Thursday, 11 October 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 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,Mr Fife,Mr Hunt,Mr Lusher,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Simmons and Mr Snow. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 Blunt and Mr Groom. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr White and Mr Wilson. 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 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Chynoweth,Mr McArthur,Mr Macphee and Mr Staples. 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 Drummond,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 showeth that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Fife and Mr White. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the ABRD fuel levy when the CPI increases, Perpetrates inflation, Increases the cost of goods to country people, Reduces the living standards of all Australians, Short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are not spend on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the CPI increase. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia, employed by Alcon Laboratories (Australia) Pty Ltd, situated in the Electorate of Warringah in the State of New South Wales, respectfully showeth concern that the failure to recognise the importance of brand-name products of research-based companies in the provision of pharmaceuticals in Australia threatens future consumer availability of modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals. We are aware that: Most innovations in the pharmaceutical products have been originated by the research-based brand-name industry; The industry is providing numerous opportunities for employment and advancement of Australians; The industry is stimulating employment in research; The industry is supporting the production of its products with a wealth of thorough, reliable and well-documented information for the benefit of consumers and health professionals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government adopt policies which encourage the growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia so as to ensure that: Australians have continued access to modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals , and Existing jobs are protected and products are developed for future increases in employment in manufacturing, research and product information services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia, employed by Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd, situated in the Electorate of Reid in the State of New South Wales, respectfully showeth concern that the failure to recognise the importance of brand-name products of research-based companies in the provision of pharmaceuticals in Australia threatens future consumer availability of modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals. We are aware that: Most innovations in the pharmaceutical products have been originated by the research-based brand-name industry; The industry is providing numerous opportunities for employment and advancement of Australians; The industry is stimulating employment in research; The industry is supporting the production of its products with a wealth of thorough, reliable and well-documented information for the benefit of consumers and health professionals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government adopt policies which encourage the growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia so as to ensure that: Australians have continued access to modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals ; and Existing jobs are protected and products are developed for future increases in employment in manufacturing, research and product information services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. 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 O'Keefe and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding . 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson and Mr Young. 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: 1. The concern at the presence of Foreign Military Bases in Australia being first strike nuclear targets in the event of both limited and total Nuclear War. 2. The concern at the Government providing port and docking facilities for Nuclear armed warships and allowing the landing of aircraft which may be Nuclear armed. 3. The concern with the danger to all Australians of a policy of alignment with any Nuclear armed Nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament shall: Not renew the leases of any Foreign Military Bases when these leases expire, Not allow nuclear armed or powered warships to enter Australian ports nor allow the landing of aircraft which may be nuclear armed, and Legislate for Australia to pursue a policy of Armed Neutrality without alignment with any Nuclear armed nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. 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: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase , perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. 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 electors 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, recognizes that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. 