes face special problems. The Department monitors the settlement experience of all migrant groups and adjusts and directs its services accordingly. For people from the Philippines support extends from specific counselling at the interview stage and in group sessions to printed information. My Department is also developing an audio- visual program aimed at alleviating settlement problems. Under the grant-in-aid and migrant project subsidy schemes funding has been provided to examine settlement issues and develop specific welfare services for the Filipino community. (Question No. 1122) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, 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 had 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 Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have engaged one consultant to work for me since April 1983 and the Department of Trade has engaged seven consultants during the same period. (2) Consultant to the Minister for Trade Mr Gregory John Crough; Consultants to the Department of Trade Mr Geoffrey Fitzgerald Clarke, Mr Giacomo A. Bayutti, Mr Terence Gabriel Pilavachi, Nomura Research Institute, Seibu Marketing Information Services Inc., Holt Public Relations Pty Limited, Australian Bank Limited. (3) Mr G. J. Crough-6 October 1983 to 24 March 1984. Mr G. F. Clarke-for eight months commencing 12 December 1983. Mr G. Bayutti-for 12 months commencing 5 September 1983. Mr T. G. Pilavachi-for 12 months commencing 16 November 1983. Nomura Research Institute-for approximately 5 months from 9 January 1984. Seibu Marketing Information Services Inc.-for approximately 5 months from 9 January 1984. Holt Public Relations Pty Ltd-for 4 months from 29 February 1984. Australian Bank Ltd-from 11 November 1983 until completion of project. (4) Mr G. J. Crouch-$9950 was paid. Mr G. F. Clarke-$1000 is payable on completion of project. Mr Bayutti-a consultancy fee of $16,200 is payable. Mr T. G. Pilavachi-a consultancy fee of $16,200 is payable. Nomura Research Institute- a consultancy fee of Y17,500,000 is payable. Seibu Marketing Information Services Inc.-a consultancy fee of Y26,800,000 is payable. Holt Public Relations P/L-a consultancy fee of $8,125 is payable. Australian Bank Limited-a consultancy fee of $150,000 is payable. (5) Mr Crough has an academic background in international economics, including international trade, foreign investment and commodity policy. He has had practical overseas experience in these fields with United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva. Mr Clarke has extensive knowledge of an experience in the world steel industry; his consultancy relates to the administration of export controls on raw materials used in the steel industries of overseas countries. Mr Bayutti was appointed as a consultant to provide advice in relation to the expansion of trade with Italy and with the area of Europe served by the port of Trieste. Mr Pilavachi was appointed as a consultant to provide advice in relation to the expansion of the fruit and vegetable trade to selected countries, in particular to Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and the Middle East. Nomura Research Institute and Seibu Marketing Information Services-two Japanese companies were appointed as consultants to advise on the market opportunities for Australia in Japan. Nine firms were asked to submit proposals and Nomura and Seibu were the successful tenderers. Holt Public Relations Pty Ltd was appointed as consultant to assist in the planning and implementation of seminars on the Japanese market to be conducted by Nomura and Seibu. Five firms were asked to submit proposals and Holt Public Relations Pty Ltd was successful. The Australian Bank Limited was appointed as consultant to advise on the feasibility of establishment of a proposed Overseas Trading Company. Seven major consulting firms were invited to submit proposals and the Australian Bank was the successful tenderer. (6) In the case of the individual consultants, they were chosen on the basis of their special knowledge and each was judged to be the best available person to undertake the specific task at the time. With regard to the corporate consultants, proposals were submitted by firms detailing services and costs. The successful tenderers were appointed. The Department is also involved in the administration of the Consulting Services Feasibility Study Fund-CSFSF and the Technical Support Facility-TSF. The purpose of the CSFSF is to assist with the development of the export of services provided by Australian consultants. It is designed to assist Australian consultants in the preparatory stage of development projects in developing countries by the provision of funds for pre-feasibility or feasibility studies which can be used for an application for the funding from other sources for the further stages of the project. It is expected that the involvement of an Australian consultant in the early stages of the formulation of a development project will enable that consultant to gain exposure, knowledge and a 'track record' in a developing country. The Technical Support Facility has been created to enable Australia to react positively to requests on a Government-to- government level for assistance in providing experts to advise and formulate development projects in areas in the Middle East where Australian expertise and experience are perceived to be relevant to national development programs. An important objective of the TSF is to ensure Australia's future ability to respond in a way which will not only facilitate the development of closer relations with these important oil exporting countries, but which would also ensure Australia is well placed to take advantage of the valuable commercial opportunities which exist in these countries for consultants, contractors and equipment suppliers but which are not being fully exploited by Australia at present. Details of these consultancies can be provided should the honourable member so wish. (Question No. 1124) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, 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. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (5) See the attached table. (6) In each case the arrangement selected was on the basis of who most clearly fitted the Department's requirements for the consultancy. In most cases the normal Public Service Board processes were applied to invite a range of possible consultants to submit offers with a final selection being made on the basis of their presentations. MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 (1) What consultants have (2) What is the name of (5) What special background been engaged to work for each consultant, or if a (3) For how (4) What fee is and experience does each the Minister or the company or partnership the long was each to be or has consultant possess to enable Minister's Department name of the corporation consultant been paid to the consultant to under- since April 1983 or partnership engaged each consultant take the engagement $ Management Consultant W. D. Scott & Co. to advise the Minister on the implementation and project management of ADP Services 12 months (part-time) 100,000 Experience in high level consulting associated with implementation and project management of major ADP acquisitions in large decentralised organisations. Administrative Adviser M. Hunter-to advise the Minister on aspects of the administration and funding of child care services. 6 months 27,200 Accountant and solicitor who has worked with South Australian Council of Social Services as a legal/financial adviser to non-government welfare and community organisations. Former Project Officer D. Ritchie-to review a draft manual of instructions for the Aged and Disabled Persons Accommodation Program. 30 hours 518 Detailed knowledge of legislative requirements and program practices Financial Adviser Bato Reid Investment 20 days 15,000 Extensive experience in finance industry and in provision of corporate and financial advisory services ADP Consultant Computer Power-to develop a project management package 260 hours 6,500 Specific programming experience Management Consultant Coopers & Lybrand-to prepare an analysis of design phases in development of an integrated audit facility 33 days 22,600 Appropriate experience in systems design Market Researchers Lenehan Lynton Bloom Pty Ltd-to conduct a survey, involving pretesting of assets test forms January 1984 12,200 Relevant experience and research capacity Technical Consultant SRI International-to co-ordinate implementation of STRATPLAN Mission 1 65 days US100,000 Extensive experience in data base design, large scale physical design, implementation and optimisation, and in data base communications in an IBM environment Contract Programmers Computer People Pty Ltd-39 separate tasks 4-52 weeks 2,298,343 Relevant programming experience Data base Design & Equipment Planners Computer Sciences of Australia-2 tasks 52 weeks each 160,160 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Disc International-4 tasks 26-52 weeks 247,560 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Datec Pty Ltd-4 tasks 52 weeks each 248,273 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers EDP Contractors Pty Ltd-3 tasks 52 weeks each 171,457 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers IDAPS People Pty Ltd 13-52 weeks 1,444,477 Relevant programming experience Data Base Designers Koranya Data Base Intelligence-3 tasks 52 weeks each 239,200 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Kurrawang Computer Programming-9 tasks 30-52 weeks 668,903 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Logica Pty Ltd-3 tasks 26-52 weeks 167,510 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Parity People Pty Ltd-6 tasks 52 weeks 366,292 Relevant programming experience Contract Programmers Systems Control Programming-2 tasks 13-26 weeks 80,600 Relevant programming experience Standards Team SPL (Australia) Pty Ltd 32 weeks 57,638 Relevant programming experience (Question No. 1127) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is contained in the following schedules. SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED FROM 1 APRIL 1983 TO 30 JUNE 1984 (1) What consultants have been engaged (2) what is the name to work for the of each consultant, (4) What fee (5) What special background Minister or the or if a company or (3) For how is to be or and experience does each (6) Was the merit Minister's partnership, the name long was each has been consultant possess to principle applied Department of the corporation consultant paid to each enable the consultant to in each case; if since April 1983 or partnership engaged consultant undertake the engagement so, in what manner *Advisor Mr H. Hudson From 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983 on a part-time basis $183 per day Former Deputy Premier of S.A. Minister for Mines and Energy, Economic Development and Tourism, Minister for Education, Senior Lecturer in Economics Yes-Approved by the Prime Minister. DEPARTMENT OF THE SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED FROM 1 APRIL 1983 TO 30 JUNE 1984 * The engagement of consultants within the Department was carried out in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Service Board. The guidelines provided for strict tests of essentiality and merit to be met before proposed engagements are approved. Amounts of up to $1000 may be approved by the Department provided the standard rates are charged; all other cases were referred to the Public Service Board for endorsement. ADP Consultations Aspect Computing Pty Ltd 1. 78 days 2. 30 days $17,924 $6,890 Extensive experience in the computing field. 1. PSB endorsed* 2. PSB endorsed Consultant Psychiatrists Withheld for professional reasons 1. 4 days 2. 2 days $250 per day $250 per day Both consultants have considerable experience in the field of hostage negotiations 1. PSB endorsed 2. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB guidelines 3. 8 days $425 per day 3. PSB endorsed Management Information Consultants Koranya/Macgregor 80 days $38,440 ADP Specialists experienced in management information systems PSB Endorsed Market Research Consultants ANOP 1. 4 months 2. 3 months 3. 5 days 4. 5 days $120,000 $35,000 $55,000 $19,000 Market Research Company with extensive experience in government, social and communication research 1. PSB endorsed 2. PSB endorsed 3. PSB endorsed 4. PSB endorsed Forms Analysis and Design Consultant Mr Robert Barnett 1. 14 days 2. 19 days $400 per day $8.075.30 Regarded as on expert in Government and industrial forms design, forms analysis and forms/systems co-ordination 1. PSB endorsed 2. PSB endorsed Forms Analysis and Design Consultant Mr David Sless 1. 2 days $280 Senior Lecturer in visual communications at Flinders University and former Chairman of the Australian Standards Association Committee on public information signs and symbols. 1. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB guidelines 2. 14 days $140 per day 2. PSB endorsed 3. 10 days $1500 3. PSB endorsed 'Plain English' Lecturer Professor R. Eagleson 36 days $11,630.95 Professor of English at the University of Sydney and has had considerable experience as a 'Plain English' Consultant PSB Endorsed 'Plain English' Lecturer Dr J. Goyan 1. 1 day $281.40 Lecturer at Macquarie University and is a Specialist in analysing the literacy levels of Australian target audience 1. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines 2. 3 days $631.65 2. PSB Endorsed 'Plain English' Lecturer Dr P. Edwards 1. 1 day $336.00 Senior Lecturer in the Education Faculty of Monash University and has trained staff in communications improvement in a variety of institutional situations 1. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines 2. 5 days $1,215.15 2. PSB Endorsed Associate Professor Dr T. Beed 1 day $159 Director of Sample Survey Centre, University of Sydney Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Senior Lecturer Mr David Potts 1 day $140 Senior Lecturer in the School of Communications and Liberal Studies at the Mitchell College of Advanced Education-experienced in public relations programs and their evaluation Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Management Consultants Coopers and Lybrand Services From 1.4.83 to 31.5.84 $51,052.50 Leading firm of Management Consultants PSB Endorsed Communications Consultants Mr Graham Cox From 19.4.83 to 10.6.83 $15,040 Senior Executive of advertising agency, George Patterson Pty Ltd Extension of existing consultancy Management Consultants The Consultancy Pty Ltd 30 days $17,000 Extensive experience in Government information programs at State and Federal levels. Similar reports and study previously prepared for two other Departments PSB Endorsed Contract ADP Staff Optimum Operations Consultants 1. 6 months $43,420 Experienced computer operations company 1. PSB Endorsed 2. 6 months $17.50 per hour plus $95 per week accommodation 2. PSB Endorsed 3. 3 months $17.50 per hour plus $95 per week accommodation 3. PSB Endorsed ADP Specialists Computer People 4 months $33 per hour Experienced ADP Specialists PSB Endorsed ADP Specialists Systems Control Programming 3 months $65 per hour Experienced ADP Specialist PSB Endorsed Market Research Consultants Lenehan, Lynton, Bloom 37 days $12,780 Experienced Market Research Company PSB Endorsed Evaluation Mr R. J. Walton 6 weeks $325 per day plus travel costs Retired New Zealand Police Commissioner experienced in work required PSB Endorsed ADP Training Program for ONCB Project Mrs M. E. Bushell 1 year $18,960 Experienced ADP Specialist PSB Endorsed AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ADP and Management Information Consultants Doll Martin and Associates 59 days $22,145 ADP Specialists experienced in management information systems PSB Endorsed Legal Adviser Mr Geoffrey Halliday Retained on a yearly basis. Expected to involve 2 days per week $50 per hour Wide experience in law enforcement on national policing issues PSB Endorsed REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL Salaries Survey of Private Sector Cullen, Egan, Dell Australia Pty Ltd 4 months $15,000 The consultants have an extensive data base from which to operate, and have experience in producing relevant analyses PSB Endorsed COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION Land Valuation Consultant Mr M. D. Herps 83 days $31,302 Former Chief Valuer of the Valuer-General's Department of New South Wales PSB Endorsed Public Transport Consultant R. Travers Morgan Pty Ltd 10 months $1,325 per day with a limit of $105,000 Considered the most suitable firm in the public transport field. Extensive experience in the comparative analysis and evaluation of public transport problems generally in all States PSB Endorsed INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC INQUIRY INTO NORTHERN TERRITORY TRANSPORT SERVICES Economic Financial Advisor Mr Nigel Stokes From 26.9.83 to 31.12.83 $300 per day maximum $1,500 per week Financial advisor to the Premier of New South Wales PSB Endorsed Railway Consulting Engineer Mr John Buckley 5 days $52 per hour plus travel and accommodation expenses Railway Consulting Engineer PSB Endorsed ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE USE AND EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AGENTS ON AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL IN VIETNAM Medical Specialist Dr J. Mathews 1. 10 days 2. 1 day 3. 2 days $250 per day $525 $747.20 Expert in epidemiology and NH & MRC Principal Research Fellow attached to University of Melbourne, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital 1. PSB Endorsed 2. and 3. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Advisor Mr W. T. McMillan 1 day $418.20 Barrister-at-Law acting on behalf of Australian Veterans in Class action in the United States Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Medical Specialist Dr F. Stanley 1. 35 hours 2. 10 days $3,000 $196 per day Leader in field of birth defects studies, Deputy Director, NH & MRC Research Unit in Epidemilogy and Preventative Medicine, University of WA 1. PSB Endorsed 2. PSB Endorsed Public Relations/ Communications Consultants The Consultancy Pty Ltd 35 days $16,753.34 Specialist communications organisation PSB Endorsed Scientific Expert Dr I. Munro 7 days $296 per day plus airfares Director of the Centre for Toxicological Studies, Ontario, Canada PSB Endorsed Scientific Researcher Professor B. Shubik 7 days $7,000 est. International Expert on Carcinogenesis PSB Endorsed Scientific Expert Dr B. Stewart 1. From Dec. 1983 on a part-time basis $35 per hour maximum $5,000 Australian expert on toxicology, Senior Research Fellow with the NSW Cancer Council 1. PSB Endorsed 2. 8 days $1,320.00 2. PSB Endorsed ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION ADP Consultants Logica Pty Ltd 1. 15.10.82- 30.12.83- $24,080 per month ADP Specialists 1. PSB Endorsed 2. 30.12.83- 30.6.84 $164,000 2. PSB Endorsed ADP Consultants Logica Pty Ltd 40 days $16,940 PSB Endorsed NATIONAL ROAD FREIGHT INDUSTRY INQUIRY Economic Consultants Nicholas Clark and Associates 1. 139 work days $74,800 Firm of applied research and management consultants, specialising in economic, technological, social, education and public policy issues 1. PSB Endorsed 2. 29 days $29,400 2. PSB Endorsed Economic Consultants R. Travers Morgan Pty Ltd 45 days $19,000 Management consultants in public transport field PSB Endorsed Economic Consultants Cameron McNamara 1. 46 days 2. 47 days $17,425 $28,360 Consultants specialising in civil, structural and transport engineering 1. PSB Endorsed 2. PSB Endorsed Consulting Engineers, Planners and Scientists Pak-Poy and Kneebone Pty Ltd 41 days $20,650 Consultants specialising in planning, covering physical, economic and transportation, engineering and management PSB Endorsed Senior Economist Professor Colin Gannon 5 weeks $12,282 Former Director of Bureau of Transport Economics. Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania. Assistant Professor regarding Science and Transportation. Associate Professor of Economics at Monash University PSB Endorsed Statistical Consultants W. D. Scott and Co. 2 months $53,131 Management Consultants with extensive background and experience in transport studies PSB Endorsed Statistical Consultants OVE ARUP 27 days $12,000 Consultants specialising in transportation planning field PSB Endorsed Consulting Economist Dr J. A. Stuckey 7 weeks $21,000 Experienced Professional Economist PSB Endorsed Seminar Information Dr O'Malley 1 day $560 Expertise in Road Freight Industry Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Seminar Information Mr Brown 2 days $800 Expertise in Road Freight Industry Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Seminar Information Dr P. Forsyth 5 days $760 Expertise in Road Freight Industry Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Road Transport Consultants Hendersons Consultants 170 hours $6,500 Only road transport group with appropriate data base and grasp of all information required PSB Endorsed Research Mr P. Mills 1 day $600 Research affiliate, Accounting Department, Sydney University Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Computer Bureau IP Sharp and Associates Pty Ltd 25 hours $40 per hour The Bureau already holds required data for the Office of Road Safety and task can be completed efficiently Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Econometric Analyst Dr T. Valentine 5 days $188 per day Academic at Centre for Money Banking, Finance Section of Macquarie University Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines PANEL OF REVIEW OF PROPOSED INCOME AND ASSETS TEST Superannuation and Annuities Advisor Mr Bruce Paul 44 days $12,216 Manager of Actuarial Division of the AMP Society PSB Endorsed INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO AVIATION COST RECOVERY Advisor Mr J. E. Schofield 10 days $4,520 Retired Deputy Secretary of the Department of Aviation PSB Endorsed INQUIRY INTO COMMONWEALTH LABORATORIES Editor Miss Patricia Croft 30 hours $450 Experience in report editing Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines REVIEW OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Researcher Ms Jeannie Martin 1. 10 days 2. 3 days $800 $240 Tutor, School of Sociology, University of New South Wales 1, 2. Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Ms Liz Fell 20 days $3,000 Sociologist, Communications Lecturer (Part-time), Sydney PSB Endorsed Researcher Ms Winsome Roberts 15 days $250 Lecturer, Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Examination Dr Geoffrey Flick 3 days $600 Barrister, NSW Bar Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Mr Michael Liffman 10 days $950 Community Educator, and CHOMI Co-ordinator, Ecumenical Migration Centre, Melbourne Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Mr Graeme Brewer 8 days $960 Consultant Social Researcher, Melbourne Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Mr Lidio Bertelli 10 days $950 Deputy Director, Catholic Intercultural Resource Centre, Melbourne Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Mr Len Tierney 12 days $250 Reader, Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Researcher Dr Millicent Poole 7 days $250 Associate Professor in Education, Macquarie University Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Review Dr Geoffrey Hawker 12 days $2,400 College Fellow in Administrative Studies, CCAE PSB Endorsed Researcher Dr A. Lindsay 2.5 days $420 Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Macquarie University Approved by the Department in accordance with PSB Guidelines Research Mr A. Aiken 1 day $72.80 Was able to provide specific expertise and experience relevant to the project PSB Endorsed program** Research Techsearch Inc, South Australian Institute of Technology 1. 25.11.83- 31.7.84 2. 28.2.84- 31.7.84 3. 28.5.84- 31.7.84 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 Techsearch Inc, is the commercial arm of the South Australian Institute of Technology which provides a consultancy facility to government and private organisations. Has considerable expertise in technology research 1, 2, 3. PSB Endorsed program Research Miss S. McNulty 12.12.83- 30.3.84 $5,253 Has considerable experience and specific expertise in the field of Occupational Stress PSB Endorsed program Research Dr J. Sutton 21.5.84- 31.7.84 $2,268 From MacArthur Institute of Higher Education with specific expertise and experience relating to domestic Crisis Intervention PSB Endorsed program ADP Research Professor J. Burr 2 days $360 Professor of Computing Science at University of New England PSB Endorsed program Barrister Mr D. Peek 3-4 days $1,216 Was able to provide required Legal information PSB Endorsed program Training Professor J. Munro 1 year (part-time) $16,000 Professor of the University of West Florida; highly regarded academic within the police field internationally PSB Endorsed program ** The NPRU is a jointly funded intergovernmental body and consultancies are approved by the PSB in a yearly program (Question No. 1137) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The details requested in parts (1) to (5) of the question are set out in the attached schedule. In relation to part (6) of the question, all, consultancies entered into were in accordance with detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants which were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. Length of Consultancy engagement Name of company consultancy Fees paid Consulting background (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) National Aerodrome Plan Study, Pilbara Zone, WA Airport Consulting and Construction, Australia 72 man days $34,400 Wide previous experience in airport design and location selection. National Aerodrome Plan Study (extension), North Coast Zone, NSW Pak-Poy & Knee- bone Pty Ltd 14 man days $5,500 Wide experience in airport design and selection of airport location. Analysis of report on Public Inquiries into Aircraft Accidents and Procedures associated with Enforcement of Air Navigation Regulations Mr I. M. Leslie 30 man hours $840 Extensive experience in areas relevant to the consultancy as a result of former service in the Department. Discussion with N.Z. Civil Aviation Department Team on Provision of Air Traffic Services Mr R. M. Whitecross 14 man hours $900 Suitably qualified to represent the Department in the discussions as a result of former service with the Department. Corporate Information Needs Analysis Coopers & Lybrand Services 312 man days $195,500 (up to) World wide reputation in the management consultancy field. Melbourne Airport/Essendon Airport Public Information Program International Public Relations Pty Ltd (IPR) 8 months $50,000 Well known throughout Australia in the field of Public Relations. Perth Airport Development of Domestic Terminal, post 1985-86 Airport Consulting and Construction Australia Pty Ltd 48 man days $16,910 Wide experience in airport design. Review of Search and Rescue Arrangements R. Whitecross A. Bedsor W. Cdr L. A. Naylor (W. Cdr Naylor is a serving officer with the RAAF whose salary was paid for by the RAAF. The Department paid for his travel and other costs only). 90 man days $15,355 fees $48,148 travel and other costs Mr Whitecross has current knowledge of Departmental search and rescue policy and operations as a result of former service with the Department. Mr Bedsor is a semi-retired business man who has been an office bearer with the General Aviation Association and is also a private aircraft owner and instrument rated pilot. The Inquiry was announced in Parliament on 7 December 1983. National Airports Authority Policy Review Mr E. P. Bick, Policy Research and Analysis 320 man hours (maximum) $14,100 (maximum) Barrister and past lecturer in Law. Has had research experience within the Public Service. Research into the Use of Electronic Flight Instrument Systems by Persons with Abnormal or Defective Colour Vision Victorian College of Optometry 18 months $47,235 The chief investigator has an internationally acclaimed reputation in the field of colour vision research. ADP Training. Identification of Needs and Development of Program DATEC Pty Ltd 200 man hours $11,743 Well established in conducting surveys of the ADP industry and well versed in the structure of the Australian Public Service. Study of Separate Airport and Airways Charges for NAA Price Waterhouse Associates Pty 147 man days $111,300 World Wide experience in management and accounting. Research into Hearing Standards for Air Traffic Controllers Macquarie University, Dr J. E. Clark 27 months $98,695 Highly qualified in the audiometric field. Duty Free Concession Audit of Records Coopers & Lybrand 10 man days $5,000 Extensive experience and a high reputation in the audit field. Research into Presbyopia and Colour Vision Standards for Airline Pilots Victorian College of Optometry January-July 1983 $10,398 The Victorian College of Optometry has been engaged in earlier work concerned with colour perception. The research assistant with main carriage of the task is a graduate in optometry and a former airline pilot. Extension of Study of Omega Signal Propagation University of Queensland Two years 1983 and 1984 $18,000 per annum University of Queensland is the only institution in Australia performing work in the area of Omega/VLF signal propagation. The University was selected for the original study between 1980-1982. Airport Business Concessions Mathematic Performance Model Assignment Nelson English, Loxton & Andrews Pty Ltd 30 man days $10,000 Well qualified personnel with significant involvement in airport economics, retail and commercial studies, urban and transport planning and data handling and modelling. Critique of previous Consultancy Report on Value of Time of Airport Users Dr D. A. Hensher, Macquarie University 15 man days $2,000 Associate Professor of Economics selected on basis of published articles on topic and participation in international forums. Review of Future Role of Essendon Airport Public Awareness Survey Nelson English, Loxton & Andrews Pty Ltd 61 man days $34,000 Well qualified in airport economics, urban and transport planning and data handling. Review of Future Role of Essendon Airport, Public Information Program Neilson, McCarthy, McFarling & Co. Pty Ltd 6 months $28,000 One of largest public relations consultants in Melbourne, considered to have comprehensive understanding of Melbourne media and other relevant organisations. General Aviation Study Sydney Region Beca Orr Pty Ltd and Transplan Incorporated 200 man days $86,000 Both firms are internationally recognised in the field of airport planning and have performed similar studies in various countries around the world. Software Development for Ministerial Correspondence tracking system ASPECT Computing 55 man days $39,200 Well known in ADP circles for development of suitable software. Company is particularly well versed in the type of hardware equipment currently being purchased. Communications Networking Architecture Houseley Computer Communications P/L 12 man days $7,400 Specialist in telecommunications systems consultancy and training with world- wide expertise in the development of communications networks. Development of Data Base and Data Dictionary Information Engineering 13 man days $7,200 Reputation in both Public and Private sectors of the ADP industry for expertise and competence in the development of suitable data base software. Development of Certain program specifications for the HP3000 Regional Network McGirr & Associates P/L 68 man days $19,400 Well known throughout Australia for expertise in the development of software with specific knowledge of Hewlett Packard hardware and operating environments. Has also had experience in providing software for numerous state and federal government departments and instrumentalities. (Question No. 1139) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) I do not employ consultants on a full time or part time basis. My Department has engaged Price Waterhouse as consultants to undertake the departmental internal audit function for the period March 1984 to 30 June 1985. (4) The cost of the consultancy has been quoted as $13,000. (5) Price Waterhouse has a long history of services to government bodies, having provided services in auditing, accounting and management consulting to over 150 Federal, State and Local government organisations. (6) Price Waterhouse were chosen on the basis of selective tender. The Department approached selected major organisations and invited them to submit tenders for the consultancy. Advice on possible organisations was sought from the Australian Society of Accountants. (Question No. 1140) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is provided below. Points (1) to (6) No consultants have been engaged to work for me since 1 April 1983. The first column lists the consultants who have been engaged to work for the Department of Administrative Services since 1 April 1983. The second column indicates, as appropriate, in man days the period for which each consultant was engaged. With regard to the Australian Survey Office, consultants are selected from a panel period contract and work is done on a fixed price basis irrespective of the number of man days involved. The third column lists the fees paid and the fourth column provides information on the background and experience of each consultant. The final column notes the basis on which each consultant was engaged. Consultants engaged by the Department of Administrative Services are generally selected in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Service Board for the engagement of consultants. Owing to the large number of consultants engaged by the Australian Survey Office their selection procedures have been standardised. The selection of consultants is based on the Survey Office's 'Procedures for Engaging Contractors for Surveying Services'. Details of these procedures are as follows: Firstly, all contractors who fulfil certain conditions and apply for inclusion are placed on a panel period contract. Where projects are under the public tender threshold the primary selection criteria is the availability of contractors who can provide satisfactory service in a particular geographical region. Contractors are placed on lists, in order of tender number, for each region. These contractors are then approached in turn with offers of work. This ensures that over a period all contractors are given the opportunity to carry out work for the Survey Office. For projects over the public tender threshold firms on the panel of contractors are invited to submit a quotation if they have the necessary resources and facilities to carry out the project concerned. Details of these resources are provided with the initial application for inclusion on the panel of contractors. Factors considered include: size; preferred working area; technological capabilities; previous record in terms of work standard and proven ability to meet target dates. Tenders are evaluated using the 'weighted scoring' technique to determine which tender offers the best value for money. Consultants are rated against certain criteria such as ability to meet target dates, performance and experience. Weights, which are dependent on the particular critical requirements of the project, are then applied to these criteria to determine the lowest effective cost. In all cases the weights are established and placed on file before tenders are let. Consultants engaged by the Australian Survey Office of the Department of Administrative Services are approved by the Public Service Board and it has now been established that this approval can be anticipated following approvals during the Budget process. Name of Period of Fee Background/ Merit principle consultant engagement $ experience applied MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISIONConsultants Retained for Staff Training Mr G. Martin 2 1/2 days 910 Lecturer in Local Government Studies, Canberra College of Advanced Education ( CCAE). Background in training and Government research. Presentations on management techniques. All Consultants engaged by the Management Services Division, Department of Administrative Services were selected in accordance with Public Service Guidelines. Effective Negotiation Services 5 days 6,068 Consultant specialists in negotiation techniques. Training courses on negotiation. Mr C. Richards 17 days 13,690 Lecturer in Local Government Studies, CCAE. Background in training and Government research. Assisted with structure and implementation of Residential Management Seminar. Professor D. Yerbury 1 day 750 Professor, Australian Graduate School of Management (AGSM), University of NSW. Session on Industrial Relations at Residential Management Seminar. Mr A. Jarman 5 days 250 Academic Director, Australian Centre for Local Government Studies CCAE. Recognised expert in corporate planning. Session in corporate planning at Residential Management Seminar. Mr G. Campbell 5 days 400 Motivation consultant. Session on motivation and stress at Residential Management Seminar. Mr P. Lawrence 1.5 hours 100 Communication skills-Director Counselling, CCAE. Session on communication at Assistant Research Officer Course. Ms D. A. Outram 2 days 360 Writing consultant. Conducted a writing workshop. Arthur Young Services 3 days 3,225 Consultant specialists in negotiation techniques. Conducted course on negotiation techniques. Dr Roger Collins 4 hours 325 Lecturer Australian Graduate School of Management, University of NSW specialising in organisation theory. Session on organisation development at Residential Management Seminar. John McMillan 2 hours 100 Lecturer at ANU with experience in Administrative Law. Session on Administrative Law at Residential Management Seminar. Stewart Brooke and Associates 3 hours 375 Communication consultants. Session on interpersonal skills at Residential Management Seminar. Ian Ritchie 1 day 400 Professional advisor on stress management with NSW Department of Health. Session on stress management at Residential Management Seminar. Mr D. Capel 1 day 200 Ergonomic consultant. Ergonomic study of a computer work station. Mr C. Phillips 1 day 660 Human relations consultant. Session on human relations at Residential Management Seminar. STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT UNIT Coopers and Lybrand 42 days $625 per day plus daily expenses $29,164 paid to consultant this financial year representing 41 mandays and associated expenses. Previous knowledge of the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services (CACS ) Ltd and expertise in commercial, accounting and automatic data processing fields. The same consultant was previously engaged to advise on the transfer of CACS functions to the private sector in the context of the Review of Commonwealth Functions (RCF) disposal exercise. The consultancy was an extension of a previous contract, made following the calling of proposals from a number of leading firms. The engagement was approved by the Public Service Board. TRANSPORT AND STORAGE Killeen Feasibilities 20 hours 1,000 Killeen Feasibilities was one of only two firms in Australia identified as management consultants specialising in the insurance industry. The firm was assessed as the most technically suited to the task. This consultant was engaged in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. PURCHASING DIVISION Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services 94 days 59,929.80 Part of a world-wide organisation specialising in accountancy and cost benefit analysis, together with experience in liquidations of business or related assets . Eight organisations responded to a Registration of Interest circulated to eleven firms in the industry. Proposals were sought for a review of disposals procedures. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services selected on basis of having most relevant experience necessary . Aspect Computing Pty 1 Jan.-Sept. 1984, 1 Jan.-Apr. 1984 (188 days) 5,436 for its services in January 1984 Company possesses ADP programming and analytical skills. Aspect is a panelist on a period contract for the provision of on-site programming and design services. The contract was arranged following the advertisement of public tenders. The above consultants were engaged in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION Inview Pty Ltd 35 days 16,990 Bookshop Consumer Survey-Specialist market research agency in promotional and advertising fields engaged to undertake target consumer usage surveys based on the AGPS Bookshop in Sydney. Selection was undertaken using standing procedures of the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS) which take account of Commonwealth purchasing procedures, Finance Directions and PSB Guidelines. O & M Results 10 days 2,900 Bookshops Sales Promotion Strategy-Specialist agency in the field of sales promotion strategy. It was recommended by AGAS from its knowledge of the available consultants and was engaged to assist with sales promotion planning following the market research by Inview Pty Ltd. Selection was undertaken using the standing procedures of AGAS and on the recommendation of AGAS. Mr Stuart Devlin 10 days Phase one payment 3,600 Heraldic Design-Mr Devlin is one of the world's leading heraldic experts and has been engaged to provide, for printing applications, a new artwork treatment of the Coat of Arms. Standard Australian Government Publishing Service procedures for the engagement of contract designers were applied. These are consistent with Commonwealth purchasing procedures, Finance Directions and PSB Guidelines. PROPERTY DIRECTORATE Messrs Jones Lang Wootton 4 Jan. 1984 to 2 Feb. 1984 284 Private valuation required due to zoning problems in relation to disposal of Lot 25/26 George Street, North Beach. International firm of repute of qualified valuers. The Commonwealth Taxation Valuer's office was requested to provide names of three companies who had the required expertise and then three quotes were obtained and the lowest quote was accepted. PSB approval was not sought as cost below public tender threshold. Messrs Jones Lang Wootton 23 Jan. 1984 to end May 1984 4,900 Private valuation in conjunction with Commonwealth valuer required in relation to disposal of Leighton Battery site assuming a hypothetical subdivision. International firm of repute of qualified valuers with experience in residential subdivisions. The Commonwealth Taxation Valuer's office was requested to provide names of three companies who had the required expertise and then three quotes were obtained and the lowest quote was accepted. Feilman Planning Consultants 23 Jan. 1984 to end May 1984 6,375 Provision of a hypothetical subdivision of Leighton Battery site. Qualified town planning firm of repute in WA with experience in subdivisions. Feilman Planning Consultants Pty Ltd has been established in Western Australia since 1950. The practice has a good reputation having been involved in a number of major projects including preparation of design plans for valuation purposes. It has been commissioned by the State Government of Western Australia on a number of occasions the most recent being to examine and report on the future use and development of the Swanbourne Hospital site. The Town Planning Department was requested to provide the names of three planning companies who had the required expertise and then three quotes were obtained and the lowest quote was accepted. Munro Johnson and Associates Pty Ltd 6 months 1,000 Consulting Engineers. Project Managers and Planners. These consultants were used to provide a feasibility study into the subdivision of surplus Defence Service Homes Corporation (DSHC) land at Bracken Ridge and to provide advice to prospective purchasers on the development of the land for residential purposes. The consultants had previously been engaged by DSHC in development planning when it was proposed to develop the land for Service housing. The consultants possessed considerable technical knowledge and expertise in the development of this parcel of land and in order to successfully plan and promote the land for sale to private developers, retention of these particular consultants was considered to be essential. Expert advice necessary to maximise financial return on sale of one million dollars Defence Service Homes property. These consultants performed earlier work on the development. The use of these consultants was supported and suggested Homes Corporation (DSHC). The consultants had previously been engaged by DSHC in development planning when it was proposed to develop the land for service housing. The consultants possessed considerable technical knowledge and expertise in the development of this parcel of land and in order to successfully plan and promote the land for sale to private developers, retention of these particular consultants was considered to be essential. Homes Corporation (DSHC). OVERSEAS PROPERTY OFFICE Industrial Design Council of Australia 9 May 1983-26 Oct. 1983 32,300 The Council was engaged to undertake a survey of Australian manufacturers of furniture. The Council is a corporate body which represents manufacturers of a wide range of building industry products. It provides expertise in a specialist area not available within Government resources. The engagement was approved by the Public Service Board. Ove Arup and Partners Jan. 1984-Feb. 1984 15,150 The firm which has been engaged as the consulting engineers for the major project, was also commissioned to undertake site investigation and soil testing for the construction of the Australian Chancery Complex in Riyadh. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Abrams, Benish, Rikner, Inc. Nov. 1983-Dec. 1983 3,000 (hourly rate) The firm undertook a rationalisation of accommodation at the Consulate-General in New York. It is one of the top New York real estate firms and has had previous involvement in a similar exercise for the Australian Government. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. G. M. Meredith and Associates Nov. 1983- Current 20,762 (estimate based on % fee) The firm was engaged to undertake the design and documentation and construction supervision for the High Commission residential development in Apia. The firm is a well established one in Apia and is familiar with local conditions. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Schaffer Associates Nov. 1983-Mar. 1984 4,500 (hourly rate fee) The firm undertook the design for the renovations to the Consulate-General in New York. It is a well respected local company which knows our requirements in New York. The consultant was acceptable to the building management. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. P.T. B.M.P. Indonesia Nov. 1983- Current 20,240 (estimate based on % fee) The firm was engaged as a consultant for the Jakarta Chancery renovations (Stage 2). The company is an international company of repute with an Australian principal. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Tierney and Partners Pty Ltd Feb. 1984- Current 6,000 (estimate based on hourly rate fee) The firm was engaged to assess earthquake damage to the Australian Chancery in Honiara and to provide design input for rectification. It is recognised as one of the leading Australian structural engineering firms in the field of earthquake design. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Interior Space Consultants Oct. 1983- Current 15,000 (estimate based on % fee) The firm was engaged to undertake the design manufacture and installation of furnishings for Australian Government residential units in Port Moresby. The principal of the firm is familiar with the site and local conditions and has performed satisfactorily on a previous commission. Experience and skills coupled with familiarity of the site and previous performance commended the engagement of the firm. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Lloyd Evans (Architect) June 1983-Apr. 1984 5,000 The firm was engaged as a consultant for the renovations of the Australian Chancery in Tonga. Lloyd Evans has a knowledge and understanding of local conditions. He was the only architect located during a visit to Tonga by senior Departmental officers. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. PAE International Far East Jan. 1984- Current 70,692 (estimate based on % fee) The firm was engaged as a consultant for the refurbishment of the Official Residence in Tokyo. It has an international reputation as well as a long association with the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. Yuncken Freeman (Hong Kong) Nov. 1983- Current 64,860 (estimate based on % fee) The firm was engaged as a consultant for the fit-out of the new Australian Chancery in Hong Kong. It is an international company of repute with Australian affiliation. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. PAE International Far East Jan. 1984-Current 58,050 (estimate based on % fees) The firm was engaged as a consultant for the refurbishment of the Chancery in Tokyo. It has an international reputation as well as a long association with the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. The engagement was made in accordance with standing arrangements approved by the Public Service Board. AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Private ConsultantsAustralian Capital Territory Aerometrix July 1982-May 1983 17,390 The background/experience of Consultants engaged by the Australian Survey Office is outlined in the body of the answer. The criteria on which the Consultants were selected is outlined in the body of the answer. Bennett & Francis Aerial Surveys June 1983 5,687.88 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd June 1983 5,387.66 Kevron Aerial Surveys Apr. 1983 900 Ortho Mapping Services Feb.-May 1983 11,932.75 Reprographics Pty Ltd June 1983 3,319 Stereometric Services June 1983 5,100.45 Airesearch Surveys Pty Ltd Jan.-June 1983 166,246 Drafting Contractors Australian Capital Territory Capital Drafting Consultants Pty Ltd 76.46 days 7,343 Cangraphics Pty Ltd 76.42 days 7,061 Carto-Survey Drafting Services 99.3 days 10,615 GR & JK Devrell 40.2 days 4,007 Manuka Drafting Services 30.7 days 2,106.63 McKimmie Jamieson & Partners Pty Ltd 25.13 days 2,395.17 Private Surveyors Australian Capital Territory Courtenay & Barrett Mar. 1983-May 1983 6,196 M. D. Downing & Associates May 1983-June 1983 2,688 Ellison & Head Pty Ltd Mar. 1983-26 Apr. 1983 5,376 J. W. Foxlee Mar.-Apr. 1983 1,680 M. Hickey May-June 1983 1,542 R. J. Kell & Co. Apr.-May 1983 1,182 Alan J. Mail & Associates May-June 1983 1,968 McKeon & England Mar.-Apr. 1983 4,547 McKimmie, Jamieson & Partners Pty Ltd Apr.-May 1983 4,942 C. Samundsett May-June 1983 3,624 Sowden & Lilley & Associates Pty Ltd Apr.-June 1983 4,096 J. R. Vaughan, Burton & Associates Pty Ltd Feb.-June 1983 1,977 Williams & McDonald Apr.-May 1983 1,977 New South Wales Brown & Pluthero June 1983 225 B. Carr Apr. 1983 510 Caddy, Seal & Jarman June 1983 929 B. W. Esler & Associates May 1983 81 Mike Fornell May 1983 258 Griffin Drafting Apr.-June 1983 11,625 G. F. Howe June 1983 426 M. Hickey June 1983 300 Denis J. I. James June 1983 600 L. J. Kane May 1983 66 R. R. Langford & Associates June 1983 420 L. Lewington May 1983 400 B. Leigh-Cooper & Young May 1983 869.70 P. W. Rygate & West June 1983 1,200 Bob Sliters May 1983 792 M. Wells April 1983 4,500 P. J. Williams May 1983 413 South Australia Alexander & Symons Pty Ltd May 1983 4,067 B. K. S. Surveys (A/Asia) Pty Ltd Apr.-June 1983 1,110 Computer Aided Drafting & Design Services Apr.-May 1983 3,900 Mosel, Brown & Associates June 1983 7,692 McGay Surveys June 1983 4,477 Alan D. Wilson 1982-83 3,551 Victoria Alexander & Symonds June 1983 310 Cannon & Kluge June 1983 260 Fisher, Cleeland, Turner & Dwyer Pty Ltd June 1983 1,098 McMahon, Abram & Associates June 1983 326 R. C. Page Apr. 1983 428 Thomas & Partners June 1983 750 A. Van Pty Ltd June 1983 970 Tasmania D. M. McAvoy June 1983 3,300 J. B. Medbury Pty Ltd June 1983 367 Peacock, Darcey & Anderson June 1983 2,404 G. J. Walkem & Co. June 1983 1,040 Northern Territory Brazier & Motti* Mar.-May 1983 29,100 P. R. Coppin & Associates* Apr.-June 1983 18,605 Fisher, Cleeland, Turner & Dwyer Pty Ltd* Mar.-June 1983 14,174 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey* Mar.-June 1983 37,400 Earl James & Associates* May-June 1983 8,000 Markey Campbell & Thomson* May-July 1983 63,550 Maguire, Lowe & McKellar* Apr.-Aug. 1983 103,483 Qasco Northern Surveys* May-June 1983 46,600 * Funded in part/whole by Australian National Railways Western Australia Cartographic & Survey Drawing Services Apr.-June 1983 11,601 Geomax May-June 1983 6,009 K. Maguire May 1983 425 McKimmie, Jamieson & Partners Pty Ltd June 1983 650 R. Waller & Associates June 1983 390 A. R. Williams & Associates June 1983 6,315 Queensland Bennett & Francis Pty Ltd Apr. 1983 155 Boddy Axtell June 1983 367 Brazier & Motti Pty Ltd June 1983 4,536 W. S. Comiskey June 1983 975 C. Edmundston & Associates June 1983 960 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd June 1983 1,366 Jones, Flint & Pike Pty Ltd Apr.-June 1983 12,873 Mapping & Hydrographic Surveys June 1983 9,850 J. Macisaacs & Associates June 1983 3,770 Pike, Mirls, McKnoulty, Clarke Pty Ltd June 1983 16,326 Rowlands Surveys Pty Ltd June 1983 12,780 Skilled Engineering (Contract Labour) Pty Ltd Apr.-June 1983 1,491 Ullman & Nolan Pty Ltd June 1983 2,259 E. Westlake & Associates June 1983 1,600 Australian Capital Territory Clark & Di Pauli Nov. 1983-Feb 1984 3,283 Courtenay & Barrett Aug.-Sept. 1983, Nov.-Dec. 1983 7,422 Australian Capital Territory Downing (now Blecharz & Shaw) Sept. 1983, Nov. 1983-Feb. 1984 9,562 Ellison & Head Aug. 1983 868 M. Hickey Oct.-Nov. 1983 6,195 R. J. Kell Aug.-Sept. 1983, Nov. 1983-Feb. 1984 11,457 Alan J. Mail Aug.-Sept. 1983, Nov. 1983-Feb. 1984 3,731 McKimmie Jamieson Nov. 1983-Feb. 1984 3,728 McKean & England July-Aug. 1983 771 J. Rae Sept.-Oct. 1983, Nov. 1983-Feb. 1984 8,627 C. Samundsett Oct. 1983-Feb. 1984, Aug. 1983 3,553 Sowden & Wells Nov. 183-Feb. 1984, July 1983 3,801 J. R. Vaughan & Burton Aug. 1983, Oct. 1983-Feb. 1984 23,205 Drafting Contractors Australian Capital Territory K.M. Personnel Pty Ltd 10 days 953 Designex 15.51 days 1,915 L.P. Fraser Pty Ltd 28.6 days 2,905 Cangraphics Pty Ltd 52.25 days 4,486 G.R. & J.K. Devrell 22 days 2,364 Capital Drafting Consultants Pty Ltd 50.3 days 5,112 McKimmie, Jamieson & Partners Pty Ltd 44.69 days 4,563 Carto-Survey Drafting Service 108.8 days 11,395 Manuka Drafting Service 45.6 days 3,820 Australian Aerial Mapping Sept. 1983 4,621 Private Surveyors and Contractors New South Wales Ayres & Britton 7.3 days 1,014 BSP Technical Services Group Jan. 1984 2,936 BHP Pty Ltd Feb. 1984 5,916 Brown & Pluthero Pty Ltd 1.2 days 574 Blyth Hadlow & Associates 0.3 days 165 Bullock, Walters & Associates Feb. 1984 3,500 Caddey, Searl & Jarman Feb. 1984 1,210 Campbell & Anderson Pty Ltd Feb. 1984 4,320 Griffin Drafting 42.9 days 3,003 Haggerty & Walker Jan. 1984 275 D James 1 day 520 Land & Marine Consultants Pty Ltd . . 23,500 Laurie, Montgomery & Pettit 2.1 days 989.11 R.R. Langford & Associates 4.4 days 2,092 R.C. McKenzie & Co. Feb. 1984 890 Allen Price & Associates Feb. 1984 7,250 C. Rodgers Feb. 1984 500 T. J. Stewart & Co. 0.4 days 200 M. F. Shaw Nov. 1983 230 Alan A. Shephard Sept. 1983 3,940 M. J. Vaughan 21.75 days 2,020.75 South Australia B.K.S. Surveys (A/Asia) Pty Ltd July 1983 9,157 C.A.D.D.S. July-Nov. 1983 3,000 Photec Air Surveys Pty Ltd July 1983 1,715 SA Lands Dept (Mapping Branch) Aug. 1983 1,230 Plantec Drafting 3 days 1,666 Ngaanyatjarra Air Oct. 1983 241 M. L. & M. J. Franklin Oct. 1983 438 Alidade Survey Drafting Services Pty Ltd 3 days 702 Victoria Crowther & Saddler 4.5 days 970 B. W. Esler & Associates 4 days 2,020 Fisher, Cleeland, Turner & Dwyer 1.25 days 426 G. Shaw & Associates 1.5 days 381 Stereometric Services Sept. 1983 520 Tasmania Campbell Smith Phelps & Dedley 10 days 6,613 Cromer & Cerrutty 20 days 4,742 C. Cohen 4 days 934 S. W. Cohen & Associates 7 days 2,909 M. Hurburgh 8 days 1,596 K. Mitchell 2 days 722 L. MacKenzie 4 days 1,295 H. A. Mackay 1.5 days 634 Peacock, Darcey & Anderson 11 days 7,819 Mr J. Robertson (Draft Services) 8.1 days 884 E. B. Valentine Sept. 1983 8,385 G. J. Walker 1.25 days 318 G. J. Walkem 2 days 553 Northern Territory Brazier & Motti Oct.-Dec. 1983 36,645 G. Bell July-Aug. 1983 500 Chrisp de Vries Sept. 1983 60,571 P. R. Coppin Aug.-Sept. 1983 7,222 C.S.D.S. July-Aug. 1983 180 Fisher, Cleeland, Turner & Dwyer July-Aug. 1983 9,878.50 Geo-Spectrum July-Sept. 1983 140,441 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey* July-Jan. 77,550 E.B.M. James Sept.-Oct. 12,989 Markey, Campbell & Thomson* Aug.-Dec. 108,702 Maguire & McKellar* Oct-Dec. 1983 127,942 McKimmie, Jamieson & Partners* Sept-Jan. 36,420 Qasco Northern Surveys* Sept.-Jan. 85,475 (* Funded in part/whole by Australian National Railways) Western Australia Duesburys Sept. 258 B.P. Kingston & Associates Dec. 423 Steffanoni, Ewing & Cruikshank Dec. 12,500 McKimmie Jamieson Dec. 13,025 P. Heyhoe & Associates Dec. 8,348 Hille & Thompson Dec. 8,129 A. K. King & Co. Dec. 7,918 W. E. Johnson & Co. Oct. 2,850 G. A. & J. E. Roe Nov.-Jan. 18,302 R. J. Rule Oct. 507 J. Towie 12.1 days 7,878 A. R. Williams 1.7 days 993 Cartographic & Survey Drawing Services 107.1 days 7,842 G. Bath 1.9 days 1,167 K. M. Edwards & Associates 12.2 days 7,936 Zuideveld Bennet 14 days 9,107 A. C. Watson & Associates Sept.-Dec. 572 Queensland Bennett & Francis 61.64 days 9,970.38 Boddy Axtell & Wood 49.19 days 6,907.10 Capricorn Survey Consultants 23.5 days 3,652 W. S. Comiskey & Associates January 1984 9,500 C. Edmonstone & Associates 4.26 days 1,833.50 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey June-Dec. 1983 5,924 Hillhouse & Hillhouse Nov. 1983 590 Heilbornw, Waterson, Craze & Associates Sept. 1983 180 M. J. Hedges & Associates Sept-Dec. 1983 1,250 A. J. & M. K. Hoffman Nov. 1983 4,420 Peter J. Jardine & Associates 1.5 days 735 Jones, Flint & Pike 32.7 days 19,293 Keilar, Fox & McGhie 4.4 days 2,198.30 Lincoln Partners 2.7 days 1,360 Qld Dept of Mapping & Surveying 20 days 10,000 Mapping and Hydrographic Surveys Nov. 1983 9,950 J. Macisaacs & Associates Dec. 1983 1,050 Charles O'Neill Sept.-Dec. 1983 5,905 Parkinson & Parkinson Dec. 1983-Jan. 1984 475 Pike & Partners Dec. 1983 50,940 Rowlands Surveys 9.6 days 4,804 F. T. Taylor & Associates Dec. 1983 4,976 R. C. Todd & Associates Jan. 1984 4,500 (Question No. 1171) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 8 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Civic Library is open only on Monday to Friday from 8 .30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.; if so, is the library closed on Saturday, particularly Saturday morning, because the public buildings, of which it forms a part, are closed and there is an unwillingness to provide heating or cooling to the library independently of the rest of the building. (2) Are members of the library staff willing to work on Saturday morning. (3) Has the closure of the library on Saturday morning in the last nine months occasioned considerable inconvenience to the residents of Canberra. (4) Has his attention been drawn to particular complaints of the blind, who need more lengthy access to the library, of the particular inconvenience that has been occasioned to them. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the Civic Library, Canberra City, recommenced Saturday opening from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 9 June 1984. Prior to that, problems associated with the air-conditioning system caused great discomfort to both the staff and users of the library. An approach was made by my Department to the Department of Administrative Services to operate the air-conditioning on Saturdays and, as a result, the situation was rectified. (2) Library staff are willing to work on Saturday providing the air- conditioning functions at a satisfactory level. (3) Some complaints about the closure of the Civic Library has been received. It should be noted, however, that the other libraries operated by the Canberra Public Library Service have been open on Saturdays as follows: Belconnen 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Dickson 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Kingston 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Erindale Centre 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Woden Town Centre 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Kippax Interim Library 9 a. m.-1 p.m. (4) One case of a blind child who needed more lengthy access to the library on Saturday has been drawn to the attention of my Department. This is the only known complaint involving a blind person. (Question No. 1172) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Will the Attorney-General take steps, as a matter of urgency, to investigate and have referred to the Ministerial Council the financial loss and hardship inflicted upon insureds with loss-based claims flowing from the collapse of the Bishopsgate Insurance Company. (2) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to (a) recent Press reports of the findings of the liquidator into this company, (b) the decision of Mr Justice Needham in the New South Wales Supreme Court in the case of the Dominion Insurance Company of Australia and the Companies Act-Australian Law Reform Commission, Report No. 20, page 212-and the effect of this decision on the problems facing the liquidator, and (c) Press reports that this decision is being challenged by the liquidator of the company in the Victorian Supreme Court . (3) Is it a fact that, having regard to the wording of the section of the Companies Code and that the section was re-enacted in identical terms after this judgment, it will be difficult for this appeal to succeed. (4) Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal will the Attorney-General, as a matter of urgency, examine the effects of this decision and this appeal on the question of the availability and distribution of re-insurance funds for these insureds, rather than ordinary unsecured creditors. (5) Will the Attorney-General examine the particular section of the Companies Code to see what amendments can be made to protect insureds with loss-based claims. (6) Is it a fact that the terms of the agreement setting up the Co-operative Companies and Securities Codes, do not affect the exercise of the powers to legislate on insurance and bankruptcy matters in conformity with the Constitution without the need to seek the approval of the Ministerial Council; if so, will the Attorney-General give urgent consideration to the enactment of legislation to give insureds with loss-based claims priority over all unsecured creditors; if not, will he refer to the Ministerial Council my private Member's Bill for the 'Winding up of Insurance Companies' for its urgent consideration and implementation, notwithstanding the reference to the ALRC on insolvency. (7) In view of the exceptional nature of this case as reported in an article headed 'Bishopgate's Trail of ruined Lives' in the Australian of 17 February 1984, and in the light of the economic disaster needlessly inflicted on people because of this collapse, will the Attorney-General take immediate action to see what legislative amendments can be made to empower the liquidator to take steps to mitigate the suffering being inflicted on the insureds. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (6) There appears to be two alternative options which the Government could adopt to give greater financial protection to policy holders in the event of the failure of a general insurance company. The first involves the establishment of a guarantee fund to minimise losses to policy holders, as was recommended in the Law Reform Commission Report on Insurance Contracts ALRC 20. The Treasurer has this proposal under consideration. The second, more limited approach, which is contained in the honourable member' s proposed Bill, is to accord a priority to policy holders' claims over the claims of other unsecured creditors in the winding up of a general insurance company. Depending on the outcome of the Treasurer's consideration of the Law Reform Commission's guarantee fund proposal, it may be appropriate for the Government to consider the more limited option of giving a preference to policy holder creditors in the winding up of a general insurance company. As to the method by which the latter proposal could be implemented, regard must plainly be had to the fact that the Commonwealth is party to the formal Agreement with the States, and it would be inappropriate to deal with matters which fall within the Agreement other than in accordance with its provisions. Any proposal which would vary the priorities which are to apply to the winding up of a company is covered by that Agreement and the Commonwealth would be required, in fulfilling its obligations under clause 46 of the Agreement, to raise the matter with the Ministerial Council. Should that take place, I would arrange for the honourable member's Bill to be taken into account by the Ministerial Council in the course of its examination of the matter. (2) (a), (b) and (c) Yes. (3) to (5) With regard to the question of the availability of re-insurance proceeds, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the actual decision of Mr Justice Needham in the Dominion Insurance Case. However, the Ministerial Council currently has under consideration proposals which would make specific provision for the distribution of re-insurance proceeds in the event of the winding up of an insurance company. At its meeting on 24 May 1984, the Ministerial Council agreed that the draft amendments should be referred for comment to the General Insurance Consultative Committee, a body whose members are appointed by the Treasurer to provide advice to the Government on matters relevant to current or prospective insurance legislation and on government policy proposals with significant implications for the insurance industry. The Ministerial Council will further consider the proposed legislative amendments after the consultations with the General Insurance Consultative Committee have been completed. (7) I am aware of the hardship that has been caused, not only to the policy holders, but also to the other unsecured creditors by the failure of the Bishopsgate group. As I have indicated, the Government is examining the case for legislative amendment to apply to any future insurance company failures. However , it would not be appropriate to intervene in the current liquidation of these companies by introducing legislative amendments which would, where there are necessarily limited assets available for distribution, have the effect of retrospectively increasing the entitlements of one group of creditors at the expense of reducing those of another group. (Question No. 1178) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that, due to the below-inflation-level increase in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation budget for this year, that organisation has now requested an additional $20m; if so, how much has been or will be provided. (2) How many additional staff and casual employees have been employed by the ABC since July 1982 and at what additional annual cost in terms of (a) salaries, (b) superannuation, (c) long service entitlement and (d) other. (3) What was the ABC staff level in February each year since 1972. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is: (1) The 1983-84 budget handed down in August 1983 included an appropriation of $288.832m for the ABC. This figure was based on prices current at that time. The relevant figure for 1982-83 was $274.175m. Subsequently, as part of the additional estimates process, the ABC sought an additional $19.87m. Negotiations resulted in an eventual agreement for an additional $12.5m. The total 1983-84 appropriation for the ABC is therefore $301.332m or an increase of $27.157m which represents a 9.9 per cent increase on the 1982-83 figure. (2) Four hundred and seven additional staff, including permanent and casual employees, have been employed by the ABC since 30 June 1982. Because of concurrent recruitment, resignations, activating and freezing of jobs, the cost of specific positions representing additional staffing is not able to be isolated. (3) 1972-5,996; 1973-6,275; 1974-6,754; 1975-7,147; 1976-7,447; 1977-6,793; 1978-6,585; 1979-6,506; 1980-6,406; 1981-6,476; 1982-6,492; 1983-6,606; 1984-6, 872. (Question No. 1179) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Are employees of Australia Post public service employees; if not, what are they. (2) Are Australia Post employees entitled to a holiday additional to Christmas Day and Boxing Day in the Christmas week; if so, when and by whom is this granted. (3) Are all public service and statutory authority and private company employees under the Minister's direct or indirect control, entitled to this additional holiday. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Australia Post staff are appointed to the Australian Postal Commission Service or engaged as temporary employees under the Postal Services Act 1975. (2) The Postal (Staff) By-Laws provide for the observance, in the Commission Service, of a number of public holidays each year, specifying particular days and authorising the Commission to approve up to a further four days. One of those four days is an additional holiday during the Christmas/New Year period. The actual day varies according to postal service considerations in each State. (3) Department of Communications-The Public Service Board has determined that Christmas Day and the following day (Boxing Day) shall be observed as holidays in the service. The Board has the power to declare that any other day shall be observed as a holiday in the Service and usually so declares one other day in the Christmas week. Telecom Australia-The Australian Telecommunications Commission determines, pursuant to the Telecommunications (Staff) By-Law 40, that Telecom employees are entitled to a holiday additional to Christmas Day and Boxing Day in the Christmas week. This holiday is usually observed on the day immediately following Boxing Day; however, where Christmas Day falls on a Tuesday the additional holiday is granted on the Monday immediately prior to New Years Day. The practice followed by Telecom in granting the holiday is similar to that of the Public Service Board and other statutory authorities. Aussat-Aussat Pty Ltd is currently negotiating terms and conditions to be incorporated in awards with Unions which are seeking coverage of company staff. Provision will exist in the final awards for a so called 'additional public holiday'. This holiday may be taken at any time during the year following agreement between Aussat Pty Ltd and the particular union. This award provision is consistent with established practices in Federal awards applicable to private industry (for example the metal industry) and has a parallel, the provision of a union 'picnic day' in most New South Wales State awards. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Special Broadcasting Service-Staff of OTC (A), ABT and the SBS are employed under the Public Service Act 1922 and therefore holiday entitlements for staff of the three authorities are as determined, from time to time, by the Public Service Board. Australian Broadcasting Corporation-ABC staff are entitled to a holiday additional to Christmas Day and Boxing Day in the Christmas week under ABC Staff Rule 86 which states 'Public Holidays'-The same days will be observed as public holidays by officers and employees of the ABC as are observed as public holidays in the Commonwealth Public Service in the locality at which the office or employee is stationed. (Questions No. 1180) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What Commonwealth assistance has been allocated to refugee assistance programs operated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2) What form does the assistance take. (3) What nations receive this aid. (4) What procedures are adopted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that this assistance is fully utilised to the benefit of the refugees. (5) Can he give an assurance that Australian aid for refugee assistance under the above programs is fully utilised to the benefit of refugees. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) For the financial year 1983-84, $17,798,700. (2) (i) Food aid valued at $10,013,700; (ii) An untied grant of $4,100,000; ( iii) Drilling equipment and support equipment $1,300,000; (iv) Contribution to anti-piracy program $315,000; (v) Contributions to international appeals $2,070, 000. (3) Recipients of each of the above categories of assistance are as follows: (i) Thailand, Cambodia, Somalia, Pakistan (Afghans) (ii) Various beneficiaries determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (iii) Pakistan (Afghans) (iv) Thailand (v) South America, Africa. (4) At the annual meeting of UNHCR's Executive Committee, of which Australia is a member, the report of the Board of Auditors is submitted for examination. This certifies UNHCR expenditure on assistance to refugees. In addition, each year, the Executive Committee examines in detail the previous year's activities of UNHCR. (5) To the extent possible, Australia monitors the utilisation of Australian aid provided to UNHCR. While we have noted some food distribution difficulties in Africa, the regular reports received from UNHCR indicate that Australian aid is reaching the intended beneficiaries. (Question No. 1187) Mr Aldred asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Are security checks and/or surveillance undertaken in relation to officers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP); 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 officers of the AFP 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 officers of the AFP with the former Canberra establishment known as Pine Lodge. (3) In each of the years 1972 to 1979 (a) how many reports of illegal activities at Pine Lodge, or involving Pine Lodge, were reported to senior AFP officers by (i) members of the AFP and (ii) members of the public, (b) how many prosecutions were undertaken by the AFP involving Pine Lodge and what were the charges and (c) how many prosecutions were successful in the courts and what convictions or judgments were recorded. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Officers of the AFP are subject to security checks. (a) Security checks are made in accordance with guidelines contained in the Government's security assessment and personnel assessment manuals. In addition, all recruits are subject to criminal record checks and other checks necessary to establish their bona fides and suitability to be a member of the AFP. (b) In accordance with the Government's security assessment and personnel assessment manuals, security checks are made on joining the AFP and thereafter whenever a higher security classification is required and at least every five years in the case of top security positions. (c) the internal security section of the AFP. (d) All positions having a security rating. (e) The AFP was formed in October 1979. Security checks conducted since that time are as follows: No. of Most senior security position Year checks subject to check 1980 169 Asst. Commissioner 1981 486 Asst. Commissioner 1982 279 Deputy Commissioner 1983 480 Chief Superintendent (2) No. (3) (a) (i) and (ii) As indicated above the AFP was formed in October 1979. However, I am advised by the AFP that the premises known as 'Pine Lodge' were known to the former Australian Capital Territory Police. Records of that force contain two reports concerning illegal activities associated with that establishment during its period of operation between April 1978 and July 1979-a complaint received by the then Minister for the Capital Territory from the Canberra South Branch of the Australian Labor Party that the premises were being used as a common gaming house, and an alleged attempt to bribe a member of the police. (b) and (c) Again it should be noted the AFP was formed after the premises known as 'Pine Lodge' ceased to operate. However, in January 1979, a raid was carried out by members of the Licensing Squad of the former Australian Capital Territory Police. Four persons were apprehended for betting by way of gaming in a public place. Of the four arrested , only one appeared before the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions on 30.1.80 and was fined $100. Warrants were issued by the AFP for the three who failed to appear and two are still current. The third was executed on 30.10.81. In the latter case, the Court found there was no case to answer and the matter was dismissed. In regard to the attempt to bribe a police officer, the then proprietor of Pine Lodge was charged by the former Australian Capital Police between 23 November 1978 and 15 December 1978 with allegedly offering a bribe of $2,000 per month to a member of the Licensing Squad to allow a roulette wheel to be installed in the premises. The matter was not finalised due to the principal prosecution witness being medically discharged from the force. On 18 September 1979 the Crown offered no evidence and was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $400. (Question No. 1192) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 March 1983: (1) Is it a fact that a company director who has been charged with serious criminal offences may continue to act as a director pending the determination of those charges. (2) Will the Attorney-General investigate the feasibility of amending section 227 of the Companies Act so as to allow the National Companies and Securities Commission-NCSC-to seek an injunction to restrain a person who has been charged with serious offences from acting as director or from otherwise participating in the management of a company pending the determination of the charges. (3) Is it currently possible for the NCSC to take action under section 574 of the Companies Act to ensure that a person who has been charged with serious offences is unable to meddle in the affairs of a company pending the determination of the charges. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Companies Act 1981-the Act-does not provide that a person will be prohibited from acting as a director of a corporation for the reason only that he has been charged with committing an offence. I have indicated previously in my answer to part 2 (c) of your question No. 476 (see Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 92), that section 227 of the Act does not prohibit a person from acting as a director on the grounds that he has committed an offence unless that person has been convicted. Since I gave that reply, the enactment of new section 227A has extended the scope of the prohibition beyond the need to obtain a conviction. That section provides that an application may be made to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for an order prohibiting a director, secretary or principal executive officer of a corporation from taking part in the management of a corporation where the person has acted dishonestly or carelessly in the performance of his duties, or where he has himself repeatedly breached, or has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the corporation from repeatedly breaching companies and securities legislation. I should also point out that the Act contains other prohibitions on persons acting as directors for conduct not connected with the commission of an offence. By virtue of section 562 such a disqualification may be imposed by a Supreme Court where the person has taken part in the management of several failed companies where the manner in which the affairs of the companies were managed was responsible for their failure. Proposed amendments contained in the exposure draft of the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No . 2) Bill 1984, which have been released for public comment, will also enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to prohibit the common director of a number of failed companies from taking part in the management of a corporation without the leave of a Supreme Court. (2) I have noted the honourable member's views. However, as I have indicated, the Act already to a considerable extent gives effect to the view that persons who have demonstrated their unsuitability or incapacity to take part in the management of a company should be disqualified from acting as directors. I would not propose extending the prohibition further on the sole ground that a person has been charged with an offence. There are fundamental questions concerning the presumption of innocence involved in the imposition of such an unqualified restriction on a person. (3) Section 574 is not directed to the question of whether or not a charge has been laid against a person, or to the involvement of a charged person in the affairs of a company generally. Under the section, the NCSC may seek an injunction, among other things, to restrain a person from engaging in conduct which constitutes an offence against the Companies Act. (Question No. 1193) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Further to his answer to my question without notice on 8 December 1983 ( Hansard, page 3511-2), has the Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission reported on the establishment of a sports museum; if so, what are its recommendations and what action does the Government propose to take on them. (2) If the Commission has not yet reported when is the report expected to be completed. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission was established to advise the Government on the possible role, structure and function of the proposed Commission. The issue of the development of a sports museum was one of a number of specific issues that I asked the Interim Committee to address in the context of their overall recommendations. The Interim Committee has completed its report, and the recommendations are currently being considered by the Government. Until the Government has announced its decisions on the recommendations, I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss specific issues or recommendations out of context. I have already indicated my personal support for the concept of a sports museum which I believe would provide a fitting repository for all the artefacts and memorabilia that exist from Australia's sporting heroes and heroines. I will announce any specific initiatives to develop the concept further at the earliest possible time. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1211) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the trunk line telephone system out of Batemans Bay, New South Wales, is so overloaded that the Telecom Australia complaints section at Nowra has advised complaining subscribers not to attempt to make trunk calls until after lunchtime, particularly on Mondays; if so, what is being done to overcome this problem. (2) Is it a fact that a new exchange building has been ready for over two years , but the equipment is housed in old sheds adjoining the building; if so, when will the equipment be installed. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) At present telephone subscribers in Batemans Bay are serviced by portable exchanges which are nearing full capacity and trunk line outlets are sometimes congested during peak business periods. Telecom adopts a policy of encouraging customers to make social calls during off-peak periods whenever possible to leave equipment free for business calls during business hours. For this purpose, Telecom offers cheaper off-peak call charges. Work has started on the installation of a new exchange, at a cost of $1.35m, in the permanent building which was erected some years ago in anticipation of this requirement. The new exchange will be commissioned by the end of November 1984. In addition, Telecom has commenced network up-grading work to improve access from Batemans Bay to the trunk network. Because of delays in the supply of equipment, the up-grading work is not proceeding as quickly as originally scheduled, but it is being implemented progressively as equipment becomes available and will also be virtually completed by the end of November. The completion of these two projects should result in a satisfactory grade of service during normal business hours. (Question No. 1215) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether in the United Kingdom there is an enterprise allowance which consists of an advance to an unemployed person of up to one year's value of the unemployment benefit for the purpose of setting up a small business. (2) Is it the intention of the Government to set up a similar scheme in Australia; if not, will the Government consider either (a) encouraging the banks , particularly the Commonwealth Development Bank, to make loans of a similar amount for similar purposes or (b) permitting local governments to use some wage pause or community employment program funds for similar loans. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There is an enterprise allowance scheme operating in the United Kingdom under which assistance is provided to unemployed people wishing to establish their own business. The allowance is a fortnightly payment, payable at a flat rate regardless of marital status, family size and number of dependants. It does not represent advance payment of unemployment benefit entitlement. Further details of the scheme are contained in the December 1983 issue of the Social Security Journal, published by my Department. (2) My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is currently examining the scope for introducing a scheme in Australia aimed at helping unemployed people establish themselves in self employment or small businesses. At this stage it would be premature to discuss specific funding mechanisms. (Question No. 1220) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: Has Mr Geoff Dunn, Manager of the Service Standard Section of Telecom, now responded to the satisfaction of Mrs D. O'Brien of Paddington, New South Wales, concerning her telephone service and about which she has also contacted the Minister. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: Telecom has advised that during an interview on 18 May 1984 with Mr Geoff Dunn, Manager, Service Standards Section, Sydney City Branch, Mrs D. O'Brien of 6 Shadforth Street, Paddington, New South Wales, expressed satisfaction with his response to her questions concerning her telephone service. (Question No. 1226) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is he able to say whether franchise banking has been introduced in Queensland. (2) Has he given consent under section 66 of the Banking Act for these businesses to use the name 'bank'. (3) Are these businesses required to place special reserve deposit funds with the Reserve Bank of Australia. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Arrangements in Queensland for operating the offices in question are on the basis of a relationship of principal-and-agent. (2) On this basis, the need for the Treasurer to give consent under Section 66 of the Banking Act to the use of the work 'bank' in relation to these businesses does not arise. (3) Deposits accepted by the agent on behalf of the bank are part of the total deposits of the bank and are subject to the provisions of the Banking Act, including provisions relating to Statutory Reserve Deposits. (Question No. 1232) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 2 April 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the views of the Australian Capital Territory Automobile Chamber of Commerce that the number of service stations in Canberra is excessive. (2) Is this view accepted by the Government. (3) What weight is given to this view in considering applications for or the siting of new service stations in Canberra. (4) If the view is formed that a new site is required in a particular location to meet new needs, is consideration given to a corresponding reduction in another location where outlets are excessive. (5) Does the Government consult with the Chamber on any new locations and corresponding reductions. (6) Did the Government consult with the Chamber on planning another service station in Belconnen; if so, what was the result of those consultations. (7) Has his attention been drawn to the Chamber's view that while there may be a surfeit of service stations in Belconnen, there may be a real shortage in Tuggeranong. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) I am advised that the sale of a second service station site in Belconnen was first proposed in 1980. Following representation from the Australian Capital Territory Automobile Services Association the then Minister withdrew the site for sale and asked the National Capital Development Commission to review its policy in relation to service stations in consultation with the Association. This led to a review of the standards. In the case of the Town Centre, the provision of a minimum of two service station sites in Belconnen is consistent with the revised policy. (4) The policies allow for a change in land use where a service station is no longer viable. This provides a mechanism for a reduction in the number of service stations where the number of outlets is excessive. One service station lease has been changed under these policies and another is close to being changed. (5) and (6) I am advised that the NCDC was in contact with the Australian Capital Territory Automobile Chamber of Commerce and oil companies operating in the Australian Capital Territory during the preparation of the revised Policy on Service Stations. There was industry agreement to the Policy but the Australian Capital Territory Automobile Chamber of Commerce has maintained opposition to the release of a second service station site in the Belconnen Town Centre. (7) Yes, the shortage of service station sites in Tuggeranong is recognised and sites at Erindale and Chisholm are due for release this year. (Question No. 1240) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Did he state at the 2nd Supplementary Licence Seminar held at Sydney on 2 February 1984, that the direct broadcasting from satellite review will probably begin in earnest during 1986, that is when planning of the second generation of Aussat satellites begins; if so, was he inferring (a) that there will be no DBS until the second generation of domestic satellites is in service, and, if so, when will this be, and if not, when will DBS be permitted for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial television, (b) that the third satellite presently ordered as a standby for the first two or for post-1985 launch could be replaced by a more flexible satellite, and, if so, will this be defined as a first or second generation satellite, and (c) that DBS by definition is a direct unencoded signal, and/or an encoded signal with permission for groups or individuals to decode the signal. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) I was not implying that there will be no form of direct broadcasting from satellite (DBS) until the second generation of domestic satellites. The ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) will be a DBS service, and this is scheduled to commence operation in late 1985. The Government will, within the next few months, further consider the issue of commercial television services to remote areas and this is likely to involve consideration of a DBS service to isolated homesteads. At this stage I am unable to indicate when such a service could be provided. My comments were intended to indicate that any other use of DBS will have to be considered as part of planning for satellites to replace the first generation satellites. (b) The third satellite ordered as a standby is identical to the two in-orbit satellites and as such is considered a first generation satellite. See answer to (a). (c) DBS is a broadcasting service transmitted by satellite capable of direct- reception by individuals using satellite receiving dishes. See answer to (a) and (b). (Question No. 1242) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) What is the average waiting time for elective surgery. (2) What procedures are classified as elective surgery. (3) How many patients are waiting for each procedure. (4) What is the average waiting period for each procedure. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am unable to answer the honourable member's question as the information requested is not available to my Department. The responsibility for the provision of surgical procedures rests with the State and Territorial health authorities. However, an approach was made by my Department to each authority to obtain the information sought. While all authorities have not yet replied, the responses received are limited and have led to the conclusion that the information sought cannot be provided in the form requested. This state of affairs exists because there is no standard system to record information; the limited information available does not cover all hospitals in a State and there are difficulties in classifying procedures as 'elective'. If the honourable member wishes to pursue a particular aspect, I will endeavour to answer him to the extent that information is available. (Question Nos 1278 to 1305) Mr Peacock asked all Ministers, 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 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 Young —The honourable member has asked identical questions of all Ministers, as referred to by the above question numbers. The answers to the honourable member's questions are provided in the following table, on behalf of all Ministers, with their concurrence, except for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who answered separately on 29 May 1984, Hansard, page 2401, and the Attorney-General, who answered separately on 10 May 1984, Hansard, page 2291. Advertising Nature of appearances Cost of Advertising Department advertisements (Press) TV advertisements agency $ Aboriginal Affairs Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Administrative Services Relocation of Sydney AGPS Bookshop Sydney Metropolitan dailies. Period: Oct. 1983 Nil 5,644 Creative Oasis AGPS Bookshop Christmas Sales Metropolitan dailies. Period: Dec. 1983 Nil 7,992 Creative Oasis Attorney-General's Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Aviation Wynyard Airport Burnie Advocate. Period: Jan. 1984 Nil 1,500 Monahan Dayman Adams Communications Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Defence Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Defence Support Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Education and Youth Affairs Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Employment and Industrial Relations General 'theme' campaign for employer/employee benefits (CES) All Metropolitan newspapers. Period: Apr. 1983 Nil 80,000 Monahan Dayman Adams New CRAFT Benefits Trade journals. Period: Mar./Apr. 1984 Nil 7,000 Schofield Sherbon Baker National Training Council Business journals. Period: Feb./Apr. 1984 Nil 47,000 Schofield Sherbon Baker Community Employment Program Metropolitan and Provincial newspapers and Ethnic press. Period: Aug./Sept. 1983 , Feb./Mar. 1984 Nil 332,000 Ogilvy & Mather Templine All Metropolitan newspapers. Period Sept. to Nov. 1983 Nil 27,500 Schofield Sherbon Baker Job Bank All Metropolitan and Provincial newspapers. Period: Sept. to Nov. 1983 Nil 64,000 Schofield Sherbon Baker National Aboriginal Employment Development Council Nil Melbourne Stations only 33,000 Monahan Dayman Adams Finance Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Foreign Affairs Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Health Medicare, Doctors' dispute Selected Metropolitan dailies, selected Sunday papers, Non-Capital City Dailies. Period: Mar./Apr. 1984 Nil 56,112 Forbes, Macfie Hansen Home Affairs and Environment Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Housing and Construction Promotion of First Home Owners' Scheme Metropolitan dailies, Sunday newspapers, selected Provincial newspapers, selected Ethnic press. Period: Oct. 1983 to Dec. 1983 Nil 276,162 Jirgenson & Naughton Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Grants scheme to Ethnic Groups Metropolitan dailies and Ethnic press. Period: Apr./May 1984 Nil 29,735 Neville Jeffress Industry and Commerce Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Primary Industry The Australian 13.10.1983 Nil 2,958 Meridian Prime Minister and Cabinet Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Resources and Energy National Industrial Energy Management Awards National newspapers and Business magazines. Period: 2.8.1983 to 2.9.1983 Nil 28,980 John Clemenger 1983 Fuel Consumption Guide National papers, selected Metropolitan dailies. Period: 14.11.1983 to 18.11.1983 Nil 3,907 John Clemenger Science and Technology Computer Month Melbourne Metropolitan newspapers Nil 4,000 Ian McDonald and Associates Victorian Enterprise Workshop Melbourne Metropolitan newspapers. Period: Apr. 1984 Nil 3,600 Ian McDonald and Associates Social Security Family Income Supplement Womens' Magazines, Sunday newspapers, selected Provincial dailies, selected Ethnic newspapers. Period: 17.4.1983 to 29.7.1983 Nil 317,057 SSC & B: Lintas Benefits for the Disabled Womens' Magazines, medical journals, Sunday newspapers, selected Provincial dailies. Period: 20.3.1983 to 22.5.1983 Nil 317,000 SSC & B: Lintas Special Minister of State Summit Tapes Metropolitan newspapers and National magazines. Period: July 1983 Nil 11,000 Monahan Dayman National Wage Case Metropolitan papers, Sunday papers, Provincial papers and Ethnic press. Period: Nov. to Dec. 1983 Nil 154,000 Hyde Everett and Fuller Superannuation-'The Facts' Metropolitan papers, Sunday papers, selected Provincial papers, selected Ethnic press. Period: 16.8.1983 to 2.9.1983 Nil 242,985 Monahan Dayman Adams Australian Electoral Commission-General Enrolment Campaign Metropolitan dailies, Sunday papers, selected Provincial papers, selected Ethnic press. Period: 16.10.1983 to 9.3.1984 All TV Stations 2,150,259 Monahan Dayman Adams Australian Electoral Commission-Notice of Electoral Redistributions Selected Metropolitan papers, National papers, Provincial dailies. Period: 6.3. 1984 to 16.3.1984 Nil 40,439 Neville Jeffress Australian Electoral Commission-Notice of Registration of Political Parties Major Metropolitan dailies. Period: 17.4.1984 Nil 8,444 Neville Jeffress Registration of Lobbyists Major Metropolitan dailies. Period: 17 Dec. 1983, 14 Jan. 1984, 17, 24 Mar. 1984 Nil 15,691 Neville Jeffress Sport Recreation and Tourism Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Territories and Local Government Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Trade Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Transport Introduction of new braking system for trailers Aust. Financial Review and Trade magazines. Period: 13.2.1984 to 30.3.1984 Nil 11,590 Holt Communications Office of Road Safety-Drinking/Driving campaign Nil All TV Stations 558,000 Foote Cone and Belding Treasury Australian Taxation Office-Prescribed Payments System Metropolitan dailies, Provincial papers and Ethnic press. Period: June and Aug. 1983 Nil 370,000 Leo Burnett Australian Taxation Office-changes to Prescribed Payments System Metropolitan dailies, Sunday papers, Provincial papers. Period: Nov. 1983 Nil 44,500 Leo Burnett Australian Savings Bonds Metropolitan dailies, Sunday papers, Provincial press. Period: Apr. 1983 to Mar. 1984 All TV Stations 2,540,000 Mar. 1983-Aug. 1983 Ogilvy & Mather March 1984 Rondney Silver & Partners Pty Ltd Veterans' Affairs Repatriation Budget Announcement Metropolitan morning dailies, Non-Capital City dailies, selected Provincial papers. Period: 27.8.1983 Nil 32,060 Doyle Dane Bernbach (Question No. 1309) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims: (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Social Security does not have a formal Equal Employment Opportunity-EEO-Program at present. To date EEO objectives and activities have been undertaken as part of the Department's ongoing programs. In order to provide a focus for equal opportunity activities, the Department in early 1984 sought approval from the Public Service Board for the creation of a Branch for this purpose. The Public Service Board gave approval for the Branch in June and a recruitment process for the Branch Head position, (an Assistant Director-General Level 1), and for an EEO Co-ordinator at the Director, Class 11 level, is in train. A first task of these positions will be the oversight and development of an Equal Employment Opportunity Program for the Department as required by the Public Service Reform Act 1984. (2) Equal employment opportunity practices are an integral part of the ongoing activities of the Department and their cost is not known. Some costs will be identifiable once the Branch Head position referred to in (1) has been filled and specific EEO programs developed. (Question No. 1315) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) In 1984 a draft equal employment opportunity EEO management plan was produced to outline the ways in which the Department would take steps to eradicate discrimination and promote equality in employment. This plan is currently being circulated widely amongst staff and staff associations for comment. It represents a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to EEO in the Department. The final version of this plan will be produced following this consultation. (b) The proposed strategies and objectives contained within the draft EEO management plan specify target groups, action required, responsibility, target dates and evaluation procedures. In addition a statistical data base is to be established against which objectives can be assessed. (c) Significant mechanisms have been established to ensure that the aims of the EEO program are met. These include the establishment of Departmental, National and State EEO advisory committees and the designation of EEO co-ordinators across the Department. The Deputy Secretary of the Department is the director of EEO and an EEO unit has been established. Staff at all levels have also been consulted on the aims and objectives of the program and their views will be incorporated into the final EEO management plan. (d) An EEO committee consisting of departmental staff Association representatives has been established. This committee will ensure that the views of staff associations are fully considered in EEO policy development and implementation. (e) The Public Service Board EEO Bureau has been fully consulted on all aspects of the Department's EEO activities. (f) The EEO initiatives have been accorded high priority by the Department. (2) Cost It is expected that most EEO Strategies will amend systems and procedures and develop practices capable of being carried out within existing staffing resources. However, some additional costs have been identified. These specific costs which can be identified are estimated to be as follows for the 1984-85 financial year: Item Cost $ EEO Unit Staffing 59,000 Staff Development Programs on EEO issues 16,000 EEO Committee costs 22,000 Total 97,000 In the 1983-84 financial year the EEO unit costs were approximately $55,000. The above costs do not include items such as telephones, photocopying and other administrative items which are included in general Department appropriations and for which the EEO component cannot be readily identified. (Question No. 1321) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The aims of my department's equal employment opportunity-EEO-program have not changed in substance. They are: to ensure that applicants for positions are not discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, birthplace, descent, marital status, lifestyle, lack of facilities, prejudice, bias or attitudes; to ensure that affirmative action is taken with regard to jobs, working environment, welfare and counselling facilities to enable an equal employment opportunity policy to be implemented. (b) and (c) A position of EEO Officer at a senior classification in the Third Division is being created in the Management Division of the Central Office of my Department to develop and implement an agreed policy across the Department. Implementation will include, of course, assessment and evaluation procedures. (d) The consultative mechanism being developed in conjunction with relevant staff associations will be used, among other things, to involve both management and staff associations in policy development and implementation. (e) My Department continues to discuss matters with the Public Service Board's EEO Bureau. (f) The EEO program has a high rating within the management priorities of my Department. (2) Costs to the overall program are not readily quantifiable. (Question No. 1323) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The primary aim of the Department's EEO program is to eliminate discrimination and ensure equality of opportunity for all persons employed or seeking employment with the Department. Against this aim the Department's strategy was firstly to remove any discrimination in recruitment. Over the past year the emphasis has shifted to concentrate on the removal of all discrimination in advancement, training and staff attitudes. (b) and (c) The Department has an EEO Policy Committee which is chaired at Deputy Secretary level. The Committee has responsibility for providing advice on EEO matters, fostering acceptance of EEO principles, and monitoring the overall program. The Committee has recently been enlarged to better reflect the importance of women's issues and the regional perspective. (d) An established staff-management consultative group has been the forum for discussion of specific items of the program. (e) The involvement of the EEO Bureau of the Public Service Board has increased as a result of new Government initiatives. The EEO Bureau has provided advice on the form, direction and progress of new programs and a forum for discussion on current EEO issues. (f) The Department has committed greater staff resources in the EEO area at both central office and regional level in response to Government initiatives. It has recently conducted a pilot series of seminars. It is proposed these seminars , after final development, will be held for all senior staff of the Department. (2) The direct cost of the program in 1983-84 falls into the following areas: Salaries of EEO staff: Approx. $90,000, Training program (venues-consultants): Approx. $3,000. EEO segments are included in a wide range of other training-development programs. It is not possible to separate this component of those courses. (Question No. 1324) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was created on 11 March 1983. Since then, various personnel policies and programs appropriate to the Department's needs have been developed and introduced. The Department's equal opportunity policy and program is in an advanced stage of preparation. (a) The program will consist of a number of specific measures which aim to apply equal employment opportunity principles to appointments, transfers, promotions and other personnel policies. (b) In order to assess aspects of the Department's equal employment opportunity policy, a data base is being developed to provide details of distribution of female and male staff by classification and employment category. Other information will also be compiled in relation to recruitment, promotion and staff development patterns. (c) Progress in the implementation of the equal opportunity program will be monitored by the Departmental Executive on a monthly basis. (d) The draft policy statement and program when completed will be circulated for staff and staff association comment and responses received will be taken into account. (e) To date, it has not been necessary to draw on the expertise of the Public Service Board's Equal Employment Opportunities Bureau in any major way. (f) The introduction of an Equal Employment Opportunities program and policy has medium to high priority in relation to the development of other personnel policies. (2) The development of a draft equal employment opportunity policy and program has taken, to date, approximately 4 work weeks of clerical officers' time. The further development and implementation of the program will involve consultation with staff and staff associations, attendance at conferences and other training/ development opportunities and further clerical time. It is not possible to estimate the cost of these activities at this stage, however it is unlikely to be less than 12 work weeks. (Question No. 1328) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has incorporated the principles of equal employment opportunity into its personnel management policies and, though it operates no specially designated equal employment opportunity program, it places special emphasis on observing these principles in its day-to-day operations. Since March 1983, my Department has upgraded its staff consultative procedures and equal employment opportunity issues are considered as a part of these arrangements. It has also expanded the capacity of its Human Resources unit. It is currently considering whether it needs to take further action to promote the interests of any of the potentially disadvantaged groups within the Department's field of responsibility. (2) The activities of the Department in this area are dealt with as a part of its day-to-day business and it would not be possible to accurately cost them. (Question No. 1332) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) My Department has issued a policy paper stating that all people employed by or seeking employment with the Department should have equal opportunity to be selected, and receive equitable treatment in all employment related issues. The policy objective includes the removal of discriminatory barriers against particular groups or individuals, the provision of special programs to overcome problems faced by disadvantaged groups, and the creation of a working environment and employment practices in which all employees are treated equitably. (b) An interim Equal Employment Opportunities Committee was established to consider interim policies and procedures. following the report put out by this committee my Department has issued an EEO Policy statement. An equal opportunities sub-section has also been established, and is staffed by Clerk Class 9 and a Clerk Class 8 officer. (c) Review is an integral part of the process of implementing and operating the Equal Employment Opportunity program. My Department's EEO committee structure also serves to monitor the progress of the program. (d) Consultation regarding the most appropriate forms of union participation for implementing and monitoring the EEO program is planned for the near future. (e) The Public Service Board has been consulted at all stages of the process, and their EEO Bureau provides resources for the implementation of policies and programs. (f) My Department has accorded the program a high priority rating as evidenced by the allocation of resources. (2) I am advised that the current major cost associated with my Department's program is the salaries of the Equal Opportunities sub-section staff, which are: Clerk Class 9: 31,531-32,671 Clerk Class 8: 29,098-30,239 Other costs associated with the program are difficult to estimate at this early stage of implementation. (Question No. 1352) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Was there a derailment, on or about 28 March 1984, on the Tasmanian Region of Australian National AN, approximately 3.5 kilometres from Western Junction station, if so, (a) was this due to a defect in the permanent way, (b) had this defect been reported by guards of AN on 26 and 27 March 1984, (c) why was no action taken to rectify this dangerous situation and (d) what was the cost of the derailment to AN in (i) lost train running time, (ii) manpower and equipment in re-railing, (iii) wages of personnel used in repairing the track and (iv) repairs to damaged equipment. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A derailment occurred on 28 March between East Tamar Junction and Western Junction. (a) The derailment was due to a defect in the permanent way. (b) and (c) The defect that caused the detailment was not reported prior to the derailment. However, on 26 March a track defect measuring vehicle on that section of the permanent way located and rectified another defect approximately 200 metres from the point of derailment on 28 March. (d) The cost of the derailment in lost train running time was $160. The cost of manpower and equipment in re-railing was $300. Wages of personnel repairing the track were $1,000. There were no costs in equipment repairs. (Question No. 1354) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 1 May 1984: What were the results of discussions he, or his Department, had with the Northern Territory Government on proposals to include the people of the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands in the electoral division of the Northern Territory. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government's proposal to include electors on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island in the Northern Territory electorate for Federal election and referendum purposes has been the subject of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Northern Territory's Chief Minister. The Prime Minister first sought the views of the Chief Minister in December 1983. Following an exchange of correspondence, the Prime Minister advised Mr Everingham in a letter dated 17 May 1984 of the Government's concern that the two Territories should receive proper Parliamentary representation at an early date. The Prime Minister said that, because of constitutional difficulties with linking the Territories to an existing State, and because the Australian Capital Territory was clearly inappropriate on the grounds of remoteness and lack of community of interest, it had been decided to link both territories with the Northern Territory. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Act 1984 amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to incorporate the Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as a district in the Federal division of the Northern Territory. The amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 came into effect on 25 June 1984, the date on which the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Act 1984 received Royal Assent. (Question No. 1356) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Further to my repeated requests for a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission on crime committed through, or in connection with, the use of computers-question Nos. 128 and 5062, Hansard, 13 September 1983, page 720, and 9 November 1982, page 2935 can the Attorney-General now say whether a reference will be approved. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: At its meeting on 25 May 1984 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered a paper in which the desirability of uniform legislation on computer crime was discussed. Ministers agreed that uniform legislation was desirable for the purposes of penalising the appropriation or use of computer data without lawful authority or excuse including the destruction, concealment of falsification of computer data. Ministers also agreed to report to the Standing Committee on results of investigations being carried out in their States and that a report on those investigations would be made at the next meeting. In these circumstances a reference on this matter to the Law Reform Commission would not be appropriate at this time. (Question No. 1361) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) Which areas of the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, (a) are not covered by (i) Australian Broadcasting Corporation and (ii) commercial television broadcasts and (b) do not receive an acceptable signal. (2) What action is the Government taking to overcome these deficiencies. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) With the exception of a coastal strip approximately 30 km wide, from Port Augusta to Port Lincoln, and the area embracing Ceduna, Poochera and Port Kenny, the remainder of Eyre Peninsula does not receive acceptable television signals. The Port Augusta-Port Lincoln coastal strip is served by two groups of National translators and a similar grouping of commercial translators operated by Spencer Gulf Telecasters. Ceduna, Poochera and Port Kenny do not have a commercial network of translators. (2) I am aware of the television reception difficulties in the area of the Eyre Peninsula and I have asked my Department to consider the establishment of some additional National translators for this region. Planning for these translators is still in progress and inclusion in the ongoing construction program will be considered in the context of the funds available. The additional services being planned are expected to provide an additional 10,000 Eyre Peninsula residents with access to ABC television. Expansion of commercial television is dependent on proposals being received from parties interested in providing new services or extending existing services. At this stage no detailed proposals have been received. (Question No. 1362) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Has his attention been drawn to the confusion created by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's determination of Australian content for the 'C', or children's category, because of the Tribunal's failure to provide clear guidelines as to what will qualify for a classification; if so, what is being done to overcome this uncertainty whereby, with no present provision for classification at the concept or pilot stage, a television company could spend over $100,000 on a children's program and then have it rejected by the Tribunal. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, is as follows: The Tribunal released on 2 April 1984, its report and determination in respect of the children's television standards. This report contains a detailed explanation of the criteria for 'C' classified programs. The criteria, substantially the same as those published by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in May 1979, are set out below: A 'C' program is one which: (a) is designed specifically for children older than five years and younger than 14 years, (b) is designed to entertain children, (c) is well produced technically and artistically, (d) can be easily understood and appreciated by children, (e) fulfils some special need of children, (f) contributes to the social, emotional or intellectual development of children, (g) is appropriate for Australian children, not assuming too much of the culture, dialect or environment of some other country, and (h) is not outdated in content or in technical or artistic production. A provisional classification may be awarded where material at the concept script development stage is submitted to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for assessment. Children's Television Standard 10 sets out the proposed new provisional classification arrangements, which are similar to those applying at present. The purpose of those arrangements is to give guidance to producers at the earliest possible stage, to prevent waste of funds or effort. For most children's programs, a provisional classification is made on the basis of a written proposal accompanied by a pilot episode or a videotape indicating the nature of the program. The provisional classification may be awarded for three months or for a longer period as determined by the Tribunal member delegated to determine applications on the basis of the prevailing production circumstances and following advice from the Children's Program Committee. In the event of the delegated member not classifying the program there is a right of review to the full Tribunal. In addition, the Committee regularly meets with the program producers to assist them in understanding the requirements and their application to programs they are developing. The program producer may at any time before the expiry of the provisional classification submit the completed program-or representative sample episodes-for a full 'C' classification. The provisional 'C' concept is designed to assist producers in being able to ensure that programs they are developing ultimately meet the 'C' classification requirements. (Question No. 1363) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What progress is being made to overcome the very poor to non-existent Australian Broadcasting Corporation FM radio reception at Shepparton, Vic. (2) Will a separate FM station or translator be constructed for the Shepparton area; if so, when. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The transmissions of the ABC frequency modulation-FM-station in Bendigo may be received in Shepparton but are not of broadcast quality. A translator would be necessary to provide FM transmissions of an adequate broadcast quality. (2) The National Broadcasting Service Planning Committee (NBSPC) which makes recommendations to me about sites to receive new or upgraded ABC facilities including translators, is currently considering the possibility of establishing FM translators at a number of locations. A recommendation has not yet been made by the Committee in respect of a translator to serve Shepparton. (Question No. 1364) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What radio and television programs has the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast in 1984 to date which could be defined as (a) pro-uranium and (b) anti -uranium, including interviews of people who are for or against uranium mining and exports, nuclear disarmament and nuclear power generation. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: The ABC does not categorise its programs into 'pro' or 'anti' uranium but prefers to leave this subjective judgment to its viewers and listeners. Programs are not made with the intention of being either for or against any issue. (Question No. 1371) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What are the terms of the agreement between the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association and Telecom Australia. (2) Prior to the agreement, how many telephonists were to be retrenched over a period of years. (3) How many telephonists will now be retrenched. Mr Duffy —The answers to the honourable member's questions, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, are as follows: (1) Consistent with Telecom Australia's policy of providing employment opportunities for Australians in telecommunications, the terms of the Agreement between the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Operators' Association and Telecom Australia include the following: An agreed manual assistance centre-MAC-plan. Agreed conditions of employment to cover the relocation, redeployment, retraining and retrenchment of staff who are surplus to requirements. A process for communication and consultation on new and expanded operator assisted products. In handing down an order certifying the agreement on 13 March 1984, Commissioner Johnson of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission commended the parties approach to the settlement of the dispute: The Commission wishes to commend the parties for the efforts which have obviously gone into the construction of the document and settlement of some severe outstanding industrial problems. The achievement of the parties by way of conciliation is consistent with the emphasis and responsibility placed on parties by this member of the Commission; the parties are accordingly asked to receive the Commission's appreciation of their efforts and to convey to their principals the approval of the Commission of the actions of the parties which have brought about this settlement and the express hopes of the Commission that this example may lead to similar action in other somewhat troubled areas. It connotes a high degree of improvement of industrial relations between the parties and the Commission expressly commends the parties for this reason. (2) Prior to the Agreement, a telephonist staffing surplus of 2,500 to 2,800 by 1987 had been estimated. However, the number to be retrenched, that is, those telephonists not able to accept offers of relocation to another manual assistance centre, was not estimated. (3) Under the terms of the agreement, staff identified as surplus will be offered opportunities and assistance for relocation or redeployment within Telecom under an active management program. The only telephonists to be retrenched will be those who do not accept these offers. (Question No. 1376) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 April 1984 : (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 137 (Hansard, 23 August 1983, page 127) does he recognise that, over the last decade, Lebanon and its people have been subject to appalling loss of life, division, and the deterioration of order throughout the country. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) the reconciliation talks in Lausanne in March 1984 failed to produce any concrete results, (b) no regional power can impose its will in Lebanon at the expense of any other regional power, and (c) no group within Lebanon can become the client of a foreign power without provoking internal bloodshed and disorder. (3) Will he call for the internationalisation of Lebanon by creating a neutral disarmed Lebanon backed by United Nations guarantees and a multinational force for as long as it is needed and support any moves which would (a) ensure that Lebanon would be free from external interference in its internal affairs and (b) permit the Lebanese people to achieve a national reconciliation free from the consequences and complexities of disputes that arise elsewhere, and which are not of Lebanon's doing. (4) Will he give urgent consideration and support to this initiative, patterned on the Austrian model, being a constructive initiative to bring peace and order to the people of Lebanon. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Successive Australian governments have expressed their deep concern with the human tragedy which has taken place in Lebanon since the outbreak of civil war in 1975 and have urged all parties involved in the fighting to seek a negotiated settlement. Both the previous and present Governments have made significant contributions towards assisting the reconstruction of Lebanon and providing humanitarian assistance to the people affected by the war. (2) The reconciliation talks in Lausanne formed part of a difficult and lengthy process towards a peaceful settlement. They were followed in May by the formation of a Government of National Unity under Prime Minister Karami which contains the leaders from all the major Lebanese factions. The Government of National Unity has agreed on the implementation of new security arrangements within Beirut and has made progress towards the reconciliation of political differences among the various factions. The visit of the Vice President of Syria , Mr Khaddam to Beirut on 18 June was a significant step in helping to achieve agreement on the proposed security arrangements. The Australian Government has consistently called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces in Lebanon which are not there at the express request of the Lebanese Government. We believe that the actions of some external groups have exacerbated the internal conflict within Lebanon and that the Lebanese people should be free from such outside interference and that the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government should be restored over the whole of Lebanon. (3) and (4) I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question No. 137 of 12 May 1983 (Hansard, 23 August 1983, page 127). (Question No. 1383) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Which therapeutic devices are subject to the Therapeutic Goods Act. (2) Are heart valves specifically subject to that Act. (3) To what existing standards does the Act require compliance. (4) Are there any plans for the Department of Health to monitor devices and alerts, and is the Therapeutic Goods Act applicable for that purpose. (5) What is the expected date of commencement of the data base designed to monitor pharmaceuticals. (6) Will there be any increase in funding for the National Biological Standards Laboratory. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The definition of therapeutic use included under the Therapeutic Goods Act is broad and most therapeutic devices would be included within its provisions. (2) Heart valves are considered to be therapeutic goods for the purposes of the Act but no standard has been defined to which heart valves would be subject. (3) The Therapeutic Goods Act requires that goods comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the British Pharmacopoeia. The Minister for Health may also specify a standard in relation to goods for therapeutic use by reference to other publications, including a publication by the Standards Association of Australia, or by determining a standard for specific goods. In this regard a number of Australian standards have been published as Therapeutic Goods Orders but to date the emphasis has been given to pharmaceutical type products. (4) My Department currently monitors hazard alerts on medical devices from a number of overseas sources and co-ordinates recalls if indicated. Provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act are not applicable for the purpose and such recalls are thus undertaken on a voluntary basis with the co-operation of industry. (5) Therapeutic Goods regulations were gazetted on 5 April 1984 providing for the collection of specific data about pharmaceuticals for human use. Notices have been served on industry to provide this data which is now being received. The entry of this information into a computerised data base will commence shortly. (6) I have proposed a number of new initiatives for consideration by the Government in the budgetary context which could result in increased funding and resources for the National Biological Standards Laboratory. These proposals must of course compete with other Government priorities. (Question No. 1388) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Did a log train become derailed near Wynyard on the Tasmanian Region of Australian National on 17 April 1984. (2) What types of wagons made up the train. (3) How many (a) FW wagons and (b) FE wagons were there on the train and how many of each type were derailed. (4) What was the estimated cost of (a) re-railing the wagons, (b) relaying the track and (c) repairing the wagons. (5) What was the cost of lost freight movement during the time the track was closed to traffic. (6) Did AN incur any penalties for failure to move woodchip logs on the time as required under contracts. (7) What was the finding by the Board of inquiry that investigated the accident . (8) Were any members of the train crew injured in the accident. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) FE and FW. (3) (a) 5 FW (b) 13 FE Derailed were 2 FW, 7 FE. (4) (a) $3,000. (b) $4,000. (c) The repair of wagons is pending and costs have not yet been determined. (5) $7,000. (6) No. (7) Derailment caused by track fault. (8) No. (Question No. 1400) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1984: (1) Is he able to say whether the European Space Agency, on 5 March 1984, launched the world's largest communications satellite, Intelsat V F-8, in geostationary orbit from near-equatorial French Guiana providing telecommunications among 28 countries. (2) Is he also able to say whether the launching site of this satellite gives a 17 per cent greater payload than Cape Kennedy, United States of America. (3) Will he confer with colleagues on the possibilities of an agreement with especially eastern hemisphere countries for a joint peace and development, remote sensing, information and communications satellite program based on a near -equatorial launching site. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Intelsat V (F-8) satellite is as large a communications satellite as any which has yet been launched. It is the eighth satellite launched in the Intelsat V series. Six of the eight were launched from the Kennedy Space Centre at Cape Canaveral in the United States of America, and two have been launched by the European Space Agency which launches from the Guiana Space Centre at Kourou in French Guiana. Intelsat V (F- 8) will form part of the total system of 15 Intelsat satellites which collectively provide communications for virtually all of the countries of the world. (2) The size of the payload which can be placed into a geostationary orbit by a given launch vehicle is higher for launch sites which are closer to the Equator. Information published by Arianespace, the organisation which controls launch operations at the Guiana Space Centre, states that the payload for a given launch vehicle placing a satellite into a geostationary orbit would be about 14 per cent greater for a launch from the Guiana Space Centre-located at 5* North Latitude-than the payload if the same launch vehicle were used from the Kennedy Space Centre-located at 28* North Latitude. Payload, however, also depends on launch vehicle design and overall National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which launches satellites from the Kennedy Space Centre, currently has the ability to place greater payloads in a geostationary orbit than the European Space Agency launching from the Guiana Space Centre. (3) Australia is a founding member and strong supporter of Intelsat, an international organisation which has been in operation since 1964 to provide a global commercial telecommunications satellite system to which all countries- members and non-members alike-would have access. The advantages of such a system have been widely recognised and 108 countries are now members. Of particular importance to Australia and neighbouring countries in the Pacific and Indian Oceans is that Intelsat provides affordable access to all users by rate averaging thin and heavy routes. Intelsat also recently approved a 'low density' satellite service-designated 'Vista'-which has been developed with a view to meeting the communications needs of remote communities-especially in Pacific island groups. Intelsat thus provides an excellent satellite communications service to both Australia and countries in the region. (Question No. 1404) Mr Lloyd asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the criticism of hundreds of smaller country newspaper proprietors over the failure of his Department to place advertisements with them for the 'Enrol to vote' campaign. (2) Will he ensure that, in future, advertisements be included in these papers. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The matter has been brought to my attention. (2) In placing Commonwealth advertising the basic aim is always to achieve the most efficient communication of the message to the required audience with the most cost-effective use of the available funds. It is therefore not possible to guarantee that advertising for all future campaigns will be placed in all newspapers. However, the Government fully appreciates the role played by country newspapers and they will continue to be considered for advertising whenever appropriate. In the case of the 'Enrol to Vote' campaign of the Australian Electoral Office- now the Australian Electoral Commission-research showed that the target audience was principally in the main metropolitan centres. This meant that greater attention had to be paid to these centres in the media schedules. (Question No. 1417) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the prevalence of fire blight of apples in New Zealand and that apple trees have no resistance to the disease. (2) Will he ensure that no apples are imported into Australia from any area of New Zealand which is not known to be 100 per cent free of the disease. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Fireblight disease of apples was first reported from New Zealand in 1921. Its severity and occurrence in New Zealand are currently being investigated by New Zealand plant quarantine authorities. It is known that different varieties of apple vary in their resistance to the disease ranging from very susceptible to highly resistant. (2) The importation of apples from New Zealand is presently prohibited except from districts in which the disease is not known to occur. As the distribution of the disease in New Zealand is not known, this effectively prohibits the importation of New Zealand apples. I do not propose to vary these restrictions unless there is new scientific evidence which could demonstrate that apples cannot carry the disease organism. (Question No. 1418) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) How many householders are included (a) in and (b) on the periphery-within 5 kilometres-of, the present study area near Bathurst-Orange, New South Wales, being considered as part of the Army Training Facilities Project-ATFP. (2) Will he consider redrafting the present study area to excise a significant number of small rural holdings such as Clifton Grove near Orange and Mt Rankin near Bathurst. (3) Will he immediately excise Hill End from the present study area in view of the information provided in the document issued by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, November 1983, entitled 'ATFP-NSW, Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement'. (4) What arrangements exist (a) in other rural and provincial centres throughout Australia for grazing rights and (b) with local government bodies in other parts of Australia for maintaining roads and other local infrastructure, in areas occupied for military training purposes. (5) In respect of the present study area of the ATFP (a) how many approaches, either written or verbal, have been made to the Department of Defence offering property for sale to the Army and (b) can he indicate whether banks have withdrawn finance to property owners as a result of areas being designated for study. (6) What rating arrangements does the Department of Defence make with local government authorities for land occupied for training purposes or for housing military staff in urban areas. (7) What is the attitude of the Singleton community to the proposed transfer of Army facilities from their area. (8) What is the present attitude of the New South Wales Government to the ATFP. (9) Can he advise how the consultancy firm Dames and Moore engaged in the ATFP will assess the impact of the proposals on the superfine wool industry in the Bathurst-Orange area. (10) What organisations in the Bathurst-Orange area have so far expressed positive support for the ATFP. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Study areas were approximately delineated in locations agreed with the New South Wales Government, of sufficient size to allow consideration of options for siting particular elements of the proposed training area, for example, impact areas. In the case of Bathurst-Orange, the study area was over double the approximate area indicated for Army's 'Schools Complex'-that is, 160,000 hectares. Basic statistics about the study areas as such, for example, numbers of householders, have not been compiled, essentially because they would have no relevance to assessing effects of establishing the Schools Complex. (2), (3) A consultant has been tasked to recommend a potential site for a schools complex, in one of the three locations agreed with the New South Wales Government, which: is sparsely populated; has low economic potential; contains no, or few places of ecological or historic importance; would satisfy Army's location , terrain and vegetation requirements; and would, with appropriate land management, be able to sustain continuous training activities. I am not prepared at this stage to prejudge issues which the consultant's report is expected to address. (4) (a) Grazing leases have been authorised in parts of other military training areas, for example at Puckapunyal, Victoria, where this is practicable and consistent with their military use. Leasing arrangements are managed for the Commonwealth by the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services in the State where the military training occurs. (b) The Commonwealth recognises a responsibility in certain circumstances to contribute to the maintenance of access roads and associated local infrastructure not under its control, which are used by Defence or other Commonwealth traffic. The Commonwealth provides funds to local government for the nominated roads, to cover additional costs due to wear caused by Defence vehicles. (5) (a) My Department has been offered two properties from within the present ATFP study areas and two from outside these study areas. (b) I have no knowledge of banks withdrawing finance to property owners as a result of areas being designated for study. As the Commonwealth is obliged under the Constitution to provide just compensation for any assets it acquires, it is not clear why finance would be withdrawn for such reasons. (6) For Defence or other Commonwealth property, the Commonwealth recognises claims by local government authorities for payments equivalent to local rates for services rendered exclusively by the rating authority, such as water, sewerage, electricity or garbage services. These procedures also cover general rates where: the Commonwealth's tenant or lessee contributes as part of a rental an amount deemed to be in lieu of rates; or, the property is used by the Commonwealth or a Statutory Authority as a commercial enterprise; or, the Commonwealth is recovering-in whole or in part-its costs of providing the facilities and services in respect of the property; or, where the property is used solely to domestic purposes. Consideration is also given on a case by case basis to claims which do not strictly meet the above criteria and to appeals by local government authorities against the Commonwealth's initial determinations. (7) The Singleton Shire Council has requested that the Army remain in Singleton . The Council expressed concern that any reduction of Service personnel would have a detrimental impact on the Singleton regional economy. (8) the New South Wales Government continues to support the ATFP studies. (9) Dames and Moore intend to assess the impact of the proposal on the superfine wool industry in the study region by evaluating the effect which alternative location options would have on the value of wool produced. (10) Support for the continuation of ATFP studies in the Bathurst-Orange has been expressed by the Bathurst-Orange Development Corporation, the Orange City Council, the Bathurst City Council and Army Base Support Group Orange. (Question No. 1419) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Is he able to say what (a) type and (b) class of Soviet vessels have been operating in the Indian Ocean during (i) 1979, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1981, (iv) 1982, (v) 1983, (vi) 1984 to date. (2) Is he also able to say whether there has been an increase in the (a) number , modernity and fire power capabilities of Soviet vessels and (b) number, modernity and capabilities of the Soviet submarine force, deployed in the Indian Ocean since 1979. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A list of the types and classes of Soviet surface ships and submarines that have operated in the Indian Ocean each year since 1979 is provided in the following table. (2) The numbers of ship days spent in the Indian Ocean by Soviet naval and naval-associated surface ships, and by Soviet submarines since 1979 is as follows: Jan-Apr. 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Surface ships 7,369 10,138 9,570 9,031 8,152 2,831 Submarines 459 1,606 1,253 817 358 295 There has been a general improvement in the modernity and firepower of the vessels concerned during the period. Type/Class 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Conventional Attack Submarine Foxtrot X X X X X X Zulu X Nuclear Guided Missile Submarine Charlie I X X X X Echo II X X X X Mod Echo II X X X Nuclear Attack Submarine November X Victor I X X X Victor II X X X Victor III X Aircraft Carrier Kiev X X X X Guided Missile Cruiser Kara X X X X X Kresta I X X X Kresta II X X X Kynda X X Light Cruiser Sverdlov X X Guided Missile Destroyer Kashin X X X Mod Kashin X X Kotlin X X X X Destroyer Kotlin X Mod Kotlin X X Guided Missile Frigate Krivak I X X X X X X Krivak II X X X X X X Frigate Riga X X X X Light Frigate Petya I X X Petya II X X Mod Petya I X Patrol Ship T-58 X X X X Guided missile Patrol Combatant Nanuchka X Fleet Minesweeper Matya I X X X X X X Yurka X Amphibious Assault Transport Dock Ivan Rogov X X X X Amphibious Vehicle Landing Ship Alligator X X X X X X Ropucha X X X X X Medium Amphibious Assault Landing Ship Poinocny X Missile Tender Andizhan X Stores Ship Mayak X X X Miscellaneous Naval Auxilliary Vytegrales X X X X X X Experimental Auxilliary Desna X X Sibir X Intelligence Collector Alpinist X Balzam X Mayak X Moma X X X Nikolay Zubov X X X X X Pamir X X X X X Buoy Tender Sura X X X Oceanographic Research Ship Abkhaziya X X X Akademik Krylov X X X X X X Nikolay Zubov X X X X Polyus X Yug X X X X X X Hydrographic Research Ship Finik X X X Moma X X X X X X Samara X X X Hospital Ship Ob X X X Naval Cargo Ship Andizhan X Partizan X Oiler Altay X X X X Kaliningradneft X Clekma X X X X Sofia X X Replenishment Oiler Altay X X Berezina X Chilikin X X X X X X Dubna X X X X X X Kazbek X X X X X Salvage and Rescue Ship Rudnitsky X X Submarine Tender Don X X X X X Ugra X X X X X Ocean Tug Goryn X X X X X Sorum X X X Water Tanker Manych X Training Ship Ugra X X Diving Tender Nyryat X X X Large Covered Barge Pskl-16 X X X X Fuel Lighter Toplivo X X X X X SUPPORTING MERCHANT SHIPS Cargo Kondratyev X Tanker Aksay X Internatisonal X X X X X X Kazbek X X X X Samoltlar X X X Split X Yegoryevsk X X X SUPPORTING FISHING SHIPS Motor Fishing Ship Kustanay X Raduzhnyy X Fish Carrier Tavriya X Stern Trawler Factory Ship Atlantik X X X X X X (Question No. 1424) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: What changes to the telegram service is Telecom planning to institute and when will any changes be implemented. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: Telecom has no plans to change the nature of the telegram service. However, it is planning to improve the efficiency of the service by replacing the obsolete electro-mechanical telegram switching network-TRESS-with a more modern system, based on the telex network, using visual display screens and teleprinters. The replacement program is planned to commence in Western Australia during 1985, and in all other States during 1986. (Question No. 1430) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Are the quarantine regulations on certain types of cheese still in place; if so, (a) what are these regulations and (b) which types of cheese and which countries are involved. (2) Is it a fact that the French company SAFR-Picon, is air-freighting cheese varieties to Australia with a shelf life of only 45 days. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The quarantine requirements for imported cheeses are set out in Proclamation 88A and Animal Quarantine Regulation 69A. They remain in force. (a) These requirements are, in summary: Cheeses exported from countries other than New Zealand, Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Japan are subject to 120 days quarantine on arrival in Australia-less, in certain circumstances, the period of transport to Australia. Cheeses normally subject to such quarantine may be exempted if the Director of Quarantine is satisfied that the manufacturing processes are sufficient to inactivate the virus of foot and mouth disease. Exemption as above is authorised by a Permit System and is dependent on, inter alia, the pasteurisation of the milk of origin (or other acceptable heat treatment) and the acidity levels achieved during manufacture, particularly at the time of maturation. Subject to these standards having been achieved, there is no necessity for a prescribed 'shelf life'. (b) All types of cheese are involved. The countries are as in (a) above. (2) Quarantine records show that several cheeses manufactured by the French company Societe Anonyme Fromageries Picon have been exempted by Permit from quarantine because they are processed cheeses which during manufacture have been heated to at least 90*C. Some of these cheeses are imported by air. Their shelf life is not relevant in the quarantine context. (Question No. 1431) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Did the Director, any member of staff, or any member of the Council of the Australian National Gallery contact the Editor or any member of the staff of management of the Bulletin magazine following the publication in that magazine on 17 April 1984 of an article on the Gallery. (2) If contacts were made (a) who made them, (b) to whom were they made, and (c ) what were the details discussed. Mr Cohen —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am advised by the Administrator of the Australian National Gallery that to the best of his knowledge the only contacts made were as follows : The Gallery's Public Relations Manager rang the Editor of the Bulletin magazine the day after the article was published to ask for the deadline for receipt of material in response to the article. A telexed response was prepared by the Gallery and sent on 12 April 1984. This response referred to a number of significant errors of fact contained in the article. On 13 April 1984 the Gallery's Administrator spoke to the Editor of the Bulletin advising that, on reflection, the Gallery did not wish to enter into a debate about the article and asked that the telex be withdrawn. The Editor agreed not to proceed with publication of the Gallery's response. (Question No. 1432) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 May: (1) Is it a fact that since 1 March 1984 words have been classed as being no longer acceptable for use by Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcasters; if so, (a) who (i) originally recommended and (ii) officially confirmed that the words be not used and (b) what are the words and (i) why are they no longer acceptable and (ii) what substitute words have been proposed. (2) What disciplinary procedures will be involved to ensure the correct words are used. (3) Will people interviewed by the ABC be expected to conform to this code, and will there be editing of interviews to ensure that any such offending words are not broadcast. (4) What authority has the ABC to change what is standard or acceptable English in this country. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) (a) (i) (ii) At its meeting on 17 April 1984, the ABC Standing Committee on Spoken English-SCOSE-adopted guidelines for non-sexist language. These guidelines did not class any word as unacceptable for use by ABC broadcasters but rather suggested that certain words be avoided where they were inappropriate . (b) (i),(ii) A copy of pages 1 to 7 of the SCOSE minutes of 17 April, setting out the non-sexist guidelines, has been provided to the honourable member. Copies have been provided to the House of Representatives Table Office for distribution to other interested honourable members and are reproduced at the end of this answer. (2) None. The SCOSE document was issued for guidance and discussion. (3) No. The ABC naturally hopes people appearing in its programs will refrain from deliberately sexist language. However, the Corporation acknowledges that it has no real control over the choice of language used by the public. Interviews will not be especially edited. (4) The ABC claims no authority to change what is standard or acceptable English in this country. It must be recognised, however, that language changes and it would therefore be inappropriate for the national broadcaster to ignore community moves against discrimination in language. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SPOKEN ENGLISH MINUTES Meeting 157 This meeting was held on Tuesday, 17th April at 9 a.m. in Roland Redshaw's office, 10th Floor, Upper Forbes Street, Sydney. Present: Professor Arthur Delbridge; Dr John Bernard; Ms Pepita Conlon; Mr Patrick Kirkwood; Mr Robert Peach; Mr Roland Redshaw; Mr Gordon Scott; Dr Ian Wolfe; Ms Angela Michaelis; Ms Elsa Atkin. Apologies: Dr William Ramson. Minutes of meeting 156 Accepted. Recommendations of sub-committee on non-sexist language-The sub-committee's Guidelines for Non-Sexist Language were approved subject to some redrafting. The redrafted form accepted by the Committee is as follows: STANDING COMMITTEE ON SPOKEN ENGLISH NON-SEXIST LANGUAGE GUIDELINES All ABC broadcasters should use language that avoids sex discrimination and other forms of discrimination. These guidelines have been prepared to assist broadcasters in the use of non-sexist language. The examples used reflect usage in recent ABC programs which appears to be exclusive or discriminatory. 1. Avoid the use of words that imply that a particular group is all male or all female unless it is (a) 'The men in government will be voting on the bill next week.' 'The nurse will find her role increasingly complex in the modern hospital.' These instances wrongly imply that everybody in a particular group is of the same sex. It is better to say: 'Government members will be voting . . .' or, 'The Government will be voting . . .' 'The nurse will find his or her role . . .' or, 'Nurses will find their roles . . .' (b) 'When you and your wife go to the pictures . . .' Broadcasters should be aware that this is addressed only to the males in the audience. One of the following may be more appropriate. 'When you go to the pictures . . . 'When you and your partner go to the pictures . . . 'When you and your spouse go to the pictures . . . 'When you go to the pictures with your wife or husband . . . 'When you and your husband go shopping . . .' assumes that the listener is female, and can be rewritten in the same way. 2. Avoid the use of he as a generic pronoun 'It's all your average Australian really wants. He'll go to any length to get it.' 'The doctor will find that after the introduction of 'Medicare' he may have to bulkbill.' 'The driver will be paying more for his petrol after tonight's budget.' Traditionally, and particularly in legal contexts, the pronoun he has been used generically. This situation is changing, and it is better: to use he or she to recast the sentence into the plural, or, as is often possible without damaging the sense, to delete the pronoun altogether. The examples above can be rewritten: 'It's all your average Australian really wants. He or she will go to any length to get it.' 'Doctors will find that after the introduction of 'Medicare' they will have to bulkbill.' 'Drivers will be paying more for (their) petrol after tonight's budget.' 3. Avoid irrelevant gender description 'A woman reporter asked the Prime Minister . . .' This can be rewritten: 'A reporter asked the Prime Minister . . .' 4. Avoid unequal gender descriptions (a) 'The girls seem anxious to go: that upsets the social balance, as too many young men remain.' Language used to designate and describe females and males should treat and sexes equally. Parallel language should be used for women and men. In the example above, if the assumption is that the two groups are of roughly the same age, the sentence should be rewritten: 'The girls seem anxious to go: that upsets the social balance, as too many boys remain.' or, 'The young women seem anxious . . . too many young men remain.' (b) 'Mr Sam Jones and Mary Smith . . .' 'Michelle Ford . . . Michelle said . . .' but 'Kim Hughes . . . Hughes said . . . In the use of honorifics like Mr and Ms, consistency should be maintained. These examples should become: 'Sam Jones and Mary Smith' or 'Mr Sam Jones and Ms Mary Smith . . .' 'Michelle Ford . . . Ms Ford said . . .' and 'Kim Hughes . . . Mr Hughes said . . .' or, 'Michelle Ford . . . Ford said . . .' and 'Kim Hughes . . . Hughes said . . .' In sporting contexts, the last of these would be preferable. (c) 'The Premier and his attractive blonde wife . . .' Descriptions should also grant equal respect to women and men. Emphasis on the physical characteristics of women is generally not appropriate where men are described in terms of professional or other achievements. It is better to say: 'The Premier and his wife . . .' 5. Avoid sexist stereotypes and demeaning language 'Speak to the girl on the switchboard.' 'Women's libbers were out in force.' 'Here's Nat King Cole's little girl.' Stereotypes offer many assumptions, little information and no originality. They tend to be expressed in cliches, which the broadcaster should avoid anyway. Stereotypes of women are often demeaning as well. Those with a serious commitment to feminism regard the use of 'women's libbers' as trite and insulting. The 'girl on the switchboard' is probably an adult, and may be a man. 'Nat King Cole's little girl' is in her thirties. Avoid stereotypes by using a simple word. Why not: 'Speak to the telephonist'. 'Feminists were out in force'. 'Here's Nat King Cole's daughter, Natalie' or 'Here's Natalie Cole'? 6. Avoid marked endings If there is no reason for distinguishing the sex of a person in marked endings, such as sculptress, poetess, authoress, or if in doing so the person described would be demeaned, then the marked ending should be avoided. Terms such as aviatrix, ambassadress, place women into a separate section of their particular discipline, occupation or role. Each time a women's sex is unnecessarily and irrelevantly highlighted, it perpetuates and reinforces the outdated attitude that woman is to be considered first as female and second as a person of talent or skill. So 'newspaper proprietress, Juanita Nielsen' should be 'newspaper proprietor, Juanita Nielsen' and 'sculptress Nancy Rieben' should be 'sculptor Nancy Rieben'. Actor, poet, sculptor, etc., should be used except where an institutional preference or the personal preference of the woman concerned is for actress, poetess, sculptress, etc. Flight attendant appears to be displacing air hostess and steward, and should be used where possible. 7. Avoid gender marked terms Where reference is to be made to a position, a quality or an action that might apply to either sex, terms that seem to include only one sex should be avoided where possible. (a) Often the sentence can be recast. 'The chairman of the meeting was Mr Brown', 'It's a one-man operation', 'A spokeswoman/spokesman for the union said that . . . can become: 'Mr Brown chaired the meeting', or, 'Mr Brown was in the chair', 'It's run by one person', 'Jenny Brown/George Brown, for (or on behalf of) the union, said that . . .' (b) Alternatively, a sex-neutral term may be substituted. It may be possible to use a more specific word (e.g. financier for businessman, grazier for man on the land) where that would suit the context. Or there may be a close non-sexist alternative to the original word. An appropriate choice might be made from the following list, although NOT ALL ARE SYNONYMOUS. Gender Marked Term Possible Substitutes alderman council member, alderperson. anchorman presenter, host, compere, anchor, anchorperson. businessman executive, owner, person in business, person in small business, investor, financier, or, in the plural, businesspeople, business community. chairman convenor, president, head, chair, chairperson. craftsman artisan, craftsperson. craftsmanship craft skill. founding fathers founders, forerunners, forebears, ancestors, first fleeters. headmaster/headmistress principal (teacher), head. man (verb) staff, operate, use, drive, work, attend. mankind humanity, humankind, human beings, human society, civilisation, human race, people. man on the land rural person, landowner, farmer, grazier, vigneron, et cetera or, in the plural, rural community, rural people. man of letters writer, intellectual, scholar, author, cultured person. man of science scientist, physicist, biologist, et cetera. newsman reporter, journalist, correspondent. one man operation one person operation. policeman police officer, detective, police cadet, or, in the plural, police. spokesman representative, spokesperson. sportsman sporting competitor, athlete, player, sportsperson, or, in the plural, men and women in sport. sportsmanlike fair, sporting. sportsmanship fair play, sporting practice. statesmanlike tactful, authoritative, experienced, diplomatic. weatherman weather reporter, weather presenter, meterologist, weather bureau. working man, workman worker, working person. The Committee recognises that the programs of the ABC call for a range of styles from the most formal to the colloquial. The spirit of these guidelines ought to be applied in all styles. April, 1984 Reports of the ABC's use of language The three reports received were discussed. A sub-committee comprising Mr Kirkwood and Mr Redshaw was formed to consider how they best might be used. (Question No. 1434) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) For each of the vintages in (a) 1981-82, (b) 1982-83 and (c) 1983-84 what tonnages of Australian grapes were used for (i) Australian fortifying spirit and (ii) Australian wine or grape must, used for fortification. (2) For each of these years and uses, what were the tonnages of grapes produced in (a) the Riverland, (b) Sunraysia, (c) the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, (d) the Rutherglen area and (e) elsewhere. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no official data on tonnages of grapes used in the production either of fortifying spirit or of wine or grape must used to produce fortified wine. However, information obtained by my Department indicates that there was a significant reduction in the usage of grapes and grape spirit for these purposes in 1983-84. (2) Official data are not available on production of grapes by regions for production of particular types of wine. Production of grapes for use in making all types of wine by regions for which data is available is set out in the following table. No figures are currently available for the 1983-84 year. PRODUCTION OF GRAPES USED FOR WINEMAKING 1981-82 1982-83 tonnes -fresh weight Barossa 62 966 33,658 Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area 71,344 71,245 Sunraysia (Victoria) 26,404 34,655 Australia 499,777 430,678 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Question No. 1445) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: When will a decision be made on the level of funding for Santa Sabina College, Strathfield, New South Wales, for 1984. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A decision on the school's 1984 funding level was made on 23 May 1984 and the school has been advised accordingly. (Question No. 1446) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What is the cost to Telecom for (a) printing and (b) distributing, community telephone books. (2) What revenue has been received from advertising in the books. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) The publication of classified directories of various kinds is an area of increasing competition in which those engaged regard details of costs and revenues as highly confidential. In the circumstances Telecom would wish to keep its cost and revenue details in respect of community telephone directories confidential. (Question No. 1447) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Is it a fact that on 19 August 1982 the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator Mr L. A. Booth, requested the Commonwealth Public Service Board to correct salary anomalies for professional engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service ; if so, what action has been taken by the Public Service Board to correct these anomalies. (2) Is it also a fact that this Department is having great difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled and motivated professional engineers because of salary and classification anomalies. (3) What action is the Department taking to reclassify the grades of professional engineers employed within the Department to bring them more into line with levels of responsibility and salary in comparable work areas elsewhere . (4) What number of professional engineers (a) are engaged on a temporary or contract basis and (b) have worked for total periods of service in excess of 12 months within the Department. (5) Are temporary or contract staff subject to any police or security clearance . (6) It is a fact that his Department has insufficient permanent professional engineers to meet the function and role of his Department as presented to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in April 1978. (7) Does his Department at present employ sufficient permanent staff to design and construct Sydney's second airport when the site is chosen without seriously imperilling its ability to handle client department requirements Australia-wide. (8) Why were a number of professional engineering positions abolished in his Department pursuant to notice published in the Public Service Gazette No. 38 dated 22 September 1983. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)Yes; anomalies involving engineers or related designations have not been found to exist in the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) No. (3) The Public Service Board defines the responsibility for each of the five classification levels in the engineer structure. It is also responsible for changes in the salaries at each of these five levels; in pursuance of that responsibility it consults with staff and professional associations and normally makes representations in the arbitral process. The Department's engineering structure and its deployment of engineers is in a continual state of change to cope with variations in the volume and nature of work. The process of change includes the creation/abolition of positions of variations to the levels or duties with a view to ensuring that staff are employed at classification levels appropriate to its responsibilities arising from an approved project, works or program of works. (4) (a) As at 1 June 1984, the Department had 70 temporary and contract engineers. (b) Of these 15 have been engaged for a period in excess of 12 months. (5) On projects or parts of projects of national security assessment, my Department seldom uses temporary or contract staff and then only if they are security cleared. On projects involving commercial security risks, where normal burglar possibilities might arise, both temporary and contract staff are utilised. These persons are supervised by permanent staff. (6) No. (7) Typically such a project would be catered for by forming teams comprising existing staff experienced in aerodrome pavements and building works together with private consultants. These teams would probably be supplemented by some additionally recruited staff and by the use of contract personnel to meet peaks as they occur in the design process. The extent and number of in-house staff to be deployed into the project team would depend upon other approved Government building and engineering projects existing at that time. (8) In line with then Government directives, my Department increased its use of private consultants on design workload through the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s. The resulting reduction in overall staff requirements at the lower end of the five class engineer structure led to the abolition of long term vacant positions of Engineer Class 1 and Class 2, in accordance with Public Service Board policy. (Question No. 1455) Mr Lusher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: How many single voyage permits have been issued to foreign flag vessels for carriage of cargo on the Australian coast over the last 12 months and what was the (a) name of each vessel, (b) nature of the cargo in each case and (c) reason each permit was issued. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the 12 month period 1 June 1983 to 30 May 1984, 28 single voyage permits have been issued for the carriage of cargo. The information requested under (a) (b) and (c) above is set out hereunder: DETAILS OF SINGLE VOYAGE PERMITS (SVP) ISSUED FROM 1 JUNE 1983 TO 30 MAY 1984 Date issued Name of vessel Nature of cargo Reason single voyage permit issued (tonnes) 3-6-83 Ajon 1500t Tallow no licensed ship available transport by road/rail impracticable for this volume of cargo 9-6-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane licensed ship unable to serve Sydney due to draft and berthing restrictions alternative modes inadequate to meet winter demand. 17-6-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane as above 23-6-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane as above 28-6-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane as above 29-6-83 Aykhal 2000t Tallow no licensed ship available transport by road/rail impracticable for this volume of cargo 4-7-83 Coral Gas 300t Propane no licensed ship available alternative modes impracticable to maintain dwindling stocks in Darwin 5-7-83 Orkanger 16000t Liquid Caustic Soda no licensed ship available caustic soda essential for treatment of Sydney's domestic water and sewerage 7-7-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane licensed ship unable to serve Sydney due to draft and berthing restrictions alternative modes inadequate to meet winter demand. 13-7-83 Fiji Gas 810t Propane as above 18-7-83 Fiji Gas 820t Propane as above 28-7-83 Fiji Gas 820t Propane as above 3-8-83 Fiji Gas 830t Propane as above 10-8-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane as above 17-8-83 Boogabilla 43.23t yacht Safari II Fremantle/ Townsville no licensed ship operates between Fremantle and Townsville Tarago 43.23t yacht Safari II return voyage Townsville/ Fremantle unsuitable for carriage by road/rail 19-8-83 Fiji Gas 800t Propane licensed ship unable to serve Sydney due to draft and berthing restrictions alternative modes inadequate to meet winter demand. 8-9-83 Lloydiana 10t Spreader Maintenance Platform no licensed ship available road/rail transport could not be used. 7-10-83 Allied Chemist 6500t Sulphuric Acid no licensed ship available alternative modes of transport not available the level of sulphuric acid supplies was very low at the superphosphate plants in Port Kembla 24-11-83 Bow Fortune 11000t Sulphuric Acid no licensed ship available alternative modes of transport not available the level of sulphuric acid supplies at the 'North-West Acid' plant in Risdon was very high and could not be cleared by licensed vessel 'Zincmaster' alone. 3-12-83 Neptune Pegasus 50000t Crude Oil 30000t Residue no licensed ships available road/rail transport not an alternative 6-12-83 Georgiy Pyasetskiy 1.5t yacht* no licensed vessel available public interest considerations 20-12-83 Stolt Integrity 18000t Caustic Soda no licensed shipping available failure to reduce stocks could have led to safety problems at Port Botany. lack of caustic soda at Alcoa would have reduced production and jeopardised export commitments. 18-1-84 Bright Sprout 52800t Crude Oil no licensed ship available road/rail transport not an alternative 16-3-84 Fiji Gas 780t Propane licensed vessel unable to serve Sydney due to draft and berthing restrictions shortage of supply due to partial Sydney refinery shutdown and restrictions on road tankers from Victoria 27-3-84 Fiji Gas 300t Propane no licensed ship available alternative modes impracticable to maintain dwindling stocks in Darwin 2-5-84 Kangourou 40t Toluene di-isocyanate* no licensed ship available alternative modes not available 4-5-84 Shoun Maru 6 600t Tallow no licensed ship available other modes are impracticable for this volume of cargo 28-5-84 Fiji Gas 850t Propane licensed ship unable to serve Sydney due to draft and berthing restrictions alternative modes inadequate to meet winter demand. * Permit issued, but not used (Question No. 1456) Mr Carlton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) What claims by doctors for reimbursement by his Department under the bulk billing scheme as at 31 January 1984 were: (a) not processed or (b) rejected and what amounts were involved. (2) What were the reasons for rejecting claims. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 919,173 (as assignment forms); (b) 329,659 services awaiting re- examination. There is no facility within the claims processing system to calculate what amounts were involved in either situation. (2) There were various reasons for the rejection of claims, but the predominant reason was associated with Health Entitlement Number errors, which accounted for 45 per cent of all rejections. Two other reasons which contributed to rejections were: Late lodgment of claims; and duplicate services being claimed. (Question No. 1457) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Is it a fact that egg prices in the Australian Capital Territory are substantially above those in New South Wales; if so, what action does he propose to take to reduce Australian Capital Territory egg prices. (2) Is it also a fact that there is basically only one egg producer in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, has this producer been making monopoly profits. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A recent survey of egg prices charged in three Canberra stores and two Sydney stores indicated that the retail price of eggs in Canberra is from 7c to 15c per dozen higher than the retail price for the equivalent product in Sydney. I have asked my Department to examine egg marketing arrangements in Canberra and to advise me as soon as possible of the options available to ensure Australian Capital Territory consumers are not charged excessive prices for eggs. (2) Yes, Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd. I am advised that as the wholesale price of eggs charged by this producer is the same as that charged by the New South Wales Egg Corporation, this producer does not appear to be taking advantage of its position to earn excessive profits. (Question No. 1459) Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: Prior to the introduction of Medicare (a) what private health insurance funds operated offices in the Northern Territory, and (b) in which towns or centres. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Name of Fund (b) Location Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private) Darwin Casuarina Alice Springs Tennant Creek The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia Darwin Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd Darwin Darwin North Alice Springs Mutual Health-NHSA Ltd Darwin Casuarina Alice Springs (Question No. 1463) Mr Adermann asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Was any allocation made in the 1983-84 Budget for the construction of nursing homes; if so, what were the allocations in each State. (2) What grants have actually been made for nursing home construction: (a) from March 1983 to June 1983 and (b) since July 1983. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No specific allocation of funds was made for nursing homes in the 1983-84 Budget. Expenditure on nursing homes is provided for under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. Under this Act grants are provided to assist the construction of accommodation for both aged people and disabled people aged 16 years or over. It was estimated in the 1983-84 Budget that expenditure under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act would be $63m in 1983-84. This includes expenditure for the construction of hostels, nursing homes and self-contained accommodation and for related services. (2) (a) Grants approved for nursing homes from 1 March 1983 to 30 June 1983 were as follows: Number of Increase Total value grants in bed of grant State approved capacity approvals $m New South Wales 6 223 3.10 Victoria 4 87 1.32 Queensland 3 80 1.24 South Australia 7 205 3.30 Western Australia 2 70 1.12 Tasmania 1 10 0.16 Northern Territory nil nil nil Australian Capital Territory 1 36 0.55 Total 24 711 10.79 (b) Grants approved for nursing homes since 1 July 1983 are as follows: Number of Increase Total value grants in bed of grant State approved capacity approvals $m New South Wales 16 567 8.62 Victoria 9 179 2.84 Queensland 4 105 1.75 South Australia 2 40 0.58 Western Australia nil nil nil Tasmania 1 15 0.23 Northern Territory nil nil nil Australian Capital Territory nil nil nil Total 32 906 14.02 (Question No. 1464) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: When will a permanent lighting system be installed for the emergency helicopter pad at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, N.S.W. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in association with the Minister for Aviation, has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Concord Repatriation General Hospital primarily provides treatment to veterans and other repatriation beneficiaries but also plays a dual role as a major emergency hospital for the New South Wales community. It is in its emergency role that the hospital's helipad and existing portable lighting guidance system are intended for use. The helipad at Concord Repatriation General Hospital is currently equipped with a rotorstrobe navaid guidance portable night lighting system designed and developed in Australia. The Department of Aviation advises that, while this system may be of some assistance to helicopter pilots conducting emergency night landings and take-offs, it is not suitable for routine flight operations. The Department further advises that as the use of the Concord helipad at night is very infrequent and in emergencies can be used under its mercy flight provisions , no plans to install a permanent lighting system are presently under consideration. (Question No. 1466) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) What are the closer economic relations arrangements for margarine. (2) What subsidies or other forms of government assistance are available for New Zealand exports of margarine to Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Trans-Tasman trade in margarine is subject to the general terms of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. There are no special arrangements for margarine under this agreement. (2) There are a number of New Zealand Government assistance measures presently available to New Zealand exporters which may be used in relation to margarine subject to meeting the necessary conditions. These measures include export performance taxation incentives (EPTI), export market development taxation incentives (EMDTI), export program suspensory loans (EPSL), export suspensory loans, sales tax refunds, import licensing concessions. Under the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, New Zealand is committed to phase out the performance-based export incentives in trans-Tasman trade by 1987 commencing with a 50 per cent cut in entitlements next year. This will affect the eligibility of margarine exporters to claim export performance taxation incentives and export suspensory loans on exports to Australia. (Question No. 1467) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) What products did he refer to as 'high quality exports to Australia' following the meeting with Mr Haferkamp of the European Economic Community. (2) Why has access for these products to Australia been given greater emphasis than access for Australian products to the EEC. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The questions relate to my media release of 21 March 1984 following the Australia/Economic Community ministerial consultations on trade and related issues which were held in Canberra. The answer to the first question is that the phrase 'high quality Community exports to Australia' refers to exports of textiles, clothing and footwear-TCF- and passenger motor vehicles. The answer to the second question is that the media release does not give greater emphasis to access for these products to Australia than it gives to access for Australian products to the EEC. The major part of my statement is in fact taken up with Australia's concerns in relation to agricultural trade. For example, after introductory paragraphs, the first substantive paragraph states 'the consultations were wide ranging, a major focus from the Australian side being agricultural trade issues, including access to the EC and Community subsidy practices in third markets'. Subsequent paragraphs develop further Australian concerns with access into the EC for agricultural products. The penultimate paragraph of my media release states 'it was also recognised that it would be necessary to continue discussing difficulties of access for both sides and especially for high quality Community exports to Australia and the operation of non-tariff barriers'. This paragraph is part of a section of my statement dealing with trade in manufactures. The Community for its part has concerns about the operation of tariff quota and import licensing systems in relation to its high quality exports of TCF and passenger motor vehicles. Australia has also expressed concern to the EC about the operation of non-tariff barriers such as export franchise restrictions and administrative obstructions to its exports of manufactures to the EC. (Question No. 1468) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 31 May 1984: What (a) quantities and (b) types of margarine have been imported from which countries (i) during each of the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 and (ii) during the first 6 months of 1983-84. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The requested details on imports of margarines for the prescribed periods are contained in the table below. IMPORT CLEARANCES-MARGARINE(Kilograms) 1983-84 (p) 1978-79 (a) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1 July-31 Dec. Polyunsaturated (b) margarine United Kingdom n.s.r. Nil 1,500 n.s.r. n.s.r. n.s.r. Total n.s.r. Nil 1,500 n.s.r. n.s.r. n.s.r. Other margarine Denmark . . . . . . . . 654,494 274,400 Germ. Fed . . . . . . . . 20,150 . . Israel 90 3,540 5,976 11,508 13,200 . . Malaysia . . . . . . 36 . . . . New Zealand . . . . . . . . 376,039 688,059 Norway . . . . 800 . . . . . . Singapore 90 . . 180 . . 120 13,070 United States of America 163 8,672 270 2,499 6,047 4,292 Total 343 12,212 7,226 14,043 1,070,050 979,821 Total margarine Denmark . . . . . . . . 654,494 274,400 Germ. Fed . . . . . . . . 20,150 . . Israel 90 3,540 5,976 11,508 13,200 . . Malaysia . . . . . . 36 . . . . New Zealand . . . . . . . . 376,039 688,059 Norway . . . . 800 . . . . . . Singapore 90 . . 180 . . 120 13,070 United Kingdom . . . . 1,500 . . . . . . United States of America 163 8,672 270 2,499 6,047 4,292 Total 343 12,212 8,726 14,043 1,070,050 979,821 n.s.r.: Not separately recorded; included in 'other margarine'. (a) For April and May 1979 figures may include some other edible fats, such as imitation lard, which were not separately identified during this period. Total clearances for April and May of these items were 30 kilograms from Singapore and 163 kilograms from the Unites States of America. (b) Imports of polyunsaturated margarine were separately recorded only in the period 5 April 1979 to 18 February 1982. For that part of 1978-79 and 1981-82 when polyunsaturated margarine was separately recorded there were no imports. (p) Preliminary Source: ABS Data (Question No. 1471) Dr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: Did the Australian Bureau of Statistics or its predecessors record any Aboriginal population figures on a State or Territory basis prior to 1967; if so , will he now release those figures. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statistics on Aboriginals have been produced and released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (and its predecessors) prior to 1967. The most comprehensive sources are the censuses of the Commonwealth held in 1911, 1921, 1933, 1947, 1954 and 1966. Data on Aboriginals for States and Territories were published in the Statistician's report for each census. However, the degree of coverage and information obtained varied substantially. The 1966 census was the first in which an attempt was made to enumerate the entire Aboriginal population. At all earlier censuses, Aboriginal people living outside settled areas were not counted. Data collected on Aboriginals in the 1966 census were published in two bulletins: 'The Aboriginal Population of Australia-Summary of Characteristics' and '1966 Census of Population and Housing -Volume 1, Part 2-Race'. Prior to the first Commonwealth census in 1911, statistics on Aboriginals were obtained by censuses conducted by State government bodies. In addition, some data on Aboriginals were collected regularly by State government bodies after the first Commonwealth census. The best source for such data is the monograph by Dr L. R. Smith 'The Aboriginal Population of Australia' published by the ANU Press in 1980. (Question No. 1473) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to statements by Swedish diplomat Sverker Astrom and Prime Minister Olaf Palme, former chairman of an international commission on disarmament and security, that a global legislative and security system, to outlaw war, is the only way to world security, that is, a form of government with federally defined powers over international security matters. (2) Has he any evidence to indicate that Sweden has a better record of security than nations involved in arms races in recent centuries. (3) Will Australia pursue common cause with Sweden in a peace race, as actively as military aid to and alliances with less successful nations in the field are pursued. (4) Will the Government run a campaign to inform Australians of this supreme issue and the need for a world constituent assembly to set up an alternative to confrontation at the United Nations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am of course aware of the fact that many distinguished people around the world advocate various forms of world government as a means of resolving the security and other problems of mankind. That is a noble ideal but it is not, in the Government's view, a practical basis for Australian foreign policy in 1984. As most advocates of world government recognise, securing international agreement to establish an effective supra-national authority would be considerably more difficult and problematic than everything else which has been attempted in international relations to date and would in no way circumvent the problems and conflicts which afflict existing international institutions. Moreover, I cannot accept a proposition to the effect that a commitment to world government is the only way to world security. Instead the Government believes in tackling present day problems with energy and determination bringing to bear in this endeavour all the resources available to the Australian Government. I am glad to say that we work closely in this enterprise with many other countries. The Australian and Swedish governments co-operate particularly closely in seeking to bring about effective international agreements for disarmament and for assistance to the economic development of poorer countries. (Question No. 1475) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the recognition of the danger of national military sovereignty by the constitutions of (a) France, preamble, paragraph 15, (b) West Germany, articles 24 and 25, (c) Denmark, article 20 and (d) Japan, article 9. (2) Will he seek amendments to the Australian Constitution to provide for progressively pooling Australia's military forces and belligerency powers under international auspices along with those of other nations ascribing to the need for comprehensive obligatory international arbitration of international disputes within a system of international law binding on inhabitants of Australia and having precedence over federal law as a requirement for lasting collective security and increased international co-operation; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I am aware of the foreign constitutional provisions cited by the honourable member. (2) No. The Government does not intend to initiate moves for constitutional amendment to provide for the progressive pooling of Australia's military resources under an international body, for Australia's further accession to compulsory arbitration of international disputes, or for self-execution of international law in Australia. On the first point it is the Government's policy to maintain Australia's involvement in the security system administered by the United Nations, based on principles of national sovereignty and participation by consent. On the second point, since 1954 Australia has been party to the Optional Clause of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [Art 36 (2)], providing for the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in international legal disputes. On the third point, while customary rules of international law may, in some circumstances, become a part of Australian common law, the usual practice is for the Federal parliament, where desirable, to incorporate rules of international law by Statute. (Question No. 1476) Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice , on 31 May 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn by Mr Phil Ward of Epping, New South Wales, editor of Adventist News, to the fact that he (a) knows the identity of those who claim to have disposed of Azaria Chamberlain's body, (b) has been unable to persuade them to confess for fear of jail and (c) has notified the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory whose police Mr Ward suspects of manufacturing evidence in order to discredit the magistrate who castigated them at the inquest. (2) Will the Attorney-General call for an amnesty to anyone, not involved in the killing, who can throw light on disposal of the body, in the light of the Cruise murder in New Zealand. (3) Is the Northern Territory the only part of Australia where infanticide results in a sentence other than psychiatric treatment. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) My attention has been drawn to the allegations made by Mr Ward in relation to his investigation of the Chamberlain case. (2) The handling of this or any other offence against the laws of the Northern Territory is the responsibility of the Northern Territory authorities, and it is not possible for me to intervene in the manner suggested. (3) Infanticide is a special statutory offence, which exists in New South Wales , Victoria and Tasmania. The penalties set down for the offence in those jurisdictions are, of course, maximum penalties. While it would always be open to a court, in the exercise of its discretion when sentencing a woman convicted of infanticide, to provide for some form of pyschiatric treatment, the penalties available cover other possibilities. (Question No. 1477) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan will participate with US-sponsored RIMPAC exercises from 28 May to 30 June 1984, (b) these exercises will culminate with the co-ordinated shelling of Kaho'olawe and (c) native Hawaiians have protested at this destruction of land of cultural significance recognised by the United States national register of historic places. (2) What will be the Australian involvement in destroying this island. (3) What international treaties and conventions including ANZUS and the International Court of Justice findings concerning French nuclear tests and environmental conventions applicable in South West Tasmania have relevance to this action. (4) Will he urgently review Australia's commitment to these exercises. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) The exercise included naval gunnery support firing on Kaho' olawe Island range. (c) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) Australian Defence Force units participating in RIMPAC 84 did not use the range facilities on Kaho'olawe Island. (Question No. 1478) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Does Australia consider Swiss standards when preparing guidelines or regulations for importation, labelling or conditions of use of agricultural chemicals. (2) Is he able to say how Australian controls differ from Swiss standards regarding the use of Ciba-Geigy's pesticide Galedron. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I presume the question relates to the product Galecron, not Galedron. In the case of the pesticide Galecron based on the chemical chlordimeform there are no Swiss registrations. This is not unexpected because the compound is utilised only on cotton and no cotton is grown in Switzerland. Though chlordimeform is approved for such use in Australia it is available only to licensed aerial operators under conditions which preclude the possibility of operators or bystanders being exposed. For a fuller understanding of the issues involved in these questions the following information is helpful. Chlordimeform was discovered in the early 1960s and was developed by Ciba-Geigy and Schering AG as a novel insecticide/acaricide. Prior to September 1976 the product was registered in Australia and many other countries for the control of various insect and mite pests on cotton, pome fruit, stone fruit, vegetables, tomatoes and strawberries as well as for the control of cattle tick. The toxic action of chlordimeform on insects and mites is by direct contact and vapour activity against both mobile stages and eggs. In September 1976 Ciba-Geigy and Schering AG suspended production sales and registrations of all products containing chlordimeform world-wide. This decision was based on interim findings of a lifetime mouse feeding study. In the development of chlordimeform prior to marketing a wide range of toxicology testing had been completed on a range of laboratory animals. These studies showed no adverse effects. However, in the subsequent mouse feeding study chlordimeform caused a dose-related increase in a particular type of tumour at high feeding levels. A lower dose of chlordimeform produced no tumours even at the end of the two-year feeding study. During 1976 and 1977 research programs conducted by the manufacturers in several countries demonstrated conclusively that exposure to chlordimeform, when applied by air, could be minimised and in most cases maintained below the limits of detection by the use of additional but reasonable practical precautionary measures at application sites. Based on these studies the manufacturers considered chlordimeform could be re-introduced for use on cotton in Australia with usage strictly limited and controlled in the initial season to demonstarte that negligible exposure would result. Following evaluation of the new scientific data by health and agricultural authorities the product was registered and re-introduced to New South Wales in the 1978-79 cotton season. Authority was expanded to include Queensland in 1979-80. The precautionary measures introduced for handling chlordimeform were aimed at reducing the possibility of dermal exposure to the chemical during mixing, loading and marketing operations. Detailed operating instructions and guidelines were issued to all authorised users and all persons involved in the application of chlordimeform have been regularly monitored to determine whether they have carried out the precautionary measures as indicated by the absence of traces of chlordimeform from their urine. The use of chlordimeform based products has been subject to annual review in Australia and that review has been based heavily on the urine monitoring results from the previous season. This type of monitoring is carried out in most, if not all, countries where chlordimeform is used for the treatment of cotton. Experience over the six seasons during which these controls have been in place has shown that the exercise has been successful. Because of the success of the operation and the experience gained it has been agreed that the compulsory monitoring of operators will be replaced by a voluntary scheme where, if an operator potentially exposed to chlordimeform wishes to submit a urine sample, the analysis will be performed and the results will be communicated back to the operator. This allows individuals to monitor their occupational hygiene and handling practices and puts the onus on the operator to act carefully and responsibly. In addition to the application manual issued to all licensed applicators, label bear explicit recommendations for the safe handling of chlordimeform based products including specific directions for the use of appropriate protective clothing. All of these steps were initiated by the manufacturers but each step was subject to detailed evaluation and approval by the appropriate health and agricultural authorities. (Question No. 1480) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Can he say whether the Dalkon shield was voluntarily withdrawn from sale by the manufacturers in 1974 in the United States of America but not in Australia; if so, what data were made available to Australian authorities, and when, by those manufacturers as to the hazards of the shield and the reasons for the withdrawal. (2) What standards (a) apply or (b) are contemplated to govern therapeutic imports other than pharmaceuticals. (3) What international discussions are proceeding on ethical standards for suppliers of goods to our country when another country has discontinued such supply for health reasons. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In mid-1974 the local distributors of the Dalkon shield, A. H. Robins Pty Ltd, advised my Department of the voluntary suspension of marketing of the device in the USA following reports, in that country, of second trimester septic abortion associated with its use. Withdrawal of the product from the Australian market was not undertaken, or requested, at that time in view of the absence of reports of similar incidents occurring in Australia. However, letters were circulated to doctors in Australia by A. H. Robins in July 1974 and by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee-ADEC-in October 1974, inviting submission of details of any similar local adverse effects. In February 1975, the ADEC concluded the available information was insufficient to allow any firm conclusion to be reached. Meantime, A. H. Robins voluntarily suspended sale of the Dalkon shield in Australia as from 18 January 1975, pending the implementation of changes to the presentation of the device. (2) (a) and (b) No standards currently apply to therapeutic goods other than pharmaceuticals, but I have proposed a number of new initiatives for consideration by the Government in the budget context which could lead to some controls over medical devices. These proposals must, however, compete with other Government priorities. (3) I am not aware of any international discussions on ethical standards for suppliers of therapeutic goods to our country specifically, but in the pharmaceutical field there have been two international conferences of drug regulatory authorities, co-sponsored by the World Health Organisation, in which Australia has participated, where agreement has been reached on urgent notification of other national agencies in the event of serious adverse effects relating to drugs coming to attention. Furthermore my Department monitors hazard alerts on medical devices from a number of overseas sources and co-ordinates recalls, if indicated, on a voluntary basis in co-operation with local importers . (Question No. 1483) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) What decisions were reached at the Joint Industry Consultative Committee- JICC-between Australia and New Zealand Dairy Industry representatives held on 10 May 1984. (2) Was action taken on the increasing imports from New Zealand of ice cream, skim milk powder and casein, referred to in the answer to question No. 1201 ( Hansard, 29 May 1984, page 2398); if so, what are the details. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As I indicated in my response to question No. 983 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 120 refers) the JICC comprises representatives of the dairy industries of Australia and New Zealand, with Government representatives attending only in an observer capacity. I am advised by Mr M. L. Vawser, the leader of the Australian delegation to the JICC meeting held on 10 May 1984, that the following subjects were discussed and agreements reached. Both delegations expressed grave concern at the continuing overproduction of milk throughout the world, in particular in the European Economic Community and United States of America, at a time when there is little, if any, total market growth. The delegations were convened to see the rapid rise in world stocks and the consequential dampening effect this has had on world export prices. Both delegations noted that Australia and New Zealand would be ending the 1983- 84 season with relatively higher levels of stock of the major manufactured products than normal and that this would create pressures to place that additional stock in the new season. It was also noted that, for the season, both the Australian and New Zealand dairy industries are predicting at least a maintenance of the current level of milk production in each country and this in turn would generate higher than desirable levels of product for the export market. The delegations agreed that, in these circumstances, close liaison would be required between the two industries to avoid aggravating the downward pressure on market returns. Both delegations agreed to co-operate as closely as possible in monitoring developments in the international market for butter. The delegations agreed that the current International Dairy Arrangement under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-GATT-formed a valuable part in maintaining some semblance of rationality in world market activity and stressed the importance of the GATT minimum pricing arrangements at their current levels in placing a floor in the world marketing price. Both delegations agreed to resist any moves to lower the GATT minimum prices. Some concern was expressed by the New Zealand delegation at the slow-down in the rate of growth in the Australian cheese market in 1983 (3 per cent compared with 8.9 per cent in 1982) and discussion took place on the measures which have been implemented by the Australian dairy industry in an endeavour to generate a higher level of growth. This aspect will be monitored and efforts will continue to be made to add further to that growth. In accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding on Dairy Products attached to the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, it is expected that exports of cheese to Australia from New Zealand will increase by some 400 tonnes in 1984 to approximately 6,400 tonnes. It was noted that there had been a significant reduction in New Zealand exports of edam to Australia and this trend was considered likely to continue throughout 1984. The New Zealand delegation advised that the New Zealand Dairy Board's-NZDB-recent takeover of a major Australian cheese importing and marketing company would assist it in the orderly marketing of New Zealand cheese in Australia. In general, both delegations agreed that the forthcoming 1984-85 season would be one of extreme difficulty for the industries in both Australia and New Zealand, given the continuing upward trend in milk production and declining world prices. The two industries agreed to continue close consultation to take advantage of any marketing opportunities which might arise in the interests of maximising the returns to dairy farmers on both sides of the Tasman. (2) I am advised by the Leader of the Australian delegation that the Australian side expressed concern at the continued low pricing of New Zealand ice cream and related products. Whilst it was acknowledged that imports of New Zealand ice cream were very low relative to the size of the Australian ice cream market, exceptionally low pricing of New Zealand ice cream, iced confection and ice cream mix were a disruptive influence in the Australian ice cream market. The NZDB advised that it was still investigating the matter. The Australian delegation provided the NZDB with comparative retail pricing information, compiled by the Ice Cream Manufacturers' Federation of Australia, to assist in the NZDB's assessments. I am advised that the apparent increase in imports of skim milk powder from New Zealand reflects the inclusion of powdered ice cream mix under the statistical item for skim milk powder while the casein imported from New Zealand is of a specification which is not produced by Australian manufacturers. I understand that there has been no complaint to the ADC or to my Department from Australian manufacturers regarding the volume or pricing of New Zealand casein. (Question No. 1484) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: What would the insurance cover for the successful launch of the first two Aussat satellites have cost if taken out (a) 12 months ago and (b) now. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Aussat, is as follows: Aussat's intention is to finalise launch insurance arrangements during the course of this calendar year, that is, about 6 months before first launch. As yet a firm quote for launch insurance has not been received. Accordingly, it is not possible to quantify the cost of launch insurance for Aussat's first two satellites if taken out 12 months ago, since no firm quotes were available. Furthermore, it is not possible to quantify the cost of launch insurance now, since no firm quotes are available. (Question No. 1485) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Who received the salvage rights for the Maralinga and Emu atomic test sites and what was the extent of the salvage rights. (2) Was there any government or departmental supervision of salvaging; if so, what form did the supervision take. (3) Were there tenders called for the salvage rights; if so, what were the terms and conditions of the tender and how many (a) individuals, (b) companies and (c) organisations made applications. (4) Was any special arrangement entered into for salvage rights with the Yalata mission; if so, (a) what were the arrangements, (b) who made them and (c) on whose behalf were they made. (5) Over what period did the salvaging take place. (6) Has the salvaging been concluded. (7) How many people were involved in the salvaging and how many of them were Aboriginals. (8) Were any (a) health checks conducted and (b) health records kept of people involved. (9) Were records kept of the sale of salvage; if not, why not. (10) Was radioactive or contaminated materials or equipment (a) salvaged and (b ) sold. (11) Is it a fact that Mr E. Dutschke was involved in salvaging equipment and materials from the Maralinga and/or emu sites; if so, did he have either (a) experience with handling radioactive equipment or (b) suitable measuring instruments to determine whether or not materials were radioactive. (12) If Mr Dutschke was involved in salvaging, did he (a) keep records and (b) issue receipts for money received from salvaging; if not, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Aboriginal Lands Trust of South Australia granted salvage rights for the Maralinga village to the Yalata Community Incorporated. Salvage rights extended to all of the buildings and improvements, fixtures, fittings, equipment and chattels in the Maralinga village and to eleven fuel storage tanks at Watson . Details of the terms and conditions of salvage are contained in the agreement. No formal salvage agreement was entered into for the Emu site. (2) No. Supervision of the salvage operation at Maralinga was the responsibility of the Manager of the Yalata mission and his officers. Close liaison was maintained with the range commander and the authorities at Woomera. (3) Yes, tenders for Maralinga buildings were called by the Yalata community. Records were maintained by the Yalata community at the time. (4) Yes, refer to (1). (5) and (6) Salvage of materials at Maralinga began in 1974 and was largely completed by 1980. Some buildings are retained at Maralinga by the Commonwealth under the terms of the salvage agreement. (7) Details of people employed during the salvage operation were kept by the Yalata officials. The salvage agreement provided for preferential employment of Yalata people. (8) No. The South Australian Health Department and the Range Commander advised the Yalata community that the Maralinga Village materials presented no risk to health. (9) Yes, records were kept by the Yalata community of materials salvaged from the Maralinga village and subsequently sold. (10) Despite some instances of materials being wrongly prepared for salvage-for example, copper cable-the Manager of the Yalata community at the time was not aware of any radioactive or contaminated materials having been removed from Maralinga by the salvage operators. Some materials removed from the forward areas were done so at the specific request of authorities at Woomera. Assurances were given by these authorities about the safety of these actions and instructions provided about areas to be avoided. Recently, in response to public concern, tests have been conducted by the South Australian Health Commission on materials and equipment known to have come from Maralinga and now located in the South Australian towns at Yalata, Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Barmera and Loxton. No evidence of radioactive contamination has been found. The Department of Defence has carried out similar tests on material at Salisbury, with the same result. (11) Yes Mr Dutschke was involved in salvaging materials from Maralinga but not Emu. No, on the basis of assurances from relevant authorities Mr Dutschke neither had, nor was required to have, any experience with handling radioactive equipment or instruments for measuring radioactivity. (12) Refer to (9). (Question No. 1486) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1046, Hansard, 2 may 1984, pages 1965 -6, concerning the development of an electro-magnetic gun-EMG-program being developed under an Australia-United States memorandum of understanding, can he say whether Australia and the United States have had a bilateral co-operative agreement for the technology development of hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns and launchers for approximately the last three years. (2) Is this agreement in the process of being renewed; if so, what are the terms of renewal. (3) Is the agreement between the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. (4) In the development of the EMG (a) has the Australian National University been involved in developing a power source and (b) has the Materials Research Laboratory in Melbourne helped pioneer the development of the technology. (5) Is he able to say whether the United States Pentagon recently acknowledged this EMG program and described it as being an excellent co-operative effort. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My answer to the honourable member's earlier question No. 1046 in this House was not concerned with the development of an electromagnetic gun. Rather, it acknowledged work being performed by my Department in co-operation with the United States Department of Defense on research into the technology of electromagnetic launchers. This matter has stimulated considerable interest in this Parliament with the honourable member for Hindmarsh having asked two supplementary questions on notice in this House-Nos 1488 and 1492-Senator Chipp having asked one question without notice, Senate Hansard, 10 May 1984, page 1929, and two questions on notice-Nos. 910 and 911 on 29 May 1984. Also, Senator Macklin chose the first reading of the Live-Stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and cognate Bills-Senate Hansard, 7 June 1984, pages 2742-2744-to deliver a lengthy speech on this same general subject. For the record, the Materials Research Laboratories in my Department commenced its current research program on electromagnetic launchers in 1979. The bilateral arrangement on this subject between Australia and the United States of America commenced in 1980. The prospective military implications of this technology mentioned in the United States-Australia bilateral arrangement relate only to tactical conventional warfare. All the research work performed by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation in my Department is oriented towards solving problems for the Australian Defence Force. Co-operation with allied countries and the ensuing sharing of results frequently saves us a great deal of money. The timing and significance of the Australian National University contribution to this work is of some interest. The theoretical basis of propulsion using travelling electromagnetic fields has existed since early this century. However, its practical application has been greatly facilitated by work which commenced some 30 years ago at the ANU and led to the development, by the mid-1960s, of a novel form of homopolar generator. Much later, this came to the notice of the DSTO and, separately, the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It was largely as a result of this development that the proposal for a co-operative R and D program between Australia and the United States of America on electromagnetic guns and launchers and pulsed power conditioning was put forward by the United States of America in 1980. The ANU work was not conceived with any defence applications in mind. With this explanation the answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is in the affirmative. (2) Yes. The agreement is being considered for renewal on essentially the same terms as in 1980. (3) The arrangement is between the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of Defense. (4) (a) Yes. See the response to part (1) above. (b) Yes. (5) Yes. It reflects great credit on the capability of DSTO in my department that its achievements in this area of research have been acknowledged so readily by US authorities. (Question No. 1487) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: (1) Can he say whether (a) the United States of America and (b) Australia (i) are and (ii) have been, using Cocos Islands as a staging post for any military aircraft; if so, for what purpose is the airfield on the Cocos Islands being used. (2) How many visits to the Cocos Islands have (a) United States and (b) Australian Defence Force aircraft made in each of the last five years and this year up to the date of reply to this question. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) For many years up until August 1982 United States Navy P3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft occasionally used Cocos Island airfield as a stop-over point en route to Australia or when undertaking ocean surveillance missions. (b) Royal Australian Air Force aircraft have used Cocos Island airfield on a periodic basis for many years. Royal Australian Air Force P3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft use the airfield as a stopover point during routine patrols in the Indian Ocean. There are also occasional visits by RAAF special purpose transport aircraft carrying ministerial and official visitors and C-130 transport aircraft in transit to other destinations. (2) The number of visits by Australian and United States Defence Force aircraft over the past five years is shown in the following table: Table 1 VISITS BY MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO THE COCOS ISLANDS 1979-1984 (a) (b) USA Australia 1979 11 35 1980 16 54 1981 17 66 1982 15 65 1983 . . 162 1984 (to 30 June) . . 42 (Question No. 1488) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1046-Hansard, 2 May 1984, pages 1695- 6-in particular, concerning the Australia-United States memorandum of understanding, can he advise how many other programs are being carried out under the auspices of the memorandum of understanding on co-operative research and development. (2) How many of these programs are of a defence or military nature and what are they. (3) What Australian Government departments, universities and other institutions are involved. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the United States/Australia memorandum of understanding on co- operative research and development of 1968 there are currently eight programs being carried out. (2) All of these programs are of a defence or military nature. The title and nature of two of these programs are classified by agreement between United States of America and Australia and are not available for public release. The remainder are programs on: (a) Influence of the environment on the properties of fibre composite materials . (b) Electromagnetic guns and launchers and pulsed power conditioning. (c) Low cycle fatigue in aircraft engines. (d) Acoustic emission. (e) High frequency over the horizon radar. (f) NAVSTAR global positioning system. (3) The Australian Department of Defence alone is involved in all these programs. (Question No. 1490) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the concerns of the British and Australian people about their civil rights with regard to the divulgence of information relating to nuclear testing at Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello and support and backup services to the United Kingdom atomic tests. (2) Can the Minister give assurances that those people who wish to give information to the Government or government sources regarding the atomic tests in Australia, will be exempt from legal action by either the British or Australian Governments; if not, can the Minister say under what (a) conditions and (b) circumstances divulgence of information by both military personnel and civilian personnel can be given to the Government or government sources without fear of legal reprisal by either the British or Australian governments. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Minister for Resources and Energy has invited anyone who has information which they believe may be relevant to the Government's investigations to write to him or his Department. Although provisions of the Crimes Act 1914, the Atomic Energy Act 1953, the Public Service Act 1922 and regulations, and the respective Service Acts and regulations control the disclosure of official information by Commonwealth officers, service personnel and other persons, clearly no legal action will be taken against people responding to the invitation to provide information of assistance to the Government's investigations. In relation to the policy of the British Government the British High Commission issued a Press release on 29 May 1984, the text of which follows: 'Since the return of the Maralinga test site to Australian control in 1968, the strict security which applied to the UK atomic test program in Australia has been relaxed considerably. Any persons, particularly British exservicemen resident in Australia, who took part in any of these tests and who have information concerning their individual health, are entirely free to make such information available to the Australian authorities. If they have other information about which they may have doubts as to whether it remains classified , they should contact the British High Commission in Canberra.' (Question No. 1492) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has the Government's position on the United States Reagan Administration's proposed ballistic missile defence system, referred to as the strategic defensive initiative-SDI-or 'star wars' been announced; if so, what is it. (2) Is it a fact that the SDI when deployed will break the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile-ABM-Treaty. (3) Will the SDI, by using nuclear pumped X-ray lasers, break the treaty against the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. (4) If the Government is in opposition to the 'star wars' program, why is Australia co-operating with the United States Government on research and development of electro-magnetic launchers which the Pentagon and he have admitted are proposed for anti-ballistic missiles systems, in the 'star wars' program. (5) If the Government does not oppose the 'star wars' program, how does it explain its commitment to arms control given that the 'star wars' program is intended or will negate the ABM Treaty. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The SDI is a long term US research program designed to examine the potential for new technologies to provide defence against ballistic missile attack. The Australian Government understands the genuineness of the pressures of concern that led the United States to undertake this research program-in particular the attractions of an approach which seeks to prevent nuclear war by placing increased emphasis on defence rather than threatening a devastating nuclear counter-attack-but is concerned about the possible implications of SDI for outer space arms control and the maintenance of a stable strategic balance between the superpowers. The US Government has been made aware of Australian concerns. These concerns have also been expressed to the Soviet Government which is also believed to be undertaking research programs on possible space weapons. Australian Ministers have expressed on a number of occasions the Government's concern that outer space is the coming arena of superpower competition and have called for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Military activity in outer space is already circumscribed through several existing arms control agreements. The Government supports strengthening this arms control regime through further verifiable agreements. Australia is an active participant in the consideration of outer space issues in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. It is encouraging the Conference to think through the longer term implications of recent developments relating to outer space before irreversible steps are taken. It urges all countries, especially those with space capabilities, to work in good faith to avoid an arms race in outer space. (2) At this stage the SDI is confined to a research program and a decision on whether to develop and deploy such a system is not expected until the early 1990s. The 1972 ABM Treaty and its 1974 protocol ban the development, testing and deployment of all ABM systems and components that are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based. Although the treaty allows the development and testing of fixed land-based ABM systems and components, including those based on other physical principles (such as lasers and particle beams) it also requires that specific limitations on such systems would be the subject of discussions between the parties to the treaty in accordance with Article XIII of the treaty and agreement in accordance with article XIV of the treaty. Research on the technologies involved in ballistic missile defence is not in conflict with either superpower's obligations under the ABM Treaty-the Government understands that the Soviet Union is also conducting an extensive program of research and development into the possible application of new and existing technologies for such purposes-but raises questions as to its longer term viability. A decision by either superpower to proceed beyond research would have implications for the current ABM Treaty and clearly would require discussions between the parties to the treaty. The Government understands that, in this context, the United States has proposed government-to-government discussions with the Soviet Union on the implications of these technologies which both sides are exploring. (3) Nuclear-pumped lasers are only one of a number of possible technologies being examined under the SDI research program. The question as to whether a nuclear-pumped laser would constitute a 'nuclear weapon' or be more akin to a nuclear power source currently used in some space vehicles, could not be considered until the details of any proposed operational systems are available. Any nuclear explosion in space would contravene the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, to which both the United States and the Soviet Union are parties. (4) The Australian Government is co-operating with the US Government in research and development of electromagnetic launchers because it believes that such research has potential benefits for the Australian Defence Force. The specific project arrangement covering this co-operation relates to anti-armour, air defence and artillery weapons that are of direct interest to Australia, and not to any possible strategic or space applications. (5) The Government does not believe there is any inconsistency between its position outlined in (1) and (2) above and its commitment to arms control as most recently expressed in statements by the Prime Minister on 6 June 1984 and the Foreign Minister on 4 July 1984. (Question No. 1495) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: Will Australia Post install a post office letter receiver within the Strathfield Plaza shopping complex, New South Wales. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: No. Australia Post seeks to locate new street posting boxes so that its operational needs and customer needs are met. Generally, however, a new street posting box would not be located within 800 metres of another box. The proposition to install a box at the Strathfield Plaza Shopping Centre has been examined by Australia Post and it has been found that adequate vehicle access at the Plaza, for clearance of a box located there, would not be available. Further, there are already two posting boxes located less than 200 metres from the Plaza, with safe pedestrian access to both. Both boxes are well patronised. Australia Post considers that existing posting facilities are meeting the needs of the Plaza satisfactorily. (Question No. 1496) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has Telecom Australia finalised the relocation of plant affected by roadwork in Arthur Street, Flemington, New South Wales. (2) Will the N.S.W. Department of Main Roads bear the cost of excavation and roadworks and the deviation of a number of cables. (3) When will the work be finalised and what is the total cost to Telecom Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom has not yet completed plant relocation. (2) The N.S.W. Department of Main Roads has agreed to pay the actual costs of the relocation of Telecom conduits and associated cables. (3) Telecom expects to complete this work by early August 1984. Actual costs will not be available until completion of the work but are not expected to be above those estimated-$295,043.92. (Question No. 1497) Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Are electronic machines imported by New Zealand buyers from Australia subject to an import duty of 25 per cent plus sales tax of 40 per cent. (2) Is the sales tax component of 40 per cent placed on the final formula for the article arrived at by (a) the cost of the machine, (b) the insurance paid on the machine and (c) the freight charged on the machine. (3) Is a similar formula used by the Australian Customs Service when placing duty and/or excise on similar machines being imported by Australian buyers from New Zealand; if not, does the formula used by New Zealand customs authorities place the Australian exporter at a disadvantage in trans-Tasman trade. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In respect of parts (1) and (2) the New Zealand High Commission advises electronic machines attracting a sales tax rate of 40 per cent in New Zealand are office machines, classified under headings 84.51, 84.52, or 84.53 of the New Zealand Customs Tariff; photocopying and thermo-copying apparatus, classified under heading 90.10; automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, being goods classified under heading 84.53 of the Customs Tariff. None of the above machines attract a duty of 25 per cent when of Australian origin-indeed, except for guillotines and paper shredders (duty rate 10 per cent), they are all duty free when of Australian origin. Sales tax is generally paid on the price at which the goods are sold by a licensed wholesaler in terms of the Sales Tax Act 1974. When the machines are imported into New Zealand by a person who is not a licensed wholesaler, sales tax is leviable on a value calculated from the sum of the following amounts: (a) the value of the goods for the purposes of customs duty; (b) the amount of customs duty; (c) the amount or proportionate part thereof paid to the Crown for the issue of an import licence; (d) the amount paid to transport the goods to New Zealand and to insure the goods for such transport and; (e) 25 percent of the sum of the amounts referred to in (a) to (d) above. This formula is intended to provide a measure of equality on the value for sales tax purposes of imported goods, irrespective of the status of the importer , by establishing a notional wholesale value. In respect of part (3) Australian ad-valorem duties are calculated by reference to the customs value of the dutiable goods. The customs value is determined in accordance with an International Agreement, to which both Australia and New Zealand are parties, and in general is based on the price of the goods with a limited range of adjustments. The Agreement allows parties the option of including or excluding overseas freight and insurance in the customs value. Australia does not include these costs. Electronic office machines entering Australia in the main fall to headings 84. 51, 84.52, 84.53, 84.54 and 90.10 in the Australian tariff. When imported from New Zealand such machines presently are free of import duty. Australian sales tax is levied on a value which is 120 percent of the sum of: (a) the value of duty of the imported goods; (b) the amount of duty applicable. The sales tax levied is in accordance with the Sales Tax Assessment Act (Number 5) of 1930. In the case of electronic office machines the rate of sales tax is 20 per cent. On the basis of the foregoing information it would seem that Australian producers of electronic office machines are not disadvantaged in Trans-Tasman trade vis-a-vis their New Zealand counterparts. (Question No. 1498) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Is there an organisation within the Launceston workshops of Australian National-AN-called the Combined Unions Committee-CUC; if so, (a) which unions form its membership and (b) what is its authority within the management of the AN workshops. (2) Has management recently denied work to employees in the workshops area because the employees being placed in that area are members of a union not affiliated to the CUC; if so, has management accepted this decision and denied employees of AN the right to employment in the workshop area because of union membership and not based on ability to do the work. (3) Has the management of the Tasmanian Region of AN failed to carry out the rulings of management in the Launceston area and accepted the CUC's demands. (4) Do the rules governing work in the Launceston workshop area state that a person shall work where directed and, if the order is refused the person shall be suspended from duty; if so, were employees of one union, refusing to work with employees in another union, suspended from duty by management. (5) Is this inter-union dispute affecting the revenue of the Tasmanian Region of AN. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is an organisation within the Launceston workshops, but it is known as the Combined Railway Union's Committee-CRUC- (a) Australian Metal Founders and Shipwrights Union-AMFSU-Electrical Trades Union-ETU-and Australian Railways Union-ARU; (b) The Committee does not have any authority in the management of AN's Launceston workshops. (2) No. However the CRUC placed bans on such employees and as a consequence AN has been subjected to intermittent work bans since August 1983. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was notified of a dispute at that time, and several hearings have taken place without resolution. There has been no discrimination against any group of AN employees to the advantage of others. AN' s approach has been and will continue to be to take all possible steps to meet each situation in a responsible manner and endeavour to resolve problems in an unbiased way. (3) No. (4) An undertaking was given to Mr Commissioner Cross during Arbitration proceedings that AN would not exacerbate the situation by suspending employees who were acting in accordance with a union ban. It was agreed by all parties at the Arbitration proceedings that the unions be given some time to resolve the matter amongst themselves. However this has not occurred to date. (5) The Tasmanian Region of AN has lost revenue because of this inter-union dispute. (Question No. 1503) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Males Females (i) Minister's Department- March 1984 3 6 April 1984 nil nil May 1984 nil nil (ii) Statutory Authorities- March 1984 nil nil April 1984 nil nil May 1984 nil nil (Question No. 1507) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No males or females have been engaged in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or in any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as temporary employees under the community employment program from March to May 1984. (Question No. 1508) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: March 1984 April 1984 May 1984 (i) (a) 3 (a) 3 (a) 1 (b) 10 (b) 9 (b) 6 (ii) (a) 2 (a) 0 (a) 0 (b) 2 (b) 5 (b) 2 (Question No. 1509) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Males (A) March 1984-Nil; (B) April 1984-Nil; (C) May 1984-Nil. (b) Females (A) March 1984-6; (B) April 1984-9; (C) May 1984-7. (Question No. 1512) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been no temporary employees engaged under the community employment program either in my Department or in any statutory authority reporting to me, during the period referred to in the honourable member's question. (Question No. 1514) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Employees under the community employment program in my Department: March April May 1984 1984 1984 (a) Male 48 48 46 (b) Female 138 143 131 186 191 177 (ii) No temporary employees were engaged in any statutory authority reporting to me. (Question No. 1515) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 1984. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has engaged three males as temporary employees under the community employment program throughout March, April and May 1984. No females have been employed under the scheme for that period. (2) No statutory authorities in my portfolio have employed staff under the community employment program during March, April and May 1984. (Question No. 1517) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 1984. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) None. (a) (ii) None. (b) (i) Two females have been employed by my Department for the month of May 1984. (b) (ii) One female has been employed by the Australian Tourist Commission for the months of March, April and May 1984. (Question No. 1519) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 1984. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) and (ii)- March April May 1984 1984 1984 Department of Male 194 195 197 Health Female 105 108 118 Capital Territory Male 2 2 3 Health Com- mission Female 4 4 6 Total Male 196 197 200 Female 109 112 124 (Question No. 1525) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 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 March 1984 40 3 April 1984 7 3 May 1984 22 5 (ii) Statutory authorities-National Capital Development Commission (a) Males (b) Females March 1984 1 nil April 1984 nil nil May 1984 1 nil No other statutory authorities within my portfolio engaged temporary employees under the community employment program during the months in question. (Question No. 1526) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 31 May 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 (a) March, (b) April and (c) May 1984. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Between March and May 1984, my Department employed the following number of males and females under the community employment program: Males Females Total March 24 77 101 April 20 78 98 May 24 70 94 (ii) There are no statutory authorities reporting to me. (Question No. 1528) Dr Everingham asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 June 1984: Has his attention been drawn to directions from Queensland Government instrumentalities to officers of departments and semi-government authorities, including some with major federal funding components, to the effect that no officer may undertake any commitment to Australia or participate in inter- governmental committees advising a Federal Minister without Cabinet authority and must notify the State Co-Ordinator-General immediately if asked by the Federation to accept responsibilities which could conflict with their State responsibilities; if so, has he sought from the Queensland Premier clarification of reciprocal guidelines calculated to implement concepts of co-operative federalism rather than moves towards secession and cold war among governments. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is for each Government to determine the way in which its relations with other Governments will be conducted. As far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, we have, since coming to office, consistently followed a policy of seeking co-operation and constructive negotiation with State Governments on matters of mutual interest and concern. This policy has been pursued at all levels, including forums such as the National Economic Summit and Premiers' Conferences/Loan Council meetings, Commonwealth-State Ministerial Councils, and meetings of officials. It will continue to be our guiding principle in all forms of Commonwealth-State contact. It is, of course, reasonable to expect that there would be a reciprocal spirit of co-operation from the States and indeed we can usually count on that. (Question No. 1531) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: What (a) number and (b) proportion of medical (i) practitioners and (ii) specialists in Victoria are bulk billing patients through Medicare. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Some 3,201 or 72.8 per cent of general practitioners and 1,178 or 51.2 per cent of specialists have direct billed Medicare. These figures relate to claims processed by the Health Insurance Commission in the period 1 February 1984 to 31 May 1984. A practitioner is classified as a ' direct bill' practitioner if at least one of the services processed for him in that period is direct billed. A practitioner is classified as a general practitioner if the majority of his services are GP services. (Question No. 1533) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) What is the (a) initial and (b) annual charge for excluding a telephone number from international subscriber dialling-ISD. (2) Once a line or number is excluded from ISD, is there any (a) actual or (b) physical procedure required each year to maintain the exclusion, if not, why is an annual charge necessary. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) A $3.00 annual charge is applied, from the date of completion of access barring, for each service barred access to ISD/Call Charge Record-CCR- which is being progressively introduced as a standard facility throughout Australia. (2) (a) and (b) Yes. Telecom incurs costs in the provision of barring equipment and in the administrative and technical arrangements necessary to ensure that access to ISD/CCR is restricted as required. In all exchanges where ISD/CCR is provided as a standard facility annual checks are conducted to ensure that the barring condition is maintained. (Question No. 1534) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications the following question, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) Did Telecom launch an extensive advertising campaign for the new Melbourne telephone directory, if so (a) why and (b) how much did it cost. (2) Does Telecom regularly conduct these campaigns for telephone directories, if so (a) where, (b) when and (c) at what cost. (3) Was there a campaign for the first 2-volume Sydney directory, and is there a repeat campaign each year. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) Telecom has a responsibility to keep its customers informed of the introduction of new services and facilities and of any significant changes to these. The provision of telephone directories is a very important service provided by Telecom for its customers and Telecom considered it essential that they be informed of the reasons for and the advantages of splitting the Melbourne White Pages Directory. Telecom also conducted the campaign to help establish the White Pages as the primary source for obtaining directory information. The cost of providing the directory assistance service is very high (approximately $63.9 million in 1983- 84) and Telecom is concerned to minimise the amount of unnecessary directory assistance traffic. (b) $250,000. (2) No. (3) There was a similar advertising campaign for the introduction of the split of the Sydney telephone directory into two volumes. This was very successful and received favourable public response. There are no repeat campaigns planned. (Question No. 1535) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) Has he responded to the request for information by the Premier of South Australia regarding the alleged upgrading of the US satellite base at Nurrungar. (2) Will he (a) advise what satellite system is Nurrungar the ground station for and (b) confirm or deny whether Nurrungar has been handed over to the US space command created by President Reagan to put into effect US satellite warfare strategies. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) I refer the honourable member to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on the 6 June 1984 on the general purpose and functions of the joint defence facilities in Australia. (b) The fact that US personnel serving at Nurrungar would come under the United States Air Force Space Command has been public knowledge in Australia since the announcement of the visit to Australia of the Commander of the USAF Space Command in October 1982 (Defence News Release 160/82). The purpose of the USAF Space Command is to consolidate USAF operational space activities and to ensure a close interface between research and development activities and operational users. JDSCS Nurrungar has no role in US anti-satellite programs, nor in research programs associated with the Strategic Defence Initiative announced last year by President Reagan. (Question No. 1536) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) Are the members of the Australian Manufacturing Council-AMC-appointed as individuals or as representatives of organisations. (2) What payments have the members of the AMC received since its inception in March 1984. (3) What has been the total cost of operating the AMC, including its secretariat. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Members are appointed to the Australian Manufacturing Council-AMC-on the basis of their capacity as individuals to contribute to the Council's principal function which is to provide broad-based advice to the Minister on matters relating to manufacturing industry. To ensure that the Council was in a position to provide such advice, nominations for membership were sought from a wide range of interested groups including employer and employee organisations, government, consumer groups, and academic and research bodies. (2) Members of the AMC do not receive payment for their participation in work of the Council. They are however eligible to claim travelling expenses and overnight accommodation expenses where this is necessary to attend meetings. To date the AMC has met twice, on 26 April and 18 June 1984, and four claims for travel/accommodation totalling $2,131.10 have been processed. Further claims are expected. (3) A formal Secretariat for the AMC has not yet been established. Secretariat services have in the interim period been provided from within the Department's existing resources. For this reason it is not possible to identify the total operating cost of the AMC. (Question No. 1541) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Can he say whether West Irian and East Timor were incorporated illegally into Indonesia because of the failure of Indonesia to allow and/or arrange internationally supervised acts of self-determination. (2) Can he also say whether West Irianese dissidents are forcibly repatriated by Papua New Guinea without access to international refugee organisations. (3) Does Australia differentiate in representations to other nations on behalf of dissidents according to the military or ideological alignment of the governments concerned. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Indonesia's claim to Irian Jaya arose after the Indonesian Republic achieved independence in 1949. The Indonesian claim was based on the grounds that Irian Jaya had always been an integral part of the Dutch East Indies and, as the successor state to the Dutch East Indies, it should have sovereignty over the territory. In 1950 negotiations between the Netherlands and Indonesia concerning the status of Irian Jaya broke down, and eventually the matter was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in 1954. Following further inconclusive diplomatic manoeuvres and armed conflict between the Netherlands and Indonesia, the Netherlands agreed to transfer the territory to the United Nations on 1 May 1962. Administration of Irian Jaya was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963. There was a provision in the transfer for an 'Act of Free Choice' to be held under the United Nations auspices. A plebiscite took place in 1969 which was found to result in a vote in favour of integration with Indonesia. Like the great majority of the international community, the Australian Government recognises Irian Jaya as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia. Concerning East Timor, you will be aware that during my visit to Indonesia in April 1984, I noted on behalf of the Australian Government that East Timor had been incorporated into the Republic of Indonesia, but expressed the Government's deep concern that an internationally supervised act of self determination had not taken place. The Indonesian Government maintains that the status of East Timor as a province of Indonesia was decided in a vote on integration held in East Timor in July 1976. (2) The Government has been monitoring developments along the Indonesian-Papua New Guinea border closely. As regards the repatriation of people from Irian Jaya who have recently crossed the border and are now in PNG, the Government has noted assurances by PNG's Foreign Minister, Mr Namaliu, to the PNG Parliament that those Irianese who have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their involvement in dissident activities in Indonesia should be allowed to stay in PNG for the time being. Regarding the role of international refugee organisations, the Government is aware that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR has been in contact with PNG and Indonesian authorities concerning the Irianese border crossers. To date, the PNG and Indonesian authorities have preferred to seek arrangements for the repatriation of the border crossers between themselves . In the Australian Government's view, it is necessary that the solution to the problem of border crossers should take full account of the important humanitarian considerations that are involved. (3) The Government makes representations on human rights on behalf of dissidents in countries across the political and geographical spectrum, including Indonesia. While in each case the Government's approach is adjusted to achieve the most effective result in the relevant circumstances, this does not in any way diminish the Government's commitment to see internationally recognised human rights standards universally protected and promoted. (Question No. 1542) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: What (a) categories and (b) amounts of military aid have been given to Indonesia by Australia in each of the last ten years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Assistance provided to Indonesia under the defence cooperation program during the last ten years can be categorised as follows: a. projects involving the transfer of skills and capabilities b. projects to aid national development planning c. training and study visits to Australia Re a. The following projects have commenced or been completed since 1974: (1) Fighter ground attack aircraft ('Sabre') completed in 1980 (2) Air navigation training, completed in 1975 (3) Small arms training, completed in 1976 (4) Field communications maintenance, completed in 1980 (5) Maritime surveillance, commenced in 1973 and continuing (6) Research and development, commenced in 1974 and continuing (7) Vehicle and automotive repair, completed in 1980 (8) Aircraft maintenance, commenced in 1972 and continuing (9) Equipment trialling, completed in 1983 (10) Dockyard development, completed in 1982 (11) English language training, commenced in 1976 and continuing. Re b. A survey/mapping project commenced in 1972 and is continuing, covering West Kalimantan, Sumatra, Maluku Province and Irian Jaya. Re c. In the last ten years to 30 June 1984, 1032 Indonesian personnel have undertaken training or study visits in Australia. (b) Expenditure on the Defence Cooperation Program with Indonesian in each of the last 10 years was: FY74-75-$ 5.565m FY75-76-$ 6.259m FY76-77-$ 6.596m FY77-78-$ 7.209m FY78-79-$ 7.183m FY79-80-$ 9.589m FY80-81-$11.935m FY81-82-$ 8.627m FY82-83-$10.184m FY83-84-$ 8.902m (Question No. 1544) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: What action is he taking to overcome the financial crisis confronting radio stations for the print handicapped. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am very conscious of the financial difficulties facing RPH stations around Australia. As the honourable member may be aware, in announcing RPH services in 1978, the then Minister indicated that it was expected that RPH stations would be financially self-supporting. For various reasons including the fact that RPH frequencies are off the primary broadcasting band and that many print handicapped persons are on low incomes, it has become evident that RPH stations are experiencing significant funding difficulties. Because of this and other problems being experienced by RPH stations, I instructed my Department in August 1983 to conduct a review of RPH services. An important part of the review is an examination of the funding issue. I expect the review of RPH to be completed in the next few months. (Question No. 1545) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: Is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation still proceeding with its re- organisation which will result in the downgrading of the rural and religious departments; if so, has the ABC responded to the criticism from many Australians against this ill-considered action. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. There has been something of a concerted campaign, emanating from inaccurate press reports, by various interests concerned that the Religious and Rural Departments will be downgraded as a result of the ABC's re-organisation. The ABC has assured me that this is not the case. I am advised that, under the new structure for the ABC, approved by the Board of Directors, the Religious Department will become a separate unit in both radio and television with a functional head, who will cover both media. The specialist identity of the Religious Department will therefore be maintained and religious programs will continue to have an importance place in ABC schedules. The previously integrated Rural Department has also been separated into radio and television groups. Administrative structures, which were relevant 30 years ago-before the ABC operated a television service-are no longer appropriate. In preparation for the introduction of a second regional radio network, the ABC is also planning to establish a number of new regional offices and studios as extra commitment to rural listeners. (Question No. 1546) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) When will a translator be erected at Angaston South Australia, to improve the poor television reception in that area. (2) Who will (a) initially and (b) eventually pay for the translator and what will be the cost. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At this stage I am not able to indicate when a translator to serve Angaston might be established. I have directed the National Broadcasting Service Planning Committee-NBSPC-which recommends extensions of national services, to consider the needs of Angaston when the draft planning program for the three years commencing 1985-86 is being prepared. (2) (a) and (b) If it is decided that a translator be established to serve Angaston, the Government normally would fund the project. Timing for the project could however be subject to program priorities and the availability of funds. If the local Angaston community wished to construct the translator under the self- help television reception scheme, then that community would have to fund the project. (Question No. 1547) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Is it a fact that Australia Post by paying Telecom to include postcode listings in metropolitan telephone directories provides a service for 70 per cent of Australians. (2) Will Australia Post provide the same service for the remaining 30 per cent by inserting postcode lists in the regional directories; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) By inserting postcode listings annually in the telephone directories of the Australian Capital Territory, the six State capital cities and some larger provincial cities, Australia Post provides a service for those Australians with access to those directories. (2) No. The dissemination of postcode information is reviewed regularly by Australia Post. Currently, it is more cost effective to produce the postcode booklet as required and make it available to the balance of the population, than to have postcode listings published annually in some 50 telephone directories. The postcode booklet is available, free of charge, at all post offices. (Question No. 1551) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) How many complaints of anti-semitic broadcasts by radio station 3CR have been made (a) in each of the years since the station was established and (b) so far this year. (2) What action has been taken with respect to each of these complaints. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, is as follows: (1) Thirty complaints about anti-semitism in programs broadcast by 3CR have been received by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal since the station was established in 1976. The position in each year is as follows- 1976-3 complaints 1977-6 complaints 1978-11 complaints 1979-0 complaints 1980-0 complaints 1981-2 complaints 1982-4 complaints 1983-4 complaints 1984-0 complaints (2) Where justified the matter has been investigated with the station at the time the complaint was laid and in some cases was treated as an issue in the context of the 3CR licence renewal process. (Question No. 1552) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: What is the present position of the Australia Post evaluation program of electric vehicles for city and inner suburban mail deliveries. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Australia Post's evaluation program for electric vehicles for selected postal operations has been suspended indefinitely. This decision was made when it became evident that the operation, by Australia Post, of a fleet of electric vehicles was not viable without subsidies for capital and operating costs. In these circumstances, no point was seen in continuing with costly trials. Australia Post will, however, maintain a watching brief on developments in electric vehicle technology in Australia and overseas. (Question No. 1553) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the continuing school cyclist/car accidents in Mugga Way, Australian Capital Territory. (2) When will a cycleway be constructed, to eliminate the accidents, by safely removing the hundreds of students who each day are forced to ride along Mugga Way to the many schools in the area. (3) Is it a fact that a cycleway was planned for Mugga Way; if so, (a) when was it first planned and (b) why has it not been built. (4) What cycleways have been built in Canberra in 1983-84 and which ones are expected to be built next year. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In relation to the other part of the honourable member's question, I am advised by the National Capital Development Commission as follows: (2) The construction of the Red Hill-Deakin-Curtin cycleway has been included in the 1985-86 draft NCDC construction program. (3) (a) The Canberra trunk cycleway network which included the Red Hill-Deakin- Curtin link was approved on 21 May 1979. (3) (b) Priority has been given to constructing the major recreational and inter-town centre routes. (4) (a) In 1983-84 work was completed on the widening of the cycleway on the western side of Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. (4) (b) The following cycleways were committed during the 1983-84 financial year: (i) Kings Avenue Bridge to Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. (ii) Hindmarsh Drive Chifley to Kambah. (iii) Stage 1 improvements to existing cycleways. (4) (c) The following cycleways have been included in the 1984-85 draft Construction Program. Construction will depend on the level of funding approved in the forthcoming Budget. (i) Kings Park-Greville Park-Jerrabomberra Wetlands-Bowen Park which will complete the round Lake Burley Griffin circuit and provide controlled access by cyclists to Jerrabomberra Wetlands. (ii) Carruthers Street to Lake Burley Griffin which will connect Woden-Curtin into Lake Burley Griffin and the Belconnen system and vice versa. (iii) Aikman Drive to Kaleen which will provide a direct link between north western suburbs and Belconnen/City and vice versa. (iv) Relocation of cycleway through the National Sports Centre which will provide a permanent route through the National Sports Centre as part of the City -Bruce-Kaleen cycleway. (v) Macarthur to Ashley Drive via Isabella Drive, which will provide the first link from Macarthur, Fadden, Chisholm and Richardson to the Tuggeranong Town Centre and into the main north trunk route. (vi) Stage 2 of improvements to existing cycleways. (Question No. 1554) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) How is it expected that farm equipment and livestock will be valued, under the assets test, when an application is made for a pension by a farmer. (2) In the case of a drought or rural depression and the market for an, at cost , $10,000 header or tractor is non-existent, other than at a give-away price, is he able to say whether (a) the farmer's 'real market' value will be accepted or (b) the theoretical depreciated value will be required, and the final determination of the full catalogue of equipment on the farm will be potentially subject to an independent valuation; if the latter is correct, who will make this valuation. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Farm equipment and livestock will be valued under the assets test at their current net market value-the value of those assets after deducting any debts owing on them. (2) A farmer will be able to advise his estimate of the current net market value of his farm equipment irrespective of its initial cost. The market value of the equipment as advised will be accepted unless a professional Government valuer, when making a random check of values advised, considers such an estimate of value to be out of line with evidence of current market values. Any debts outstanding on the equipment will be deducted from the current market value. If dissatisfied the pensioner will have the right to lodge an appeal against the values taken into account. (Question No. 1555) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Is it fact that officers from his Department visited Finley, New South Wales, to investigate television interference; if so, what (a) was the result of the investigation and (b) will be done to correct the problems. (2) Has there been a similar investigation before. (3) When were complaints of interference first made to his Department. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. A comprehensive report on the investigation has been prepared and its conclusions are at present being assessed by senior officers of my Department. This is a complex matter and will take some time to complete. (b) It is intended that the report form the basis of any proposals concerning remedial action deemed necessary. (2) No, not on the scale of the recent investigation in the Finley area. (3) Complaints of interference were first made in the 1960s. My Department cannot pinpoint the earliest date as records of interference complaints are kept for about two years only. (Question No. 1558) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Will he make available Indonesia's development plans, referred to in his Press release of 1 June 1984 as being aided by joint survey and mapping under the defence co-operation program, involving defence forces in Indonesia and Australia. (2) Is Australia's contribution listed as civil or military aid. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. It is not the practice of the Australian Government to make available development plans of other countries. I understand that Indonesia's current five year plan is a publicly available document. (2) Both. The project is part of the defence co-operation program and also meets Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development criteria for official development assistance. It is included in annual statistical returns to the OECD. (Question No. 1559) Mr Carlton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: Has he made any determinations under sections 2 or 3 of the guidelines made under sub-section 17 (4) of the Health Insurance Act, published in Gazette No. S 80, 29 February 1984; if so, will he table copies of these determinations in the House. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have not made a determination referred to in clause 2 or 3 of the guidelines formulated for the purposes of sub-section 17 (4) of the Health Insurance Act 1973. (Question No. 1561) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Is it a fact that a Telecom vehicle, registration number ZGN-975, parked each day for 3 weeks, in late April and early May 1984, in Devonshire Street, near Waterloo Street, Surry Hills, New South Wales; if so, what were the reasons . (2) How many workmen were involved. (3) Was (a) the work rate checked by supervisors, or (b) some other work accountability mechanism used. (4) Were any complaints registered with Telecom about this incident. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The vehicle concerned was parked each day in Devonshire Street near Waterloo Street, Surry Hills, NSW, next to a Telecom manhole from late April until mid June 1984. The vehicle carried equipment used to join underground telephone cables and, during the period in question, an employee was engaged in complex cable jointing activities associated with the upgrade of Telecom plant in the manhole next to the vehicle. (2) Only one employee was directly involved, however other staff were working in conjunction with his activities in Redfern Telephone Exchange. (3) The work site was visited daily by a supervisor and progress was considered to be satisfactory. (4) There were no complaints registered with Telecom regarding this incident. (Question No. 1562) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Will he issue licences to permit the capture of dolphins or allow the import of dolphins, for the proposed Springvale Park in Victoria. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Whale Protection Act 1980 incorporates provisions for the issuing of permits for a range of activities normally prescribed under the Act. These include the taking of cetaceans-whales, dolphins and porpoises-within the Australian fishing zone for the purpose of live display. The Act provides for public comment on an application for a permit and affords the applicant an opportunity to respond to those comments. The decision on granting or withholding a permit is based on consideration of the application, any comments and the applicant's response to those comments. No application for a permit to capture or import dolphins for live display for the proposed Springvale Park has been received to date 21 June 1984. Any comment on the issuing of permits at this stage would pre-empt the processes established under the Whale Protection Act 1980 for consideration of such applications. (Question No. 1565) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: What amount has been spent by the Commonwealth on the identification, protection and management of world heritage properties in Australia (a) before and (b) after listing. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following expenditures have been incurred by the Commonwealth on Australia' s five listed World Heritage Properties: Expenditure after Expenditure listing Name of before (to June heritage property listing 1984) $ $ Kakadu National Park 6,300,000 7,620,000 Great Barrier Reef 4,900,000 9, 380,000 Willandra Lakes Region 13,000 75,666 Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks 371,500 541,000 Lord Howe Island Group Nil 44,000 Total 11,584,500 17,660,666 (Question No. 1567) Mr Sinclair asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Did any or all of the following give evidence to the inquiry by Mr Justice Hope into term of reference (c) of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies: Mr Bill Butler, Mr Richard Farmer, Mr Jay Alparslan, Mr Eric Walsh and Mr Rod Cameron; if so, by whom was each called. (2) Have any of those listed been appointed since March 1983 to any position within a Commonwealth department or statutory authority; if so, (a) who of those listed are so employed, (b) what are the details of the appointment, including ( i) date of appointment and (ii) salary and (c) have the person or persons involved previously held any position in any State department or statutory authority; if so, (i) when and (ii) where. (3) Have any of those listed been engaged since March 1983 as consultants to a Commonwealth department or statutory authority, either individually or as principals or employees of a company; if so, (a) who of those listed have been so engaged and (b) what are the details of the engagement, including (i) period of engagement, (ii) purpose and (iii) payment. (4) Have any of those listed, or companies of which they are principals or employees, received since March 1983 any other remuneration for goods or services rendered to the Commonwealth; if so, (a) who of those listed have received such remuneration and (b) what are the details of such remuneration including (i) goods and/or services rendered, (ii) relevant dates and (iii) the amounts of payment. (5) Have any of those listed, or any company of which they are a principal or employee, received from any Commonwealth department or statutory authority since March 1983 any lease, concession or assignment conferring a commercial benefit; if so, (a) what were the details of any such lease, concession or assignment and (b) by whom were they granted. (6) Have any of those listed been entertained socially by him at either the Lodge or Kirribilli House; if so, when. (7) Have any of those listed travelled in special purpose aircraft since March 1983; if so, (a) on what date or dates and (b) for what purpose. Mr Hawke —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following persons were called by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies to appear before it and attended on the dates indicated: Mr Richard Farmer-11 August 1983 Mr Jay Alparslan-15 September 1983 Mr Eric Walsh-9 and 10 August 1983 Mr Rod Cameron-11 August 1983 Mr W. P. Butler was not called before the Royal Commission but provided a written statement. (2) to (5) The persons in question have not been appointed to any position within a Commonwealth department or authority for which Cabinet authority is required. Within my portfolio, they hold no appointments, have not been engaged as consultants nor have they, or companies of which they are principals or employees, received any lease, concession or assignment conferring a commercial benefit. Nor, with the exception mentioned below, have they received any remuneration for goods or services rendered to agencies within my portfolio. There is no requirement to record centrally the information sought in relation to other portfolios and I do not intend to authorise the expenditure of resources necessary to provide the information. I am aware, however, that Mr Butler served on the Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel in 1983 and is currently a consultant with the Department of Finance and that Mr Alparslan is employed as a Trade Commissioner, Commonwealth/State Relations. In information already provided by the Government and made public it was stated that my Department had purchased supplies of liquor for Prime Ministerial hospitality from Farmer Brothers in the period 1 March 1983 to 31 March 1984; the amount paid to Farmer Brothers was $10.735.27. The Public Service Board and Economic Planning Advisory Council have also placed purchase orders with, and received goods from Farmer Brothers to the total value of $562.06 (comprising two purchases on 11 May and 28 June 1983) and $350.76 (on 24 May 1984), respectively, for the purposes of official hospitality. (6) I entertain socially a considerable number of persons each year and intend to adopt the practice followed traditionally by my predecessors as Prime Minister of maintaining the confidentiality of guest lists. (7) Lists of those who have travelled on special purpose aircraft are tabled regularly in the Parliament and are available for the right honourable member's inspection. (Question No. 1569) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Is it a fact that the Minister's Department, in the assessment of assets for the payment of a pension under the Government's new income and assets test scheme, will continue the practice of ignoring eligible assets given away, rather than sold, by the applicants, after 5 years; if so, how will the gift be assessed for each of the five years if the applicant dies and the spouse applies for a pension. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the proposed legislation a person may dispose of assets of up to $2,000 per year-single-and $4,000 per year-married couple-without adequate financial consideration through such means as gifting. The value of assets disposed of without adequate financial consideration in excess of these limits is to be deemed the property of the donor. The value of such deemed assets is to be depleted by a flat 10 per cent per year so that it will be completely disregarded 10 years after the act of deprivation. In the case of a married couple, half the value is to be maintained against each pensioner. Upon the death of one of a married couple the treatment of any outstanding value will depend upon which partner legally owned the asset concerned. If it was jointly owned, half the outstanding value would continue to be maintained against the survivor. If owned wholly by the deceased pensioner, no amount would be maintained against the survivor; conversely, if it was solely owned by the surviving pensioner, the full amount outstanding would be maintained against that person. In relation to new claimants for pension, the Department will have regard to the disposal of assets in the five-year period prior to the person's application . However, no regard will be had to amounts disposed of prior to 1 June 1984. There will also be provision to shorten the five-year period where the applicant could not reasonably have expected to become eligible for a pension, for example , where due to an accident a person qualifies for invalid pension. (Question No. 1573) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Does any provision exist to offer any consolation or compensation to a Canberra man who posted a cheque for $500 to help his daughter in Melbourne with a deposit on a house which was a 'good buy' but which she subsequently lost because the cheque took 11 days to reach her. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: The postal by-laws preclude the payment of compensation for loss incurred as a result of delay in the transmission or delivery of a postal article unless: (a) the article was lodged in Australia for transmission by registered post to a place in Australia; (b) the article would, in the normal course of transmission, have been delivered not less than seven days before the occurrence of the event for which the contents of the article were required; and (c) before the article was delivered and before the need for the contents occurred, the claimant reasonably obtained substitutes for the contests. If those conditions are met, compensation would be limited to the reasonable costs incurred in obtaining a substitute for the contents of the delayed article . Depending on the postal service used, a refund of postage may be payable. Australia Post will be pleased to inquire into the cause(s) of the delay in the instance referred to if the sender provides details of the lodgment and delivery of the article and the service used. (Question No. 1574) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Is he able to say for what reasons a pensioner's superannuation cheque posted every fortnight from Western Australia to Bendigo, Victoria, usually takes 5 1/2 days to arrive. (2) Can he explain the discrepancy between this delivery and when mail from the United Kingdom addressed to the same pensioner takes only 6 days to deliver. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) It is not clear whether the question refers to an isolated instance or a series of events. However, it is understood, from advice provided by Mr Lloyd's office, that the cheques in question are posted at the Perth GPO on alternate Wednesdays, at around 2 p.m. Australia Post's service standard between Perth and Bendigo for delivery of ordinary mail posted on Wednesday at the Perth GPO is two working days, provided the article is posted by the advertised closing time of 6 p.m. Standard articles so posted should be delivered in Bendigo on the Friday. Australia Post has established procedures for inquiry into claims of lost, damaged and delivery delayed mail. Details of allegations are fully investigated by Australia Post including operational aspects of transportation and sorting. Confirmation of particulars of posting and delivery is required. The allegation in this question is one which would involve inquiry into postal operational aspects and details of postings, et cetera, should be referred to Australia Post for such inquiry. (Question No. 1576) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) What progress has been made with the appointment of Community Affairs Officers, and a Principal Community Affairs Officer to consider complaints against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2) How many complaints have been received and have there been any from members of Parliament. (3) Is the Prime Minister eligible to use this procedure to lodge complaints against the ABC; if so, will he draw the Prime Minister's attention to this facility. (4) Is it the intention of the Managing Director or the Corporation Board to refer all future complaints to this facility or will the Prime Minister continue to have privileged direct access. (5) Will he reconsider his opposition to an independent United Kingdom type complaints commission for the ABC and the commercial stations, particularly now that Sir Zelman Cowen has recently supported the concept. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) The ABC appointed a permanent Principal Community Affairs Officer, Mr Don Dunoon, on 25 June. The position was advertised widely earlier in the year and has been filled for some months by temporary appointees until Mr Dunoon was able to take up duty. The Board of Directors at its 29 June 1984 meeting approved the progressive establishment of a Community Affairs Officer in each State, (including New South Wales) and Territory as vacancies occur within approved staff ceilings. (2) Two complaints, meeting the statutory terms of section 82 of the ABC Act, have been accepted by the ABC and have been investigated. The first was from the honourable Barry Jones, MP, Minister for Science and Technology, and claimed misrepresentation of fact in a television program. The second complaint, from a private citizen, concerned an alleged invasion of privacy. (3) Yes. (4) The Prime Minister has no privileged access. (5) The Government has undertaken to conduct a review of the complaints procedures available under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act after the report of the Principal Community Affairs Officer PCAO to Parliament in 1984 on the first year of operation of the procedures. This review will take into account the PCAO's report and any other relevant information. (Question No. 1578) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1984 : (1) Has the Government made a decision as to the level of underwriting on manufactured dairy product returns during 1984-85. (2) Will (a) interest and (b) storage costs be underwritten by a change in form of expression of underwritten values from a gross to net basis, as requested by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference; if not, is the Government aware of the serious complications for the stability of domestic market prices for dairy products if export market prices reach General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade minimum levels and interest and storage costs are not underwritten. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I announced on June 27, 1984 the Government's decision to continue present underwriting arrangements for dairy products to cover the 1984-85 season. The levels to apply for 1984-85 are as follows: $ per tonne Butter 1,885 Cheese 1,721 Skim-milk Powder/Buttermilk Powder 846 Casein 2,126 Wholemilk Powder 1,228 (2) The Government decided that underwriting for 1984-85 should be on a gross basis. Dairy underwriting will cost the Australian taxpayer about $12m in respect of the 1983-84 season and, if the Australian Dairy Corporation's estimates for 1984-85 are proven correct a similar amount for that season. Changing underwriting from a gross to net basis would have further increased the size of likely government contributions. If export market prices reach GATT international dairy arrangement minimum levels and Australian exporters cannot make sales, the marketing arrangements will be under pressure whether or not interest and storage costs are underwritten by the Government. The decision to continue underwriting for 1984-85 indicates quite clearly the Government's commitment to maintain a viable, economic and efficient dairy industry. (Question No. 1579) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 7 June 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority has called tenders for the supply of milk to the Canberra milk market and that these tenders had to be lodged with the Authority by 31 May 1984. (2) Is it also a fact that the tender is for supply over a three-year period at a fixed price for the period; if so, why is a fixed price over three-years being insisted upon in view of the Government's support for indexed wage increases in line with rises in the consumer price index for the remainder of the working population. (3) Will he have the Authority immediately rescind this unreasonable tendering condition; if not, why not. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Formerly, contract prices were indexed to the CPI. The Authority, however, decided that tenders for the next three-year period-1984-86-should be at a fixed price. Prospective suppliers were fully informed of tender arrangements and were therefore in a position to adjust the tendered price to include a margin for any adjustments or increases in costs that may occur during the next three years. (3) No. I have received advice from the Authority concerning the tenders in question and have accepted that the condition is reasonable. (Question No. 1581) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Is it a fact that in 1970, when the previous excise on 2 J spirit existed, all relevant premises were bonded and payment of the duty was made at the time of clearance from bond for sale of the fortified wine in which the spirit had been used; if so, is the same procedure now used for the 2 J spirit excise. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Excise duty was levied on spirit used in the fortification of wine from 1901 up until 1970 when a general excise on wine was introduced. Excise duty on fortifying spirit was not re-imposed when excise was removed on wine in 1972, but was introduced in the 1983 Budget. The Government removed the excise on this spirit on 22 June 1984. In the period 1901-1970 excise was collected at the time the fortified wine entered the market-place. It was possible to apply this system of revenue collection during that period as there was a consistent return of revenue and changes in rates were infrequent. With the imposition of the excise in 1983 it was recognised that if the revenue was to be paid at the time the fortified wines entered the market-place, there would be virtually no revenue return for two to three years and significant administrative problems would have arisen with the application of indexation, in determining the precise duty liability. For these reasons the duty was liable at the time of fortification and was collected under the Customs weekly settlement arrangements. In the period between 1901 and 1970, Customs needed to control the fortified wine until it was delivered for home consumption. Any premises storing such product pending duty payment were required to be licensed Customs premises for the storage of under bond goods. Under the arrangements existing between 23 August 1983 and 22 June 1984, all premises using spirit to fortify Australian wine were subject to Customs control . However, there was no Customs interest in the fortified wine and it could be stored, moved and sold without any Customs controls being necessary. (Question No. 1582) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: What was the retail cost in Sydney of a 285 millilitre glass of draught beer at the end of the following quarters (a) December 1983 (b) March 1984 and (c) June 1984. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No reliable information is available on the retail cost of beer in Sydney as the cost can vary between clubs and hotels. However, the following information is provided on the excise component of a 285 millilitre glass of draught beer at the end of each requested quarter: (a) 18 cents; (b) 19 cents; (c) 19 cents. (Question No. 1583) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Has the introduction of the excise on 2J spirit made any change in the structure of the Australian wine industry in fortified wine producing areas; if so, what are the changes? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The effects of the imposition of the excise on fortifying spirit, in the 1983 Budget, have been monitored by the Government. Information obtained from the major fortified wine producing regions indicated that the excise had produced a significant reduction in grape intake for fortified wine production, a reduction in, or cessation of, production of fortified wines by wineries, and the closure of a grape spirit distilling plant. No major grape surplus occurred as the impact on grape growers was masked by an increase in table wine production, largely to replenish depleted stocks because of the particularly low 1983 vintage. The Government accepted that the excise had been a factor contributing to the current difficulties of the industry and removed the excise with effect from 22 June 1984. In announcing the decision, the Treasurer indicated that removal of the excise should assist a substantial restoration of fortified wine production and that the Government will closely monitor developments in the industry. (Question No. 1584) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: What was the rate of excise on 2 J spirit, as at 18 August 1970, expressed in dollars per litre of alcohol. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The rate of excise duty on 2 J spirit on 18 August 1970 was the equivalent of $ 0.1541 per litre of alcohol. (Question No. 1585) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984. (1) Is it a fact that, on 16 November 1983, the Acting Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, when referring to the excise on 2 J spirit used in fortified wine that the purpose of the reintroduction of the excise was to lessen excise avoidance possibilities, simplify administration and yield revenue; if so, has the Government achieved any or all of those three objectives and (a) in what way and (b) to what extent. (2) Are these three objectives equally applicable to (a) 2M (b) 2N (c) 2D and ( d) 2Q spirit; if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Acting Minister did make the statement on 16 November 1983. It should be pointed out that the Government removed the excise duty on fortifying spirit on 22 June 1984. Whilst the excise has now been removed, the Government was in the process of achieving its three objectives. However little purpose is now seen in commenting further on this matter. (2) As far as excise items 2M, 2N, 2P and 2Q are concerned, they are all free items (as now is 2 J-fortifying spirit) subject to meeting specific end use requirements. The Department of Industry and Commerce will continue to maintain its controls over these goods to minimise excise avoidance and wherever possible , simplifying its administrative requirements. Revenue is only a consideration if the spirit is not used for the expressed concessional purpose. (Question No. 1586) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Has the Government amended regulations- (a) to facilitate the drawback on excise duty on fortified wine lees which are subsequently re-distilled and (b) to permit the exemption from duty of grape spirit used in (i) wine for religious purposes and (ii) reduced alcohol wine. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) No legislative amendment is necessary as the current excise regulations provide for refund of excise duty when fortified wine lees are re-distilled; (b)- (i) whilst it was the Government's intention to amend the regulations, this is no longer necessary following the decision to remove the duty on fortifying spirit; (ii) grape spirit is not used in the production of reduced alcohol wines and no amendment is necessary. In addition, the Government removed the excise duty on fortifying spirit with effect from 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 22 June 1984. (Question No. 1587) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Further to the answer to question No. 615 (Hansard, 9 November 1983, page 2456) , why does the Government not give priority to the duty-free sale of Australian alcoholic beverages at Australian airports. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Duty free shopping facilities at Australian international airports are provided for the convenience of the travelling public and generate substantial Commonwealth revenues by way of fees for authority to trade on airports. The Commonwealth oversights all facets of the operation of the facility to ensure the maintenance of the highest possible standards for the travelling public. The shops are operated by private enterprises, selected following public tender action. Stocking policies are a matter for the business judgment of the operator , who responds to consumer demand. A range of Australian alcoholic beverages are available at airport duty free shops and compete on their merits with international brands. It should be noted that a number of Australian alcoholic beverages, notably wines, are not subject to duty and sales tax and thus there can be no price advantage in purchasing these lines at an airport duty free shop. It is of course, normal practice for manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages to conduct in-shop promotions of particular product lines, and this is a common occurrence at airport outlets. Should Australian industry representatives wish to undertake similar promotional activities, they could contact the proprietors of the airport shops. (Question No. 1589) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: What has been the cost in 1983-84 of collecting the revenue from the excise on fortified wine. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: There has been no variation in the cost of administering the collection of revenue from the excise on fortifying spirit as compared to previous years when no duty was collected. This is because the excise item for fortifying spirit is a concessional one and departmental controls are therefore essentially applied to ensure that the spirit is used to fortify Australian wine. If it is not so used, the spirit currently attracts a rate of duty of $20.90 per litre of alcohol. Whilst the duty was removed on 22 June 1984 departmental controls will still need to be maintained to ensure the spirit is used for the concessional purpose of fortification. (Question No. 1591) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Is it a fact that on 15 April 1983 he announced the visit of eight veterinary reviewers from the European Economic Community to inspect Australian export meat plants following changes to the EEC's import meat requirements. (2) Will he arrange (a) a reciprocal Australian review team to visit the EEC to inspect the quality of EEC exports to Australia of alcoholic beverages and dairy products and (b) an Australian import inspection service to monitor the quality of imports to Australia of horticultural and dairy products including alcoholic beverages; this service to be paid for by the countries exporting the goods to Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A team of eight veterinary officers from the EEC arrived in Australia on 15 April 1983 to inspect Australian export meat plants following changes to EEC's fresh meat directives governing imports. The Australian industry was aware of the changes and the implications they held for continued eligibility of their plants to export to the EEC. Consequently, both industry and Government regarded the visit as being of utmost importance for Australia's continuing trade in meat and offal with EEC countries. While in Australia the mission inspected meat establishments which had nominated for inspection and prepared a list of plants which they considered eligible to handle meat for shipments to the EEC markets. (2) Within Australia, the States and Territories have responsibility for administering domestic food laws including ensuring that imported foods comply with the appropriate food standards. Apart from the application of quarantine regulations and Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, there are no comprehensive Commonwealth inspection arrangements for imported foods either at the place of manufacture or point of entry. Commonwealth involvement is largely limited to the administration of quarantine control, tariffs and prohibited imports rather than the inspection of imported produce. The whole subject of food laws in Australia has been raised within the Australian Agricultural Council and it has been recommended that more attention needs to be given to the policing of Australian food law to ensure compliance of both domestic and imported foods. Action is in train in this regard. The Council also considered that the legislation covering foods for domestic and export markets and for imported foods should be aligned as far as practicable. At this stage the major concern is to achieve greater uniformity of action on foods sold in Australia, whether of local or imported origin. The question of reviewing food manufacturing conditions in overseas countries exporting to Australia is not at this time seen as a practicable alternative. Dr Blewett —On 3 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1247), Mr Millar asked me a question without notice concerning the categorisation of private hospitals. I undertook then to give the honourable member a more detailed answer: The classification of private hospitals into categories was not introduced until Medicare, consequently the reference to restoration of individual hospitals to their former categories is quite wrong. The reason for the variation of the original categories of eight private hospitals in Queensland on 23 March 1984 was that I had approved and had gazetted amended categorisation guidelines. I would mention that the original guidelines had the support of the State Health Ministers, as do the amended guidelines. The amendments had the effect of broadening the criteria for category two hospitals which of course enabled me to reclassify some hospitals. As both the Commonwealth bed day subsidy to private hospitals and the health insurance benefits are paid in accordance with the determined category for each hospital, and as the amended guidelines only have effect from 22 March 1984-( determinations for the individual hospitals were effected on 23 March 1984)- there is no scope for backdating any payments to hospitals. It is likely that some of the Queensland hospitals may have been penalised financially by the uncooperative attitude of Mr Austin, the Queensland Minister for Health. He had the opportunity before Medicare started, and all the time since, to recommend to me that particular hospitals be reclassified, and failed to do so. The gazetted guidelines give me a discretionary power to accept such a recommendation regardless of the criteria requirements. Mr Austin refused to support any reclassification of Queensland hospitals, except in those cases where I initiated the changes. Mr Young —On 4 June 1984 (Hansard page 2768) Mr Steele Hall asked me the following question without notice: How many major shipments of cocaine have been seized in the past two years? How many major figures involved in the trade have been arrested as a result of those cocaine seizures? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since December 1982, eight major shipments of cocaine have been seized by the Australian Federal Police, Customs and Joint Task Forces. Details are as follows : No. of Date persons seizure Place Quantity arrested 10.12.82 Sydney 6.4 kgs 2 17.10.83 Canberra 50 gms . . Sydney 100 gms . . 14.11.83 Canberra 58.4 gms 2 16.12.83 Sydney 3 kgs 2 20.12.83 Sydney 5 kgs 2 24.02.83 Sydney 500 gms 2 25.03.84 Sydney 2.9 kgs 1 23.05.84 Sydney 34.2 gms . . The above figures do not include major seizures by State authorities. It should be noted that only a few of those arrested in connection with the seizures could be described as major figures involved in the trade. (Question No. 1208) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (1) an article in the Australian Financial Review of 15 February 1984, relating to the introduction of electronic funds transfer (EFT) and (b) a call by the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, for comprehensive federal legislation to deal with issues raised by EFT such as consumer rights of data access and challenge privacy and data security and the need to update the law of cheques for the age of EFT. (2) If so, will the Attorney-General refer this issue to the Law Reform Commission for report as a supplement to its recent report on privacy. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. Indeed, I mentioned the numerous issues that are arising in relation to EFT in answering a recent question without notice by Senator Crowley (Senate Hansard, 24 March 1984, p. 795). (2) No. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its 1983 Report on Privacy has already adverted to the privacy implications of EFT and has drawn attention to the need for privacy protective standards to be considered at the earliest possible stage of EFT system design and to be built in from the outset (para 441 of Report). My Department has in hand the consideration of the draft privacy legislation that the ALRC has recommended. I hope to be able to introduce that legislation in the near future and some aspects of it will have relevance to EFT developments. I refer the honourable member in this connection to my answer to a question without notice by Senator Bolkus in Senate Hansard, 15 June 1984, p. 3135. Also, my colleague, the Treasurer, has established an interdepartmental working party to assess whether more formal arrangements than presently exist (including , if appropriate, legislation) covering the rights and obligations of users and providers of EFT are necessary, and if so, the scope of any such arrangements. All Commonwealth Departments with an interest in developments in the EFT field, including my own, are represented on the working party as is the Reserve Bank. Given my Department's active consideration of the ALRC Report on Privacy and the establishment of the working party on EFT, it would not be appropriate to refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission. (Question No. 1326) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has yet to establish a formal equal opportunities program, but is in the process of appointing an officer who will develop and administer an approved program. Nevertheless, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) principles have been firmly embodied and actively promoted in the selection and recruitment of staff as well as in training and staff development in my Department for some time. (2) No additional costs have been incurred in connection with EEO activities up to the present. The appointment of an EEO officer is expected to cost some $50, 000 p.a. (Question No. 1389) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: Does his answer to question No. 1043 (Hansard, 2 May 1984, pages 1706-7) mean that the Australian Ionizing Radiation Advisory Council and most serious discussants of the Tamplin and Cochran 'hot particle' thesis since 1975, reject the U.S. Committee on Biological Radiation report of 1980 as not being a serious discussion of this theory. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Report of Biological Effects of Inhaled Radionuclides (B.E.I.R.) of 1980 is certainly a serious discussion of the 'hot particle theory'. It confirms the conclusions of the B.E.I.R. panel which reported on the hot particle theory in 1976. This subject is also addressed by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (I.C.R.P.) in its publication No. 31, May 1979, on biological effects on inhaled radionuclides. The report states that 'the hot particle issue has been addressed by numerous scientists and scientific bodies, all of which conclude that a hot particle effect with respect of fatal lung cancer has not been demonstrated in either human beings or experimental animals'. This is supported by 13 references. Following discussion the I.C.R.P. report then states : 'The task group concludes that the risk of lung cancer from inhaled radiation particles will be greatly overestimated if based on hot particle concepts'. (Question No. 1406) Mr Lusher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 May 1984: What amount was paid (a) into, and (b) out of, the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund for each category of road, in each of the States, (i) up to 1 October 1983 and (ii) between 1 October 1983 and 31 March 1984. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The amount paid into the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984 was $423,394,998.64. (b) Amounts paid out the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984 to States and the Northern Territory for each road category were as follows: Urban Rural National arterial arterial Local State roads roads roads roads Total $ $ $ $ $ New South Wales 66,573,000 39,918,392 24,743,000 20,519,000 151,753, 392 Victoria 25,480,500 21,594,042 14,914,000 10,615,500 72,604,042 Queensland 42,669,755 26,317,918 17,102,829 10,109,606 96,200,108 South Australia 14,244, 711 6,905,570 4,818,314 3,868,322 29,836,917 Western Australia 18,682,967 12, 115,524 7,303,096 9,575,034 47,676,621 Tasmania 3,692,320 4,836,216 1,213,348 2, 774,993 12,516,877 Northern Territory 3,391,000 939,200 104,700 2,175,100 6,610, 000 Total 174,734,253 112,626,862 70,199,287 59,637,555 417,197,957 Details of amounts paid into and out of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund up to 30 June 1983 were contained on pages 8 and 28 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program Annual Report 1982-83 which I tabled on 8 December 1983. This answer includes the information requested in Question Number 1010. (Question No. 1470) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Which hospitals in Victoria have been re-categorised since the interim list was determined. (2) What is the (a) present and (b) previous category for each of these hospitals. (3) Have any hospitals appealed against their category; if so, (a) which ones, (b) what is the appeal procedure and (c) when will the decisions be announced. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The twelve private hospitals in Victoria which have been recategorised since the original list was produced are the Avenue, Mount Alvernia, Charlton Bush Nursing, Mena House, St Elmo, The Melbourne Clinic, Toora Bush Nursing, Vaucluse, Wellington, Neerim District, Bryson and Victoria House Private Hospitals. Present Previous category category Hospital (a) (b) Avenue 1 2 Mount Alvernia 1 2 Charlton Bush Nursing 2 3 Mena House 2 3 St Elmo 2 3 The Melbourne Clinic 2 3 Toora Bush Nursing 2 3 Vaucluse 2 3 Wellington 2 3 Neerim District 2 3 Bryson 2 3 Victoria House 2 3 (3) All private hospitals in Victoria have recently been formally re-approved under sub-section 24 (2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Following this action , fifteen hospitals in Victoria have appealed against the category determined for them as of 27 June 1984. (a) They are Vimy House, Dorset, Windermere, Euroa, Cedar Court, Florence Nightingale, St John of God, Warrnambool, Chadswood, Holy Cross, Mitcham and District, Newhaven, Glenrest, Walwa and District Bush Nursing, Montclair and Delmont. (b) Where a proprietor is dissatisfied with the category formally determined for his or her hospital, he or she may write to me within 28 days of receiving advice of the formal determination and request, under section 38 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, that the decision be reviewed. As required by the legislation, I will respond to such a request for a review in writing, setting out my reasons for affirming, revoking or varying the decision, as appropriate. If a proprietor is not satisfied with my response, he or she may then appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (c) The 28 day period provided in the legislation for the lodging of section 38 appeals did not close for some Victorian hospitals until late June. I will respond to all Victorian Hospitals as soon as possible. (Question No. 1037) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Is he able to say what (a) sovereign states and (b) UN instrumentalities invited (i) Israeli, (ii) US, (iii) Syrian, (iv) Pan-Arab and (v) other forces into Lebanon. (2) What notice did or will Australia give to the governments involved of Australian concern at the by-passing of UN Charter provisions requiring (a) non- violent bilateral and multilateral measures before resort to force to resolve disputes and (b) a UN peace-keeping force. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (i) Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982. (ii) At the request of the Lebanese Government, troops from the United States, together with contingents from France, Italy and the United Kingdom, formed a Multi-National Force which was deployed in Beirut in August 1982. This Force withdrew in February 1984. (iii) Syrian forces intervened in the Lebanese civil war in 1976 in support of the government of President Franjieh. They were subsequently merged with the Arab Deterrent Forces (ADF) which was formed at a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo in October 1976. The ADF comprised troops from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and the two Yemens. The purpose of the ADF (which was largely made up of Syrian troops) was to establish and maintain a cease-fire between the various factions in Lebanon. Its presence in Lebanon was with the agreement of the Government of Lebanon. All elements of this Force, except those of Syria, were withdrawn from Lebanon by mid-1979. The Arab League's last six-month mandate for the ADF expired on 27 July 1982 and the future of the ADF was considered at the Arab League Summit in Fez in September 1982. The summit was informed of the 'Lebanese Government's decision to end the mission of the ADF' and agreed that the Lebanese and Syrian governments should negotiate to end the mission of the ADF, 'in the light of the Israeli withdrawal for Lebanon'. I understand however that no such formal negotiations have taken place. (iv) Two United Nations peace-keeping forces are at present in Lebanon, with the agreement of the Lebanese goverment. They are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) established under the authority of the Security Council in 1978 and the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation (UNTSO). (v) There are approximately 80 unarmed French observers currently in Beirut. Their role has been to assist the Lebanese Authorities in supervising the cease- fire along the 'Green-Line'. They are in Lebanon with the agreement of the Lebanese government. (2) The situation in Lebanon has been one of continuing concern since 1975. The UN has sought to play a role through UNIFIL and UNTSO, but without being able to prevent continuing hostilities. The Australian Government has consistently supported the United Nations in this peace-keeping role, and has supported Security Council resolutions calling for all parties to the conflict to cease all military activities within Lebanon. The Government has also, on numerous occasions, expressed its grave concern about the presence in Lebanon of foreign troops, especially since the Israeli invasion in June 1982, and has called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon which are not there at the request of the Lebanese Government. (Question No. 1491) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the concerns of British and Australian people about their civil rights with regard to the divulgence of information relating to nuclear testing at Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello and support and backup services to the UK atomic tests. (2) Can the Minister give assurances that those people who wish to give information to the Government or government sources regarding the atomic tests in Australia, will be exempt from legal action by either the British or Australian Governments; if not, can the Minister say under what (a) conditions and (b) circumstances divulgence of information by both military personnel and civilian personnel can be given to the Government or government sources without fear of legal reprisal by either the British or Australian governments. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I refer the honourable member to the answer to question No. 1489 published in Hansard on 21 August 1984 (page 121). (Question No. 1557) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Is he able to say when (a) the French Government first announced its intention to conduct nuclear tests at Mururoa or adjacent areas and (b) these tests began; if so (i) how many tests have taken place, (ii) on what dates, (iii ) with what yields and (iv) in what form did each test take place. (2) What are the Government's estimates as to the number and type of tests France is likely to carry out at Mururoa during the next 12 to 24 months. (3) Is he able to say whether (a) France conducts nuclear tests at any other site and (b) France's contribution to Western deterrents could be maintained without such a test program. (4) On what dates have Australian uranium sales to France taken place and what were the quantities. Mr Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) (a) and (b) Information held by my Department does not indicate precisely when the French Government first announced its intentions to conduct nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll. Nuclear testing at the French Pacific Tests Centre on Mururoa Atoll began in July 1966. (b) (i) Since France does not announce when it has conducted a nuclear test, details about the number, nature and yield of nuclear tests conducted at Mururoa Atoll vary from source to source. The following information is based on details contained in the yearbooks of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and in the Report of the group of scientists from New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea that visited Mururoa Atoll in October/November 1983. The data on underground tests at Mururoa Atoll contained in the latter Report was obtained largely from the New Zealand Seismological Laboratory with additional data calculated by the Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources (BMR) from the body wave estimates and identification located by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the International Seismological Centre (ISC). According to the above sources a total of 104 nuclear tests have been conducted by France in the South Pacific of which 41 were in the atmosphere and 63 underground. (b) (ii-iv) Details of the dates, yield and form of each test is as follows: FRENCH ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR TESTS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC Dated Testing site Estimated yield 2 July 1966 Mururoa Atoll 25-30 kt 19 July 1966 Mururoa Atoll 70-80 kt 11 Sep. 1966 Mururoa Atoll 120 kt 24 Sep. 1966 Fangataufa Island 150 kt 4 Oct. 1966 Mururoa Atoll 200-300 kt 5 June 1967 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 27 June 1967 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 2 July 1967 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 7 July 1968 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 15 July 1968 Mururoa Atoll 0.5 mt 3 Aug. 1968 Mururoa Atoll 1000 kt 24 Aug. 1968 Mururoa Atoll 2.5 mt (First French thermonuclear explosion) 8 Sep. 1968 Mururoa Atoll 1 mt 15 May 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 22 May 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 30 May 1970 Fangataufa Island 100-1000 kt 24 June 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 3 July 1970 Mururoa Atoll 1 mt 27 July 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 2 Aug. 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 6 Aug. 1970 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 5 June 1971 Mururoa Atoll Low 12 June 1971 Mururoa Atoll 400-500 kt 4 July 1971 Mururoa Atoll Low 8 Aug. 1971 Mururoa Atoll Low 14 Aug. 1971 Mururoa Atoll ca. 1 mt 25 June 1972 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 30 June 1972 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 29 July 1972 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 21 July 1973 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 28 July 1973 Mururoa Atoll Low 29 Aug. 1973 Mururoa Atoll 5-10 kt 25 Aug. 1973 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 28 Aug. 1973 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 16 June 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 7 July 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 17 July 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 26 July 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 15 Aug. 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 25 Aug. 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. 15 Sep. 1974 Mururoa Atoll n.a. FRENCH UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC Dated Testing site Estimated yield 5 June 1975 Fangataufa Island 5 kt 26 Nov. 1975 Fangataufa Island 5 kt 11 July 1976 Mururoa Atoll 15 kt 19 Feb. 1977 Mururoa Atoll 8 kt 19 Mar. 1977 Mururoa Atoll 30 kt 6 July 1977 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 12 Nov. 1977 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 24 Nov. 1977 Mururoa Atoll 50 kt 17 Dec. 1977 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 27 Feb. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 1 kt 22 Mar. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 6 kt 26 July 1978 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 2 Nov. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 30 Nov. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 60 kt 17 Dec. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 8 kt 19 Dec. 1978 Mururoa Atoll 6 kt 1 Mar. 1979 Mururoa Atoll 9 kt 9 Mar. 1979 Mururoa Atoll 8 kt 24 Mar. 1979 Mururoa Atoll 16 kt 4 Apr. 1979 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 18 June 1979 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 29 June 1979 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 25 July 1979 Mururoa Atoll 140 kt 28 July 1979 Mururoa Atoll 7 kt 22 Nov. 1979 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 23 Feb. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 3 Mar. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 6 kt 23 Mar. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 30 kt 1 Apr. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 4 Apr. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 16 June 1980 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 21 June 1980 Mururoa Atoll 4 kt 6 July 1980 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 19 July 1980 Mururoa Atoll 50 kt 25 Nov. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 2-5 kt 3 Dec. 1980 Mururoa Atoll 30 kt 27 Feb. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 3 kt 6 May 1981 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 28 Mar. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 5-10 kt 10 Apr. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 8 July 1981 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 11 July 1981 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 18 July 1981 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 3 Aug. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 10-15 kt 11 Nov. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 5 Dec. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 8-10 kt 8 Dec. 1981 Mururoa Atoll 15 kt 20 Mar. 1982 Mururoa Atoll 15 kt 27 June 1982 Mururoa Atoll 1 kt 1 July 1982 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 21 July 1982 Mururoa Atoll 2 kt 25 July 1982 Mururoa Atoll 70 kt 19 Apr. 1983 Mururoa Atoll 50 kt 25 May 1983 Mururoa Atoll 70 kt 28 June 1983 Mururoa Atoll 50 kt 20 July 1983 Mururoa Atoll 10 kt 4 Aug. 1983 Mururoa Atoll 8 kt 3 Dec. 1983 Mururoa Atoll 6 kt 7 Dec. 1983 Mururoa Atoll 15 kt 8 May 1984 Mururoa Atoll 20 kt 12 May 1984 Mururoa Atoll 50 kt 12 June 1984 Mururoa Atoll 5 kt 16 June 1984 Mururoa Atoll 35 kt (2) France does not release information on planned nuclear tests. The number of nuclear tests conducted annually at Mururoa Atoll has, over recent years, averaged about eight. The Government has no reason to believe that this pattern is likely to change significantly over the next 12 to 24 months. The Government also expects that French nuclear tests will continue to be conducted underground . (3) (a) Currently French nuclear tests are conducted only at Mururoa Atoll. France does, however, have a second nuclear testing site at Fangataufa island which is 50 km from Mururoa. The last nuclear explosion conducted at Fangataufa was on 26 November 1975 (see table above). (b) The Government does not accept that the maintenance of the western deterrent requires any country to conduct nuclear tests in the South Pacific. In any event, the Government's view is that a universally adhered to comprehensive test ban treaty (CTB) which would ban all nuclear tests by all states in all environments would help to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons by making it impossible to test nuclear explosive devices. It would also help to prevent the development of new nuclear weapons. A CTB would therefore be a major contribution to the strengthening of the security of all countries. (4) I am advised by the Minister for Trade who has responsibility for the commercial aspects of Australian uranium exports that on 26 August 1981, Queensland Mines Limited executed a uranium sales contract with Electricite de France, providing for the delivery of 2,600 short tons U308 over the period 1982 through 1988. This is the only Australian uranium sales contract covering supply to France approved by the present or previous Governments. (Question No. 1566) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: On what inter-departmental committees are representatives of (a) his Department , (b) the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and (c) the Australian Heritage Commission, members. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Representatives of my Department are members of the following inter- departmental committees: Advisory Committee on National Collections Antarctic Inter-departmental Committee Inter-departmental Committee on Atomic Energy Legislation Inter-departmental Committee on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs (also known as the Permanent Heads' Committee on Aboriginal Affairs) Inter-departmental Committee on Management of Radionuclide Wastes Inter-departmental Committee on New Legislation for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Inter-departmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice Inter-departmental Committee on the OECD Chemicals Program Inter-departmental Working Group on International Year of Peace 1986 Inter-departmental Working Group on International Youth Year 1985 Inter-departmental Working Group on a National Aviation Museum Inter-departmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia Inter-departmental Working Group on a National Maritime Museum Law of the Sea Inter-departmental Committee Standing Inter-departmental Committee on the Australian Bicentenary Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance Torres Strait Inter-departmental Committee Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear) (b) Representatives of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service are members of the following inter-departmental Committees: Antarctic Inter-departmental Committee Inter-departmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia Law of the Sea Inter-departmental Committee Torres Strait Inter-departmental Committee (c) Representatives of the Australian Heritage Commission are not members of any inter-departmental committees. (Question No. 1580) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a recent decision by the Switzerland Government to ban the use of phosphates in detergents from January 1986. (2) Have any studies been conducted in Australia which have investigated the effect of phosphates on surface waters such as rivers and lakes, from the use of detergents or fertilisers containing this substance. (3) Is it a fact that an excess of phosphates causes an overgrowth of algae which can be environmentally harmful; if so, will he take steps to investigate the Switzerland decision with a view to introducing such a ban into Australia and widening it to include fertilisers if necessary. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I was not previously aware of this development. (2) Yes. There have been comprehensive studies in Australia of the effects on inland waters of excess nutrients, such as phosphates. (3) Excess phosphates, combined with other nutrients, can cause environmentally harmful growth of algae in water bodies. This condition of excess, unbalanced growth is called eutrophication. Detergents represent only one source of phosphate. More is contributed from diffuse sources through run-off and erosion. Banning phosphate in detergent would have little general effect. Better land management and agricultural practices, leading to less loss of fertility from soil, may be more effective in improving water quality. Studies continue in this direction. (Question No. 1212) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) What is the (a) purpose, (b) cost, and (c) personnel saving of the distributed customer records information system (DCRIS) to be installed by Telecom. (2) Has the installation been delayed; if so, (a) what was the original date, ( b) what is the expected date and (c) what is the cause of the delay. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1)- (a) DCRIS is a computer based system which Telecom proposes to use in its District operations to improve the convenience, speed and efficiency of handling customers' orders for its products and services. It will facilitate Telecom's dealings with customers in a similar way to which modern computer-based reservations systems have done for the airlines. (b) The estimated capital cost for the first District is $5.6m, which includes a licence fee and the provision of hardware and software. Further contractual costs for National implementation would amount to about $26m. Telecom expects the benefits through increased productivity, greater efficiency and improved service to the customer to more than justify the costs. (c) On a national basis, it is estimated that some 1500-1700 fewer positions, mainly in clerical grades, will be required for processing orders compared to the needs of the present paper-based system. Telecom's business growth will give counter-balancing employment. At the proposed completion of implementation of DCRIS in 1988, Telecom's overall staff level is expected to be about the same as at present. Clerical staffing will be within 3 per cent of the current level but there will, of course, be changes to functions. Telecom is paying particular attention to ensure that its staff are well cared for. For example, I am advised that: No permanent staff will be retrenched because of DCRIS. Readjustment of staffing levels will be managed over an appropriate period. Redeployment will be voluntary so far as practicable. Retraining will be provided for staff moving to other jobs. In keeping with its standard practice when introducing major new technology, Telecom is engaged in detailed discussions with Staff Associations whose members would be affected by the introduction of the DCRIS system. (2) Yes. (a), (b) and (c) Telecom initially planned to introduce DCRIS at about the end of 1984 but more detailed programming has indicated that the project is larger than originally anticipated. Telecom informs me that it wishes to introduce DCRIS in the first Telecom District about mid 1985. Current Telecom planning envisages DCRIS in use Australia-wide by about the end of 1988. (Question No. 1337) Mr Peacock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: On how many occasions has the Prime Minister personally received delegations from community groups representing or claiming to represent pensioners and people over the age of 60. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the honourable member will undoubtedly be aware, it is the practice for a delegation to be received by the Minister responsible for the matter or matters upon which that delegation is seeking to make representations to the Government. In the case of delegations of the type referred to in the honourable member's question, such matters would generally be the responsibility of the Minister for Social Security. I understand, for example, that the Minister for Social Security has consulted with a large number of interested organisations and individuals concerning the proposed introduction of an income and assets test. Nevertheless, in the course of discharging my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I meet with and receive direct representations from a wide range of community organisations, such as those referred to by the honourable member. Over the past twelve months I have met with the following groups, among others: Senior Citizens of Mundaring, W.A. (September 1983) Pensioners' group, Brisbane, Qld (October 1983) Mt Gravatt Senior Citizens, Qld (October 1983) Residents of Frank Vickery Retirement Village, Sydney (March 1984) Elderly Citizens group, Newcastle (12 April 1984) Chelsea Combined Pensioners Association, Vic. (June 1984) (Question No. 1365) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What procedure was adopted by the ABC for the recent appointment for each of the following people, and what is their position, salary and term of appointment: (a) Mr Tony Bond, (b) Mr Mark Aarons, (c) Mr John Cassidy and (d) Mr Malcolm Long. (2) If the procedure was different for any or all of these appointments, what is the usual procedure, and why was the procedure changed. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: Mr Bond, Mr Aarons, Mr Cassidy and Mr Long were already ABC staff members before their current appointments or promotions. Details of their positions, salaries and terms of appointment are as follows: (1)- (a) Mr Tony Bond: The Board of Directors, at its meeting of 28/29 July 1983 decided to create an independent Secretariat to provide advice. The Board created eleven short-term positions and recommended to the Acting Managing Director that Mr Bond (then interim staff representative of the Board) be appointed as the Co-ordinator of the new Secretariat. The position is set at Clerical Officer Class 11. Mr Bond's appointment was made by the Acting Managing Director. His temporary appointment is for a two year period, as from 1 August 1983. His total annual salary is $38,143. (b) Mr Mark Aarons: The Board of Directors determined that a number of Project Officers would be attached to the Board Secretariat. These positions were advertised and appointments were made following interview. Mr Aarons was one of the successful applicants. His position is that of Research Officer, Board Secretariat. His temporary appointment is from 5 March 1984 until 31 January 1986 and his total annual salary is $34,353. (c) Mr John Cassidy: Mr Cassidy was promoted to the position of Executive Producer, Radio Talks and Documentaries, Victoria. The position was advertised in the normal manner and Mr Cassidy was the recommended applicant for promotion. His promotion is to the permanent staff and his total annual salary is $30,445. (d) Mr Malcolm Long: The position of Controller Radio 2 became vacant following the retirement of its previous occupant. It has been filled by a number of acting Controllers pending the ABC's reorganisation. However, the ABC decided to advertise the position in the normal way. Mr Long was selected for promotion to the position. Because the Selection Committee unanimously recommended his promotion and the Board had accepted the recommendation, it was decided that Mr Long should act in the position until his promotion was confirmed. Mr Long's provisional promotion was the subject of an appeal, but the situation has been overtaken by the ABC's restructuring in which the position of Controller Radio 2 will be abolished. Mr Long will continue to perform the duties associated with the position until appointments are made to newly-created senior positions. Mr Long's total annual salary is currently $52,551. (2) Normal procedures were used in the appointments of Mr Aarons and Mr Cassidy ; applications were called and recommendations made. In Mr Bond's case the appointment was by recommendation of the Board of Directors. As a result of actions the Board is taking to restructure the ABC, a number of senior management positions have been abolished and a new management structure created. Amongst the positions abolished was the position to which Mr Long has been provisionally promoted. The ABC is in the process of filling these new positions. (Question No. 873) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: What role has the (a) Natural Disasters Organisation and (b) Marine Operations Centre had in the planning of the use of satellites, such as SARSAT/COSPAS, for more cost effective search and rescue operations. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Department of Defence and the Department of Transport, is as follows: (a) The Natural Disasters Organisation has no role in search and rescue operations. It has not been involved in planning the use of satellites therein. (b) The Marine Operations Centre, now the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre has had no part in the planning of the use of satellites, such as SARSAT/ COSPAS, for search and rescue purposes. However, there is close liaison between the Department of Transport and some of the nations involved in developing the system of satellite alerting and the use of the system in the Australian search and rescue area is under consideration. The use of satellites for alerting search and rescue authorities to maritime distress situations together with accurate geographical positioning is currently being evaluated jointly by Canada, France, USA and USSR, with Norway, United Kingdom, Finland, Bulgaria and Brazil participating in the test program. The evaluation program of the satellite systems is scheduled for completion by the middle of this year with the results expected to be available within a few months of completion. SARSAT/COSPAS and the communications system INMARSAT are all satellite systems under consideration by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as part of its Future Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Australia has participated in discussions on this subject at meetings of various Committees and Sub-Committees of IMO. (Question No. 1034) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Does the International Atomic Energy Association need advance permission before inspecting a nuclear power house. (2) What (a) strengthening and (b) weakening of IAEA and other safeguards has been made in Australia's regulation of uranium mining and export since 1975 and why. (3) What proposals does Australia have to maintain or change this position. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Safeguards procedures such as inspection arrangements for nuclear facilities, including power reactors, are provided for in agreements negotiated between the International Atomic Energy Agency and its member states. These arrangements set out the rights and duties of the Agency and the member state in relation to the application of safeguards. Part of this involves the Agency's inspection rights. These include providing advance notice in most cases although the timing of inspections is a matter for the Agency. Normally the IAEA arranges that its inspectors are present during crucial operations (for instance, the annual discharge and reloading of the fuel of a light water reactor, or when the operator is taking a physical inventory of all nuclear material in a facility). (2) (a) Australia's nuclear safeguards requirements since 1975 include: selection of customers, with a minimum requirement that non-nuclear weapon state customers be parties to the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and have concluded a NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA; all customers to conclude a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia specifying peaceful non-explosive use; Australian uranium to be covered by IAEA safeguards, both in nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon state customers, to verify such use; bilateral controls on uranium concentrates ('yellowcake'); physical protection of transferred nuclear material; prior consent for retransfer, reprocessing and high enrichment of supplied nuclear material; fall-back safeguards; sanctions in event of non-compliance with designated provisions of the nuclear safeguards agreement; administrative arrangements to ensure effective control including accounting for AONM. In order to assist the IAEA and strengthen international non-proliferation controls, Australia has also: signed on 22 February 1984 the 1980 convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; undertaken in cooperation with the IAEA programs of research and development designed to assist the IAEA to apply increasingly effective safeguards; provided Australian experts for service with the IAEA Secretariat including the safeguards inspectorate; made available since 1979 the Director of the Australian Safeguards Office to serve in a personal capacity on the IAEA Director-General's high-level Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation (SAGSI); associated itself in 1978 with the Guidelines for the Export of Nuclear Material, Equipment or Technology of the Nuclear Suppliers Group 1975/78; actively contributed to various other international projects to enhance the nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards regime, including the Hexapartite Safeguards Project 1980-83 on centrifuge enrichment plant safeguards, the IAEAWorking Group on Reprocessing Plant Safeguards 1979-81, the clarification in 1984 of equipment for gas centrifuge enrichment and reprocessing technology to be subject to export and other controls in accordance with the 1974 Zangger understandings, and projects Recover and Transeaver 1980-82 (trials of remote safeguards verification systems for nuclear facilities and nuclear material in transit). (b) The ASTEC Inquiry has indicated some areas where nuclear safeguards may be augmented but none where Australian policy has operated to weaken IAEA safeguards. (3) The Government has demonstrated its commitment to enhancing international nuclear safeguards. In May 1983 I reaffirmed Australia's support for the IAEA and its safeguards system to Dr Blix, the Director-General; and this was confirmed when Dr Blix visited Australia in March 1984. The Government approved in 1983 a three-year program of assistance to the Agency in safeguards research and development. The Government also commissioned in 1983 an independent inquiry by ASTEC into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle including nuclear safeguards arrangements. The recommendations of the ASTEC Inquiry including those relating to nuclear safeguards and the resolution on uranium policy adopted by the 1984 ALP National Conference are currently under active consideration by the Government. The Government's objective is to subject all future exports of Australia's uranium to the most stringent supply conditions, and to augment the effectiveness of the IAEA safeguards system and other nuclear controls arrangements. (Question No. 1379) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Is he able to say which countries have domestic citizenship policies which discriminate against some of their citizens on one or more of the grounds of (a) race, (b) colour, (c) creed or (d) for some other reason and what form does that discrimination take. (2) Is he also able to say which countries have immigration policies which discriminate against (a) migrants and (b) visitors on one or more of the grounds of (i) race, (ii) colour, (iii) creed or (iv) for some other reason and what forms does that discrimination take. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I would wish to remind the honourable member that while it may be possible to provide accurate, factual answers to these questions in relation to some countries, the time and work involved to assemble such a mass of material does not make a substantive reply a practical proposition. Further, I could not be confident that in the end a comprehensive report of the kind sought by the honourable member, which would require making judgments about all countries, could be prepared. I would draw the attention of the honourable member to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which, in Article 5, obliges State Parties to ''undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone without distinction as to race, colour or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law . . .'' As at September 1983 this instrument had been ratified or acceded to by 121 governments which report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on their compliance under the Convention. The reports of State Parties are public documents and would serve as a useful reference in providing the information sought. If the honourable member is seeking information on any particular countries I would be happy to assist further. Further information may be obtained from the recent U.S. State Department ' Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983'. The section in each country report on ''Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration and Repatriation'' would be of particular interest to the honourable member in obtaining specific answers to his question. This document is available from the Parliamentary Library. (Question No. 1387) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) What is (a) an FE wagon and (b) an FW wagon as used on the Tasmania Region of AN. (2) What is the height of the floor above rail level of each type of wagon. (3) Are FE and FW wagons used in the haulage of woodchip logs in Tasmania. (4) Is there an instruction from management that no woodchip log train shall consist of all FW wagons. (5) Is there an instruction from management that when using FW wagons on woodchip log trains, they shall be marshalled with FE wagons; if so, what is the basis for this instruction. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) FE is a 45 tonne capacity log wagon; (b) FW is a 35 tonne capacity log wagon. (2) FE-927 mm; FW-1085 mm. (3) Yes. (4) No. (5) FE and FW wagons are compatible for operation when marshalled on one train and there are no restrictions. (Question No. 1393) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a recent London Times claim that (a) 455 drug charges, most resulting in discharge from duties, were preferred last year against some of the approximately 30,000 American forces personnel based at 100 military sites in Britain, (b) 14 servicemen at the Greenham Common base were recently charged with drug offences, (c) 1726 of 5324 US servicemen were removed in 1980 from nuclear weapons work, most for drug abuse and (d) about a quarter of US troops in 12 months' service in Europe, including more than 2 out of 5 of young, low-rank men, admitted apparently regular drug taking; if so, can he confirm these claims. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to a report in the Vanguard of PO Box 25, East Brighton, Vic., of 11 April 1984, that a senior psychologist believes this incidence of drug abuse will increase the risk of a serious incident. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The claims in the London Times article appear to be based on a number of academic and United States Government sources, including the Congressional Record of the Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives 97th Congress, 17 September 1981. Evidence given at those hearings illustrates the difficulties in obtaining accurate, reliable and meaningful statistical data on drug abuse by United States servicemen. I am unable to confirm any of the claims made in that article. (2) Yes. The Vanguard article is an attributed summary of the London Times article referred to in the first part of the honourable member's question. (Question No. 1398) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1984: (1) What comments were contained in paragraph 2 of an inward cablegram, dated 2 March 1983, from Belgrade to Canberra, concerning the family reunion application of Mr Jordan Manolov Georgiev of 50 The Crescent, Homebush, New South Wales. (2) Why was paragraph 2 deleted when a copy of the cablegram was forwarded to Mr Georgiev under cover of a letter, dated 29 September 1983, following a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my reply to Mr Hodgman's question upon notice (Question No. 1248, Hansard, 21 August 1984, page 101) regarding Mr Georgiev's family reunion. (Question No. 1420) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) What projects will use Australian Bicentennial Road Development Funds for purposes other than road funding in each State. (2) What is the estimated cost of each project. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program was introduced by the previous Government in the context of the 1982-83 Budget. It was announced that the purpose of the Program was ' . . . to bring about a lasting improvement in the road and transport system of the nation'. The ABRD Trust Fund Act 1982, which establishes the Program, provides that a State may direct urban arterial road funds to urban public transport capital projects where the Federal Minister is satisfied that the project is accorded a priority by the State and would, if undertaken, result in the reduction of the traffic on, or the wear and tear affecting, urban arterial roads in the State. In accordance with these provisions of the Act, all States and the Northern Territory have sought funding for urban public transport projects under this element of the Program. The first urban public transport projects were approved by the then Minister for Transport and Construction, the Hon. R. J. Hunt, MP, on 8 February 1983 when he agreed to $10.346m being directed to the Kingston- Beenleigh rail electrification project and six passenger interchanges in Brisbane. On 2 March 1983 Mr Hunt also approved a contribution of $15.125m to the Petrie-Caboolture rail electrification project in Brisbane. Detailed below is a list of all urban public transport projects approved for funding under the ABRD Program as at 10 August 1984: Date Federal submitted Date Project funding for approval approved $'000 Queensland Kingston-Beenleigh Rail electrification 9,087 3 November 1982 8 February 1983 Car/bus passenger interchanges at Mt Gravatt (Garden City), Windsor (Northey Street), and Toowong 707 3 November 1982 8 February 1983 Additional funds for Mt Gravatt 134 19 July 1983 1 December 1983 Toowong 93 27 June 1983 1 December 1983 (Total cost of interchanges $934,000) Car/rail passenger interchanges at Yeronga, East Ipswich and Toombul 552 3 November 1982 8 February 1983 Contribution to Petrie-Caboolture rail electrification 15,125 3 November 1982 2 March 1983 Acquisition of Buses in principle approval 7,913 10 August 1983 1 December 1983 Victoria Extension of East Preston tramline to Bundoora 13,400 2 May 1983 20 July 1983 Tram passenger interchange at Domain/St Kilda Roads 770 2 May 1983 20 July 1983 Car/rail passenger interchange at Croydon 200 2 May 1983 20 July 1983 Various Rail/Car Interchange Projects in principle approval 620 2 May 1983 20 July 1983 South Australia Construction of car-bus-rail interchange at Salisbury 1,840 20 June 1983 11 November 1983 Acquisition of articulated buses 9,560 20 June 1983 11 November 1983 Western Australia High speed, high priority bus service (1983-84 expenditure) 1,740 13 April 1983 10 December 1983 Balance of project approved in principle 14,460 13 April 1983 10 December 1983 New South Wales Acquisition of hydrofoil 9,700 16 September 1983 8 March 1984 Acquisition of City-type buses 22,000 16 September 1983 8 March 1984 Acquisition of Ferries 8,000 16 September 1983 8 March 1984 (Question No. 1448) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Moomba pipeline lies adjacent to the area being investigated by the Department of Defence in the Cobar district for military manoeuvre purposes; if so, what precaution does the Government propose to take to protect (a) the pipeline and (b) those living in the area from any damage during military manoeuvres. (2) What are the distances required on either side of the pipeline as a 'safety zone' to ensure that the pipeline would not be damaged by military exercises. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Defence was for some time investigating an area in the Cobar district for military manoeuvre purposes. The proposal gave rise to a number of alternative land use considerations including the possible closing-off of access to mineral resources and the safety of operations of the Moomba-Sydney pipeline which traverses about 150 km of the proposed area. The Government announced on 23 July 1984 that it had ruled out the area under consideration because of conflicting land use pressures. (2) In the light of the Government's decision these considerations do not apply . (Question No. 1460) Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) How many passengers (a) embarked and (b) disembarked at Darwin Airport from international flights operated by (i) Qantas, (ii) Garuda, (iii) Royal Brunei and (iv) any other airline in each of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. (2) How many airlines have the right to operate international flights in and out of Darwin Airport. (3) Which airlines have the right to operate international flights in and out of Darwin Airport are not doing so and what are the reasons. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the year 1981-82, 13,015 Qantas passengers embarked and 12,576 Qantas passengers disembarked at Darwin Airport. In the same year 6,052 Garuda passengers embarked and 5,017 Garuda passengers disembarked at Darwin. In the year 1982-83, 12,903 Qantas passengers embarked and 12,799 Qantas passengers disembarked at Darwin Airport. In that year, 5,783 Garuda passengers embarked and 4,731 Garuda passengers disembarked at Darwin. No other international airline carried passengers on scheduled services into or out of Darwin in the years 1981-82 or 1982-83. Royal Brunei Airlines commenced services to Darwin in July 1983. (2) Fourteen international airlines currently have rights to operate scheduled international services to/from Darwin. (3) The following international airlines have rights to serve Darwin which they have chosen not to exercise at the present time: Air New Zealand-MAS British Airways-Pan Am Cathay Pacific-Singapore Airlines Japan Airlines-Thai International KLM-UTA Lufthansa. It is a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines whether they choose to exercise the traffic rights they have been granted. (Question No. 1472) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an experiment in 1976 when Egyptian children were hired to expose themselves to cotton field aerial spraying with the Swiss pesticide Galedron containing chlorodimeform (CDF) which was later linked with cancer and which has been banned from use in Switzerland since 1976 and in other European countries at various times. (2) Has Australia taken steps to object to the use of this pesticide in Bolivia , Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala cotton fields where farm workers are reported to accumulate CDF levels 50 times the World Health Organisation recommended safe limit. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am informed that a pesticide containing Chlordimeform was used in Egypt for a period up to 1976, at which time it was withdrawn. There have been media reports in Europe that the alleged experiment referred to took place but I am not able to confirm the accuracy of such reports. An evaluation of Chlordimeform by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 1983 said: 'No data was available on the carcinogenicity of Chlordimeform to experimental animals. However, results of experiments in mice provide sufficient evidence that para- chloro-ortho-toluidine, a metabolite of Chlordimeform, is carcinogenic to experimental animals. No relevant data on humans was available. The available data are insufficient to evaluate the carcinogenicity of Chlordimeform to humans '. According to the International Register of Potentially Toxic Compounds, Chlordimeform is currently banned for production and use in one country (the Soviet Union) but is permitted in a number of others subject to varying degrees of restriction. (2) No. (Question No. 1474) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: Will he prepare proposals for a world constitutional convention in Australia by 1988, to discuss enforceable arbitration of international disputes and multilateral disarmament surveillance initiatives by non-nuclear nations including the use of joint US-Australian satellite surveillance facilities. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Please see my answers to Questions on Notice No. 168 (Hansard, 8 November 1983, page 2440), No. 381 (Hansard, 7 December 1983, page 3472), No. 479 ( Hansard, 1 December 1983, page 3232) and No. 1015 (Hansard, 3 May 1984, page 1839). (Question No. 1538) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) Has the Barry telephone exchange in New South Wales been removed from the Neville zone and added to the Blayney zone thus enabling local call access to both Orange and Bathurst from Barry; if so, when. (2) Is it a fact that when Hobby's Yards exchange was closed, customers gained local call access to both Orange and Bathurst because of the linkage between Hobby's Yards and the Barry exchange; if so, do adjoining rural properties have discriminatory levels of local call access. (3) Is it also a fact that Sydney subscribers have local call access to more than 2 million subscribers, Hobby's Yards subscribers have access to 31 exchanges and nearly 20 000 subscribers and Trunkey Creek subscribers access to local calls is limited to 11 exchanges and 1 628 subscribers. (4) Is he able to say whether there is a strong community of interest between Hobby's Yards and Trunkey Creek; if so, will he ensure that a 'point off our' is created between Blayney, Neville, Bathurst and Rookley zones to allow local call access to Bathurst from Neville and Trunkey Creek in order to remove this anomalous situation. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes, on 1 June 1978. (2) On the closure of the Hobby's Yards exchange which was located in the Neville charging zone, subscribers were transferred to the Barry exchange which is situated in the Blayney zone. As all subscribers to an exchange are charged according to the charging zone in which the exchange is situated, the former Hobby's Yards subscribers gained local call access to both Orange and Bathurst. It is assumed that the honourable member is referring to the fact that this action resulted in subscribers residing on adjoining properties who are connected to exchanges located in different charging zones being charged at different rates on calls to certain centres, for example, Bathurst. However, this situation is common throughout Australia and is in accordance with the normal zoning principles by which all call charges are determined. (3) A Sydney subscriber in the inner metropolitan (02) zone has local call access to approximately 1.2 million subscribers; a Barry Exchange subscriber has local call access to 36 exchanges serving about 20,000 subscribers; and a Trunkey Creek Exchange subscriber has local call access to 18 exchanges serving more than 2,000 subscribers. (4) Telecom recognises the community of interest between Hobby's Yards and Trunkey Creek and local call access is available between these centres. However, this community of interest has no bearing on the charges applying to calls from the Neville zone in which the Neville and Trunkey Creek exchanges are located. As indicated in the reply to (2), Telecom does not regard the situation as anomalous as charging arrangements in this area are in keeping with the general principles of zoning applied throughout Australia. Telecom does not propose to alter the zoning arrangements along the lines suggested as subscribers similarly placed in other areas would naturally want the same consideration. (Question No. 1548) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation closing its television studios at Townsville and Rockhampton, Qld; if so, will the ABC review the decision or negotiate on the issue. (2) If so, (a) with whom will it negotiate and (b) what are the (i) terms and ( ii) timetable of the review. (3) Is it a fact that all ABC regional radio and television news will cease when the satellite television service begins; if so, will this be in 1988, as reported in the press, or earlier when the satellites are launched. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) Yes. The decision by the ABC is based on the policy of providing a national television service, not a regional one. The current regional television services in Rockhampton and Townsville are the result of a decision to provide an early television service to the area. The cost of studio facilities and staff is estimated at $1,500,000 annually, which is considered a disproportionately high allocation of ABC resources to present a small amount of local television. The ABC decided that the reorganisation of the two regional studios would coincide with the conversion of its television and radio networks to a satellite distribution system. This would enable the ABC to reallocate those resources used for local program production in Rockhampton and Townsville within the new system. (2) Senior ABC management representatives attended a meeting on 30 May 1984 in Canberra with Members of Parliament from North Queensland to explain the background and reasons for the Board's decision. ABC staff organisation and unions were informed before the decision was publicly announced. The decision will result in redeployment of staff, but not necessarily redundancies. A comprehensive retraining program will be undertaken for staff affected by the proposed changes in Rockhampton and Townsville and other centres. (3) No. The satellite is not intended to be a means of replacing programs currently provided by the terrestrial networks but to distribute those programs more efficiently and flexibly. The ABC has made a conscious decision to increase its regional radio services through the planned second regional radio network and additional regional radio studios. There will also be an enhanced State-wide television coverage. Any change would not occur before early 1986. (Question No. 1575) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: Is Telecom aware of a US invention which allows a person to check the number of an incoming telephone call before deciding whether to accept that call, and which rejects calls from certain numbers; if so, what consideration is being given to authorise its sale in Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: The features described in the honourable member's question cannot be provided by a special type of telephone alone. They can only be provided in association with special signalling arrangements in the public switched telephone network. Telecom is aware of trials of this type of telephone/network arrangements being conducted in the USA and is keeping abreast of developments with a view to the possible introduction of a similar service in Australia. (Question No. 1577) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) In view of the deterioration of the situation in the Gulf region and the Middle East in general, will he consider recommending that the Government take an initiative to call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the establishment of an international commission to inquire into the problems of the Middle East region with a view to seeking a way forward, possibly through establishing the agenda for a peace negotiating process. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the majority of countries attending the 71st meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva supported such a resolution which also called for the commission to be made up of countries which have not been principal parties in the Middle East conflict. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government shares the concern expressed about the situation in the Gulf region and the Middle East in general. The proposal that the Secretary-General of the United Nations be asked to establish a Commission to inquire into the complex problems of the Middle East region is an interesting one which I have currently under close consideration. (2) I am aware that a resolution was adopted by a majority vote at the 71st meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which supported the call for such an international commission, to be made up of countries which have not been parties principal in the Middle East conflict. (Question No. 1626) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the A.C.T. were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the A.C.T. which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) None. (2) No. (Question No. 1649) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the A.C.T. were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the A.C.T. which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Nil. (2) No. (Question No. 1319) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In practice, the Department in applying the merit principle to employment issues seeks to meet equal employment opportunity objectives. It is at present taking action to develop and formalise these arrangements. It has appointed an officer to develop a framework for an equal opportunity program and this will be pursued in consultation as appropriate with other agencies and unions in the public sector. (Question No. 1343) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) Which Ministers have been allocated office space in Canberra in addition to their ministerial office at Parliament House. (2) What is the (a) address, (b) floor space, (c) rental cost per annum, and (d ) cost of furnishings of each office. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Most Ministers are allocated office space in Canberra in addition to their ministerial offices located in Parliament House. The offices are usually located in departmental head offices. The Ministers who do not have additional offices in Canberra are the Ministers for Trade, Industry and Commerce, Social Security, Housing and Construction, Aboriginal Affairs, Veterans' Affairs, Territories and Local Government, and Home Affairs and Environment. (2) (a) and (b) I am advised by the relevant departments that the address and floor space areas of each ministerial office outside Parliament House are as per the following schedule. (c) The costs have been calculated using the rate per square metre applicable to the lease of the whole premises. (d) The cost of providing furnishings for Ministers' offices in Canberra, located outside Parliament House, is the responsibility of the department concerned. In respect of my accommodation within the Department of Administrative Services at Canberra House, the furnishings are, for the most part, about 9 years old and have been used by successive Ministers. The costs have not been provided because of the age of the items. With regard to the office I occupy as Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in the Silverton Centre, the cost of furnishings as at 6 June 1984 is $4 ,199. MINISTERIAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AS AT 26 APRIL 1984 Total area Approximate Date of Location of in square Leased rental establish- Minister for Departmental Offices metres or owned per annum ment $ Prime Minister W6, Floor 4, Edmund Barton Building, Barton 63 Owned . . 1974 Employment and Industrial Relations Floor 6, 1 Farrell Place, Canberra City 56 Leased 6,776 1982 Treasury Floor B5, Treasury Building, Parkes 76 Owned . . 1967 Special Minister of State Floor G, West Block, Parkes 22 Owned . . 1983 Resources and Energy Floor 5, Jolimont Centre, Canberra City 68 Leased 9,207 1983 Foreign Affairs Floor N1, C Block, Administrative Building, Parkes 132 Owned . . 1970 Education and Youth Affairs Floor 10, MLC Tower, Woden 48 Leased 5,808 1973 Attorney-General Floor 2, Robert Garran Offices (South), Barton 38 Owned . . 1983 Defence Building No. F, Floor 2, Russell Offices, Russell 99 Owned . . 1965 Finance Floor A5, Treasury Building, Parkes 51 Owned . . 1978 Primary Industry W3, Floor 5, Edmund Barton Building, Barton 72 Owned . . 1984 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Floor 8A, Benjamin Offices (Green), Belconnen 32 Owned . . 1983 Transport Floor 10, Wales Centre, Canberra City 47 Leased 5,230 1983 Aviation Floor 12, Civic Permanent Centre, Canberra City 60 Leased 8,460 1983 Sport, Recreation and Tourism Floor 3, Silverton Centre (RSL Building), Canberra City 52 Leased 8,028 1984 Administrative Services Floor 5, Canberra House, Canberra City 22 Leased 3,190 1984 Health Floor 7, Alexander Building, Phillip 53 Owned . . 1976 Science and Technology Building J, level 6, Benjamin Offices, Belconnen 54 Owned . . 1981 Communications Block N, Level 5, Benjamin Offices, Belconnen 55 Owned . . 1982 Defence Support Block 1, Floor 2, Anzac park west, Parkes 48 Owned . . 1982 (Question No. 1359) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) Will Network 0/28 programs be transmitted to Adelaide by Domsat, microwave, Intelsat or cable. (2) What (a) transmission capacity is available presently if a terrestrial system is to be used and (b) ground facilities and transponder capacity has been organised if a satellite is used. (3) What sections of the greater Adelaide metropolitan area will not be able to receive UHF 0/28 transmission. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) When the Adelaide Special Broadcasting Services (SBS) service commences operation in mid-1985 it will be terrestrially fed by microwave. (2)- (a) There are currently four terrestrial bearers between Melbourne and Adelaide with television relay capability. These bearers are heavily utilised by commercial television and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. A new microwave radio system between Melbourne and Adelaide programmed for completion in 1985 will provide additional capacity enabling Telecom to readily meet the Special Broadcasting Services relay requirements. Should the SBS wish to commence transmission in Adelaide prior to the completion of the new system it could make use of the existing relay facilities which are available on a limited part-time basis. (b) Nil (3) The coverage area will be similar to the present VHF television coverage of greater Adelaide (Channels 7, 9 and 10). Similarly, a UHF television translator will be provided for the Adelaide foothills. (Question No. 1435) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Does a document marked 'SECRET', dated 29 November 1978, from the Minister for National Development, Canberra, indicate Australian Government acceptance of U.K. proposals to repatriate a half kilogram of plutonium from Australia to the U.K. with maximum secrecy to avoid port entry difficulties. (2) Is it a fact that Australian law, including international law or conventions to which Australia is a party, requires that the nature of cargoes, including plutonium or uranium, be declared on request to port authorities. (3) Is he able to say whether international law was breached by the U.K. in repatriating plutonium. (4) What safeguards are provided to ensure that no such breach occurs in future . Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Customs Act requires that the nature of cargoes, including plutonium or uranium, be reported to customs before any clearance of the vessel can be granted. The Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations, under the Customs Act, prohibit the export of goods such as plutonium and uranium unless approved by authorised persons. The Commonwealth Navigation Act 1912, Marine Orders Part 41 (Cargo and Cargo Handling-Dangerous Goods) requires notice of intention to ship dangerous goods, including radioactive substances, to be given to the Regional Directors of the Department of Transport at least 48 hours before the goods are loaded on ships. The Commonwealth Navigation Act 1912, (Cargo-Hazards Prevention) Regulations require that any quantity of a radioactive substance shall not be loaded onto or unloaded from a ship at a port unless an inspection has been made by a marine surveyor of the Department of Transport, and he has approved the loading or unloading or the Regional Director of the Department of Transport has approved the loading or unloading. State marine and port authorities have promulgated regulations which require notification of the arrival of ships which have radioactive substances on board. They also require notice of intention to load such goods onto ships. There are also provisions in the Air Navigation Regulations to the effect that a civil aircraft shall not carry goods such as uranium or plutonium except with the permission in writing of the Secretary to the Department of Aviation and in accordance with the conditions specified in the permit. (3) I would draw the honourable member's attention to paragraph (d) of the British High Commission's note of 4 January 1979, which forms part of the document to which the honourable member refers. This states, inter alia, that: 'The United Kingdom authorities will have responsibility for safe and secure transport of the material from Australia to the U.K., including its cost. The United Kingdom should also be involved in supervising the packaging of material at Maralinga to ensure that it meets appropriate containment standards both for its transport within Australia and subsequently.' I am not aware of any breach by the United Kingdom of these responsibilities under Australian law, or of its responsibilities under international law in respect of the consignment concerned. (4) See my answer to (3). (Question No. 1564) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) What negotiations has he initiated with the Queensland Government regarding the construction of a road through the Daintree National Park, a National Estate listing. (2) Has he offered Federal funding for an alternative road. (3) Has he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister or asked the Prime Minister to initiate discussions with the Queensland Premier. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am unaware of the construction of a road through the Daintree River National Park. However, I did approach the Premier of Queensland in November 1983 concerning the construction of a road through the Cape Tribulation National Park. I sent the Premier a telegram, seeking his co-operation in stopping the road construction through an area of rainforest in the National Park. The Premier refused to help. I have also recently discussed this matter with the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, Mr McKechnie and the Minister for Administrative Services, Valuation and the Environment, Mr Tenni, who is the State Government member for the area. (2) No. (3) I have not asked the Prime Minister to initiate discussions with the Queensland Premier in relation to construction of a road in the Cape Tribulation area. (Question No. 1625) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Captial Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no houses held by my Department or other agencies responsible to me in the Australian Capital Territory. However, 5 units are leased by the Department of Trade for use by Trade Commissioners and their families in the periods prior to departure for, and return from, overseas. These units are in continuous use, except for short periods related to move out/move in requirements attending individual travel arrangements. In this context, one unit was vacant for a short period in June, including 18 June. (2) See answer to (1) above. (Question No. 1651) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Defence Support does not have responsibility for any houses or premises that could be used for residential purposes, in the Australian Capital Territory: (Question No. 1677) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Is Mr Ted Wilshire a former member of his staff; if so, in what capacity did he serve and when. (2) Has Mr Wilshire now applied for a vacancy within the Department of Trade and is this vacancy within the Second Division of the Department. (3) Did other recent applications for a position in the Second Division go before an interviewing panel of 2 departmental officers at First Assistant Secretary level and an officer from the Public Service Board, also at First Assistant Secretary level. (4) Did the panel interviewing Mr Wilshire consist of one Trade Department Officer at First Assistant Secretary level, one Public Service Board officer at First Assistant Secretary level, one representative of the ACTU and one representative of the MTIA; if so, why was the interviewing panel varied in the case of Mr Wilshire. (5) Is Mr Wilshire a former researcher for a trade union; if so, what is the name of that trade union. (6) Why was a representative from the ACTU included on the selection panel. (7) In how many other interviews this year has an ACTU representative been included on the selection panel. (8) When will a decision be made on Mr Wilshire's application. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Mr Wilshire was seconded from the Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwright's Union for twelve months from February 1981 to February 1982 as a Ministerial Officer, Grade II. (2) Mr Wilshire was appointed as a Clerk (Class 11) in the Department of Trade with effect from 27 February 1984. The advertised vacancy was not restricted to officers of the Public Service and, accordingly, the Public Service Board was represented on the selection committee. Mr Wilshire has subsequently sought promotion within the Department. (3) Following a restructuring of the Department of Trade in May 1984, a number of vacancies at various levels within the Second Division were advertised. Selection committees were formed to conduct selections for each position. Each committee generally comprised two Departmental officers and a nominee of the Public Service Board of appropriate Second Division status, depending on the level of the relevant vacancy. (4) Yes. Departmental selection committees are constituted to ensure that the background and experience of members are relevant to the duties, functions and responsibilities of the advertised vacancies. Representatives of the ACTU and MTIA were sought for the committee considering applicants for the newly created position of Principal Adviser, Business/Union Consultations, because of the importance of the position to the implementation of the Prices and Incomes Accord and increased emphasis within the Department on exports of manufactured goods and services. Precedents exist in relation to the participation of persons from outside the Public Service on selection committees for the filling of vacancies in the Public Service. Such instances can reflect, for example, the need to draw on special expertise and/or experience not readily available from within the Public Service. (5) Yes. Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwright's Union. (6) See answer to (4) above. (7) None. (8) At the time at which a decision is taken to substantively fill the relevant vacancy.