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 Brownies and Guides of Devonport, their Leaders and Friends showeth: That your petitioners are very concerned at the fall in numbers of the orange- bellied parrot due to the loss of feeding grounds particularly on Swan Island, Port Phillip Bay (an ASIS training ground) and at the mouth of Point Wilson ( threatened by the proposition to build, nearby, a petro-chemical refinery). These areas are vital to the survival of these rare parrots during their migratory flights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Prime Minister and all Members of the House undertake, by all members in their power, to cause to be restored and preserved the feeding grounds on the migration route of the orange-bellied parrot, and to protect their only breeding ground in South West Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that; the Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people) will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative ensure: (i) No jet aircraft use the 32* 14' crosswind runway; (ii) That the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a. m.; and calls on the Government to: (iii) Introduce a six (6) month trial period if the policy to lift the curfew on the runway is adhered to, to enable residents to voice their opinions on such a curfew before the government policy is finalised (curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m .). by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Mr Drummond. 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 Simmons. 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 Braithwaite and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: 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 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 Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate Governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the North-West region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) in sorrow that as recently as 2-1/2 weeks ago a member of staff of the Department of Social Security was convicted for selling information concerning 89 recipients of social security benefits to a debt collector; (b) that the Government's persistence with the introduction of a new assets test will cause the production of the only ''who's got what'' possessions list of the slightly better off and better off in this country; (2) expresses concern that no matter the extent of good faith and endeavour of any Minister, any government, or any departmental head, no one can guarantee the honesty and integrity of all of the thousands upon thousands of people working in the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs, and (3) calls on the Government to examine the penalties applicable to departmental officers violating departmental trust, so as to minimise the very obvious possibility of previously unrecorded lists of private possessions being passed over or sold to criminals and people in the occupation of breaking and entering. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the WA Government for reducing payroll tax in its 1984-85 Budget, and (2) calls on all governments in Australia to work together to remove this kind of tax altogether. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the implications of across the border milk sales which threaten the viability of the dairy industry in NSW; (2) calls on the Government to take immediate action to prevent the breakdown of orderly marketing of milk; (3) recognises the threat to the livelihood of thousands of dairy farmers, and milk industry workers if immediate action is not taken by the Federal Government , and (4) take steps to ensure any contribution of a levy by dairy farmers towards a national dairy market plan is fixed at a level which will not cause undue financial hardship to dairy farmers. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Australian community- (a) in March 1983 was faced with record unemployment, high interest rates, negative economic growth and stagnant business activity, and (b) in October 1984 is now optimistically facing increased job creation, lower housing interest rates, economic growth of 10% and restored business activity, and (2) congratulates the Government on its outstanding achievement in economic management. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House acknowledges the enormous problem that has confronted the South African Government over the years and expresses that a measure of credit rather than continual abuse should be extended to it and that an appropriate gesture may well be the resumption of sporting contracts with the South African people to the benefit of both sport and international relations. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That this House notes the daily criticism of the New South Wales Police Force in regards to both the integrity and efficiency of some of its officers; (2) calls on the New South Wales Commissioner of Police to explain the inability of his force to solve the simple one-off burglary, which occurred at the Boulevard Hotel on 21 February 1982. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House, in view of the confidence expressed on 10 October 1984 by the Special Minister of State in the work of the previous Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable Member for Bass, in relation to police affairs, rejects the unscrupulous attack made on him yesterday by the honourable Member for Hunter in relation to the work of the Australian Federal Police in New South Wales and expresses its thanks for his service to the Australian people. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) requests the Government to match the unequivocal commitment of the Opposition that, should the Government be re-elected, the renegotiation of the Roads Grants Act which will take place in 1985 will provide for a real increase in the level of road funding each year, from a base that is no less than the Roads Grants Act allocation for 1984-85, and (2) this unequivocal commitment communicates to all State, territory and local governments so that fear about the future of road funding can be put to rest. Mr Wells proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Petrie knows that there are rules for notices of motion with regard to the giving of information. I suggest that he consider rewording his motion. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) will second: That this House- (1) applauds the Advanced Education Council for continuing to recognise the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education as a specialised provider of external study courses in Small Business Management; (2) deplores the failure of the Government to provide permanent funding for the College's small business management course, and (3) regrets that this decision will result in the retrenchment of staff recently employed. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) will second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) on Friday 5 October 1984 this House praised the outstanding achievements of Australians Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer who reached the top of the world's highest mountain Mt Everest, the first climbers to do so without oxygen, and (b) less than a week later, the tragic loss suffered by a combined Australian- New Zealand team in pursuit of the same achievement, and (2) extends to the family and friends of Dr William From of Brisbane and Mr Craig Nottle of Melbourne its sincere sympathy and mourns their loss and praises their courage as they dared to meet this great challenge. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, this motion is one that might be accepted and passed by the House with little debate. I am sure that, because of the character of it, it would receive universal approval from this place. Mr SPEAKER —Perhaps we could complete notices of motion before we consider this matter. The Leader of the National Party indicated that it would require little debate. Mr John Brown-I would gladly accede to that request. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern about evidence that a Minister in the Fraser Government may have encouraged the commission of an offence against federal law by allegedly authorising the corruption of an officer of the NSW Police Force who was offered and received payment for handing over to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) illegally obtained transcripts and tapes which purport to be records of private telephone conversations, and (2) urges an immediate inquiry to determine whether any illegal tapping of telephone conversations by the New South Wales Police was actively encouraged by the AFP on the instructions of the Honourable Kevin Newman, as Minister for Administrative Services in the Fraser Government. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that, in Victoria, taxes and charges rose by 43.6% in the first 2 Labor Budgets; (2) further notes that taxes and charges are estimated to increase by 28.7% in the first 2 Federal Labor Budgets; and (3) demands that the Prime Minister tell the Treasurer to call off his race to see who can raise taxes fastest. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I believe this matter should be debated today, but I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the assets test and warns the Government of the gross invasion of privacy entailed; (2) condemns the Government for seeking the information contained on assets test forms; and (3) calls on the Government to abandon the assets test. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I was arranging for that previous notice to be discussed. I did not hear fully what the honourable member said. I will examine the notice. Mr Cadman —I think each part is capable of debate and stands as a motion, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member that I have not ruled his notice out of order. I will examine it to see whether it is in order. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the honourable member for Dawson, in October 1984, has presented petitions from 1347 citizens of the Electoral Division of Dawson concerned with pornographic and violent video material and travel entitlements to defacto and homosexual relations of Members and Senators and the staff of the ABC, and (b) while the Government has moved to inquire further into video material, it has not removed the offensive entitlements to travel by parliamentarians and ABC staff, and (2) calls on both the ABC and the Government to remove these entitlements and thus give support to traditional marriage relationship and the family unit. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the serious declining terms of trade of the Australian wheat industry, and (b) the growing concern among wheat growers that the Government is ignoring their problem; (2) calls upon the Government to repay to the wheatgrowers their money totalling $100 million, plus interest, which the Prime Minister and Treasurer are holding in consolidated revenue for budgetary purposes until 1 July 1985, and (3) notes that unless wheatgrowers and their families get a fair go they will make it rough for the Australian Labor Party in the forthcoming election. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Government for recognising the needs of aged, sick and disabled people by increasing funding for home care services such as meals and by paying $300m to initiate the home and community care program to help with respite care, laundry, maintenance and other necessities for the housebound. Mr Burr proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member used an unparliamentary term in that notice of motion. The notice is therefore out of order. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its economic management, in particular in the areas of inflation, unemployment, interest rates, new job creation, non-farm domestic product, capital investment and the economic growth rate of Australia which is the highest in the OECD, and (2) notes with approval that, because of the Government's redistributive policies, the benefits of the economic recovery are starting to filter through to ordinary Australians. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the severe damage caused to Queensland wheat crops by a series of frosts, which will bring serious financial hardship to many Queensland farmers and their families, and an estimated loss of $20m, and (2) requests the Government to give a generous and urgent response to any request for financial or other help from the Queensland Government. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for failing to agree with the Opposition that 1984 should have been nominated as the Year of Small Business in Australia; (2) deplores the Government for failing to honour its 1983 pre-election promises of a new commitment to revitalise small business, and back that commitment with action, resources and legislation, and (3) calls on the Government to recognise that Australia's small businesses are not looking for handouts or subsidies, but have a right to expect that Labor's pre-election tax promises would have been honoured. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) will second: That this House- (1) notes with concern the continuing problem of deterioration of the Pacific Highway, particularly dangerous and sub-standard sections which are the scene of an increasing number of road accidents on the North Coast of NSW; (2) expresses concern that an estimated $492m to be raised through the indexing of the Australian bicentennial road development fuel levy is being diverted from road expenditure to consolidated revenue, and (3) calls on the Government to release these funds for highway, arterial and local road improvements urgently needed to halt the deterioration and poor maintenance of these roads. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the British Government's confrontationist and divisive handling of the coal miners' strike in that country, and (2) calls upon the British Prime Minister to show flexibility and compassion in order to achieve a resolution of this socially divisive dispute. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the fact that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland is unable to find a candidate to contest the seat of Maranoa, and (2) welcomes the present member Mr I. M. D. Cameron, back into the 34th Parliament of Australia. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the honourable member for Hunter for his unsubstantiated attack on the honourable member for Bass at a time when the honourable member is in ill health and absent from the Parliament. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) will second: That this House- (1) supports the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission to provide funding for the Northern Rivers CAE and (2) calls on the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to give an immediate and unequivocal undertaking to provide the funds required. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) congratulates the Australian Disabled Olympic Team on being placed 8th in the world at the Third Disabled Olympics in New York, and (2) notes that- (a) this placing included competition against most nations of the world including the communist bloc countries and was highly commended by coaches of competing countries, (b) our disabled swimmers won their section, with outstanding performances from Helena Brunner who won 5 gold medals, one silver medal and one bronze medal and Gary Gudgeon who won 5 gold medals and 2 silver medals, and (c) the impressive performances by athletes from the 4 disabled categories- cerebral palsy, amputee, blind and les autres (the others). Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the disreputable tactics of the Opposition in using notices of motion to attack the honourable member for Hunter and to attempt to intimidate him against drawing attention to the overwhelming evidence which links the Honourable Kevin Newman, Minister for Administrative Services in the Fraser Government, with the alleged commission of an offence against federal law by the Australian Federal Police for which he, as Minister, was responsible. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) will second: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has not acted, in his term of office, to deal with the question of high penalty rates in the tourism and hospitality industries in Australia and (2) condemns the Minister for having broken his promise to the Economic Summit to have a conference on penalty rates between Governments, employers and unions. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Prime Minister to face the Australian people in public debate with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) will second: That this House- (1) deplores the failure of the Government to make an adequate allocation under the National Water Resources Program for flood mitigation capital works, (2) calls on the Government to review the program of works which it has announced for national funding in 1984-85, and (3) urges consideration of a 3 to 5 year program of flood mitigation works for flood-prone river valleys, which have been designated to be flood-prone by State governments. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the people of Murwillumbah, Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay, Mullumbimby and Bangalow are not served by a Medicare office and are forced at considerable inconvenience to transact their claims at either Lismore or Tweed Heads, and (2) calls upon the Minister for Health to live up to the statement he made on 28 February 1984 and provide a standard of service to country people at least equivalent to that which was provided by private funds prior to the introduction of Medicare. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes- (a) the continued high level of unemployment among young Australians with over 1 in 4 presently unemployed; and (b) that in a recent survey of small businesses in Victoria 83 per cent of respondents indicated a preparedness to increase staff if wage costs were reduced; (2) expresses the view that Labor's policies under the Prices and Wages Accord are directly contributing to the current level of youth unemployment, and (3) calls on the Government to adopt policies aimed at stimulating Australia's small businesses and providing young Australians with jobs not welfare. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to make a clear statement prior to the election- (a) on what its taxation policy would be, and (b) about the Government's attitude to capital taxes, wealth taxes, death duties and gift duties. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Mallee moving forthwith the notice of motion given for the next day of sitting relating to the death of two climbers in the Australia-New Zealand team assault on Mount Everest. Motion Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.32) —I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to move this motion immediately. I move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that on 5 October 1984, this House praised the outstanding achievements of Australians Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer who reached the top of the world's highest mountain Mt Everest, the first climbers to do so without oxygen, and (b) less than a week later, the tragic loss suffered by a combined Australia- New Zealand team in pursuit of the same achievement, and (2) extends to the family and friends of Dr William From of Brisbane and Mr Craig Nottle of Melbourne its sincere sympathy and mourns their loss and praises their courage as they dared to meet this great challenge. As we know, this week the House acknowledged the tremendous and outstanding achievements of two Australians, Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer, who reached the top of the world's highest mountain, Mount Everest. This outstanding feat was made all the more remarkable because they were able to do it without the use of oxygen. However, yesterday we learnt of the tragic loss of two young Australians who also accepted this great challenge. Dr William From of Brisbane and Mr Craig Nottle of Melbourne were part of a combined Australia-New Zealand team that was in pursuit of the same achievement-to scale Everest. There is probably no greater challenge in sport in Australia or the world, and their efforts have captured the imagination of the world. It is with great regret that I have to move in this House today that we extend our sincere sympathy to the families and friends of Dr William From of Brisbane and Mr Craig Nottle of Melbourne. We mourn their loss. We praise their courage as they dared to meet this great challenge. This combined Australia-New Zealand team in pursuit of climbing Mount Everest was led by the son of Sir Edmund Hillary, Peter Hillary. It is unfortunate that this expedition has now had to curtail its challenge, but we recognise that in this challenge we have seen one of those great expressions of endeavour that have contributed so much to the development of the world and to the extension of the pride we have in our great sports people. In extending sympathy from this House today I am sure we all acknowledge the great effort of these two young Australians. We are very proud of the efforts that they made. I call on my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs ( Mr McVeigh) to second this motion of condolence, as Dr William From of Brisbane was well known to him. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.35) —I join with the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and other members in passing a condolence motion, with particular reference to young Fred From. With young Fred's death we have seen a promising career terminated. He was a man of great potential with an academic scholarship to America waiting for him. He was a young person of steely determination and the utmost dedication. He joined the Hillary expedition two years ago because a New Zealander dropped out and a personal invitation was extended to him. He returned to it earlier this year. He returned, I suspect, because of his love of a challenge. Those of us who knew him admired him. He was a frequent attender at my Darling Downs National Party divisional council. He was always constructive and was always fired with enthusiasm. I conclude on this note: Young Fred, we are mighty proud of you. You died the way you wanted to die, in a place you loved. But, above all, you died going looking for your mate. I suggest that no- one can have greater love than that. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services)(10.37) —The Government has great honour in joining the Opposition in this condolence motion concerning these very intrepid and courageous young Australians. We mourn their loss. It will not stop other courageous and similarly inspired young Australians from attempting this, the greatest of sporting challenges. We offer our sincere condolences to the families of those who were lost. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(10.38) —I wish to add my condolences to those already expressed, particularly to a very good and close friend, the late Fred From Jr. The House may be interested to know that Fred From was a grandson of a former member of this House, Mr Bill Brimblecombe, who served with distinction here for many years. The small area of Coominya and Esk in the Brisbane Valley will be very saddened indeed by the loss of such a fine, upstanding young man, and we offer our condolences and deepest sympathy to the From family. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.39) —I move, and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) will second: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House deplores the failure of the Government to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries'. In speaking to that amendment I wish to remind the House that the waterfront has been a particularly troubled area in Australia for many years. Little more than a year after this Government was elected the Sydney Morning Herald reported on 26 April 1984, under the headline 'Trouble on the Wharves, Trade hit': A continuing go-slow at the nation's ports is starting to cause serious delays to cargo. The dispute is described by the assistant national secretary of the Waterside Workers' Federation, Mr Tas Bull, as a ''non-co-operation campaign''. The article went on to point out that this is potentially the most far-reaching dispute since the prices and incomes accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in February 1983. Here is a most troublesome area being revived again. As it happened, that so-called non-co- operation campaign was eventually resolved but again at cost to the industry. We have had continual problems with live sheep exports out of the port of Portland. Exports from that port exceed 1.5 million sheep a year, and the trade is a very significant part of the live sheep export trade of six million sheep a year for the whole of Australia. The trade is really worth more than $150m a year to Australia's export earnings. Yet time and again that trade is jeopardised. Only on 23 May this year there were statements by Victorian meat workers, Mr Wally Curran in particular, that they were setting out to cause maximum disruption to the sheep export trade. Even at this moment there are stoppages of which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is aware. At this moment on the Minister's table there is a report showing that in the Northern Territory there has been strike action by the combined port unions over visits by nuclear powered vessels . This is not an industrial relations matter; it is a political protest. But 180 employees, who are covered by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Transport Workers Union of Australia and a number of others, including the Seamen's Union of Australia, have had a mass meeting to ratify the decision of combined port union committees to walk off the job upon the arrival of the United States nuclear powered submarine, the USS Aspro. We know that two of those unions confined the work to workshop only and that others engaged in a major stoppage in the port of Darwin for the week or ten days that that vessel was there. This will happen again. We know that most warships within the next decade will be nuclear powered vessels. As I am informed, the time is not far away when only nuclear powered ships of war will visit our shores. If those sorts of bans are to be imposed and our export trade is to be disrupted, quite apart from other aspects of our relations with other countries, there has to be a remedy. Yet we see, even in the same report which the Minister received, a strike in Queensland by seamen and various tug companies in Brisbane and other regions. The Seamen's Union imposed bans on the coal bulk carrier Crystal Trader at the request of the British coal miners and the seamen's union. Here we apparently have a matter of trade union solidarity. It is not a matter of dispute between the employers and employees in Australia; nonetheless stoppages are taking place on the waterfront because of political views expressed by the trade unions. Sometimes the tactic adopted is not a stoppage or a strike, but a secondary boycott. Only last week in this House we had a lengthy debate on secondary boycotts and the removal by the Government of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. We opposed it. We will oppose it in the Senate. As we understand it, the Australian Democrats will too. Therefore, the Bill will not go through. Nonetheless, the Government, in seeking a reinvigorated mandate, will ask the people to re-elect it on the basis of an undertaking to remove the one constraint upon the secondary boycott whereby an innocent third party, not in dispute with its own employees, can in fact be crippled and ruined by this action, which is often politically, not industrially, motivated. Even in the examples which I have just given there could be direct stoppages on the waterfront which are capable of being dealt with to some extent by the conciliation and arbitration system, but secondary boycotts could be contrived in order that there be no real capacity for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with them and there no longer would be the statutory right under the Trade Practices Act and minimal access to any common law proceedings. I want to spend some time on this aspect because it is one of the most important issues in industrial relations in Australia at the moment. It is the one upon which the Government has continually turned a deaf ear to business. The Government prides itself on having the support of business. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned again that he had spoken recently with the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry. Yet he, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and other Ministers have ignored the plea from those bodies in respect of that section of the Trade Practices Act and its relationship to our export trade and to the stevedoring industry. I quote from the Business Council's submission to the Government when it asked the Government not to repeal section 45D: If bans are imposed on the loading or unloading of US ships because of present US Government policies, how can conciliation resolve the dispute, unless it means the Government is to change its policies, or Australian business cease dealing with the USA? In a similar vein the Confederation of Australian Industry said something which is very much relevant to the stevedoring industry. Under the heading 'The Effect of Secondary Boycotts on Imports and Exports', the CAI said: A substantial number of industrial disputes involving secondary boycotts occur in the Australian waterfront and maritime areas, causing delays and added costs to both imported and exported goods. In the past, section 45D proceedings have often played a positive role in the resolution of those disputes, as an examination of the history of the use of these provisions would reveal. It must be stressed that not only do delays on the waterfront cause expense for carriers , and delay fulfilment of specific contractual obligations, but they also damage Australia's image as a reliable and competitive trading partner. In view of the importance of our export trade to Australia's long-term future, it is essential that prompt and effective mechanisms be available for dealing not only with the issues giving rise to disputes but also where necessary with the industrial action initiated by maritime and waterfront unions. The Government has consistently refused to listen to the advice which it receives from business, from industry, from the investors of capital-the people upon whom it relies to create most employment and most economic growth and activity in this country. If we want to go on increasing our standards of living as well as employing those who wish to work, we have to have maximum economic growth. At the core of this issue is our capacity to produce and to export, and the stevedoring and maritime industries are critical in that regard. If stoppages, especially secondary boycotts, are to be held with impunity and regardless of the issue, including overseas political problems, this country will squander all of its potential. I believe that the Government is showing itself to be grossly irresponsible in persisting with the repeal of section 45D at a time when Australia's strike record in the shipping industry is still by far the worst in the world. We are well aware that in July of this year over 100 ships in Australia had bans imposed on them. That really reinforced the determination of industry and of the Opposition to maintain the benefits which section 45D confers. I believe that the record ought to show how strong are the views of the shipping interests of this country on the retention of section 45D. Last week the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) quoted some extracts from what the Australian Chamber of Shipping said. I quoted a short extract. I want to put on record today, so that the Government may be judged by the business community, the seriousness with which the Government's determination to remove section 45D is viewed. I wish to quote in particular from material given to me by the Australian Chamber of Shipping. Mr Willis —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill has nothing to do with section 45D. Obviously allusions to matters which may vaguely impinge on the subject of a Bill are in order, but I think detailed expositions on the subject of a previous debate which has nothing to do with the present Bill-the shadow Minister has not mentioned the subject of the Bill at this stage-are clearly out of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I had just picked out the second reading speech and the explanatory notes because it appeared to me that the honourable member was speaking on a Bill that went through the House last week. I ask him to link his remarks on section 45D to the Bill before the House. Mr MACPHEE —With great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I moved an amendment, which I was entitled to move under the Standing Orders. I repeat that the Opposition is not opposing this measure. In fact this measure is an extension of legislation which we enacted in government and which we support. But I am entitled to move, and I have moved, an amendment which makes clear that we are not opposing the provisions of this Bill but that we deplore the failure of the Government to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries. At the core of that concern is the determination of the Government to enable secondary boycotts to take place with impunity. I submit very strongly that that is extremely relevant to the amendment that has been properly moved. I believe very strongly also that it is in the public interest that this be put on the record. I am surprised at the Minister's sensitivity about the matter. He knows that this speech not only will be heard here but also will be widely circulated and reproduced by the business community, with disfavour towards the Government. I continue with my reference to a Press release of the Australian Chamber of Shipping of 26 July after section 45D action had successfully got the bans lifted from those 100 ships. It is worth putting on the record. Mr Willis —I raise another point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of order is that this Bill is about the stevedoring industry. It is not about the shipping industry as such but about the stevedoring industry and what happens on the wharves. Insofar as the honourable member for Balaclava wishes to move an amendment and speak to an amendment which relates to the stevedoring industry, that is fine. Obviously, he can talk about matters that relate to the amendment in that context. But in talking about the shipping industry he is going way beyond what this Bill is about and I believe he is out of order. Mr Burr —On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I point out to you the wording of the honourable member for Balaclava's amendment which in part states: . . . to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries. I would have thought that any comment that the honourable member for Balaclava made in relation to that part of his amendment would be perfectly in order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will rule on the point of order. I think that, with the introduction of the amendment, the honourable member for Balaclava has a broader area over which to range. I take the point that the Minister makes, namely, that we are debating a stevedoring Bill and not a shipping Bill. Obviously the reliability of our trading relationship with other countries would bring in shipping. But I ask the honourable member for Balaclava to be more relevant to the Bill. Mr MACPHEE —I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am being extremely relevant to the amendment because no one in the shipping industry believes that stoppages in the stevedoring industry do not impact adversely on our trading relations and our capacity to ship. I return to the reference by the Australian Chamber of Shipping to what is called the 'Strike Club'. It is an ironic name but nonetheless an important international organisation. The Maritime Union bans which have led to more than 100 ships being delayed in Australian ports, at a direct cost to the shipping industry alone of more than $ 2m a day, came at time when Australia's improved waterfront industrial record was just beginning to show some benefits. This is clear from the latest annual report of the worldwide shipowners' Mutual Strike Insurance Association-the Strike Club. This shows that during the past year Australia has improved its position from one in which for several years it accounted for more than half of all the claims paid worldwide by the Strike Club for losses due to industrial disputes. But Australia still has a worse record than any other country in this respect. According to the Strike Club's annual report for 1983-84, just received by the Australian Chamber of Shipping, claims paid for industrial action affecting Australian ports this year fell to 30.82 per cent of the total paid worldwide. In 1982-83, Australia accounted for 54.34 per cent of world claims paid-the fifth year in succession that more had been paid out for delays to ships trading in Australian waters than for the rest of the world put together. However, in the latest year, 1983-84, Australia with 30.82 per cent of the total, was still the leader in strike incidents. The next worst country was Britain, with 28.68 per cent, and there was then a sharp drop to New Zealand, with 15.66 per cent. No other country had more than 5 per cent of the total. The Press release goes on to outline the kinds of difficulties experienced in that July ban: Employers alone cannot deal with this type of dispute, which relates to matters of the nation's shipping policy more than to industrial conditions, and we have called on the Government to shoulder what we believe is its responsibility to deal with this kind of issue. Strikes of this kind add substantially to this country's shipping costs, and there are real economic benefits to be gained if we can reduce their frequency. . . . . Because of the high rate of claims from Australia in recent years, the Strike Club had adopted a policy of rejecting any new membership applications from Australian ship operators and of excluding any claim arising in this country from any new member trading here. Finally, at the end of the Press release, in a three-page document which the Government should dwell upon carefully, the Chamber of Shipping states: Full details of percentage shares of the Strike Club's claims for 1983-84 are as follows: Australia 30.82, UK 28.68, NZ 15.66, France 4.34- The percentage shares of other countries diminish to less than that. The Press release then states: Australia's percentage share of the incidents for the past five years are: 1979-80: 61.90. 1980-81: 53.45. 1981-82: 51.04. 1982-83: 54.34. 1983-84: 30.82. The truth is that, at a time when there is some recovery on the world scene, at a time when we still desperately need to export all that we can, there have been stoppages on the waterfront and the use of the secondary boycott technique has crippled and greatly damaged our industry's capacity to contribute to our own economic growth. The Bill before the House compensates persons who retire early from the waterfront. We now have a highly capital intensive industry on the waterfront but those who remain after the generous compensation is paid by the employers to those who retire early ought not to have free rein to impose their caprice upon the employers in the shipping industry and upon those who are the growers of primary products or the exporters of manufactured products. The Australian Chamber of Shipping put in several submissions to the Federal Government in response to its suggestion that it would repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. On 13 December, the Chamber said this to the Minister: The Shipping Industry wishes to express to the Australian Government, through you as the responsible Minister, its grave concern at the Government's stated intention to repeal Section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as amended. It is only since 1977, following upon the Justice Sweeney Royal Commission Report of 1976, that shipping companies have had access to a form of legal redress against unlawful trade union boycotts. The Shipping Industry believes that it has the support of the community generally in its opposition to the unfair use of power by the Maritime trade unions-that is to say, industrial action unrelated to the work and working conditions of the trade union members themselves. The Chamber does not wish to quarrel with the traditional trade union right to take industrial action in those circumstances. The Chamber makes three basic submissions, namely: 1. Legal redress of the kind provided by Section 45D is essential to the Shipping Industry and is in the best Australian public interest. 2. In the absence of legal redress of the kind provided by Section 45D, shipping companies are at the mercy of the Maritime trade unions. There is no viable alternative legal redress. 3. The cost of delay and the damage to Australia's international reputation as a trading nation, caused by industrial action of the kind rendered unlawful by Section 45D, are costs which inevitably substantially fall upon the whole Australian community. It is requested that the legal redress presently available to shipping companies be preserved. A more detailed submission regarding the subject is attached. In that detailed submission the Government is presented, chapter and verse, with examples of outrageous conduct of the kind which I have illustrated has taken place recently in both Darwin and Brisbane. It also sets out the relevant extracts of the report of Mr Justice Sweeney's Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions. Let us remember that Mr Justice Sweeney was asked to investigate certain matters relating to the stevedoring and maritime industries at the request of the previous Labor Government when Mr Clyde Cameron was Minister for Labour. We received that report in government and, as a consequence, introduced section 45D. If one looks carefully at the submission which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) received from the Chamber of Shipping on 13 December 1983, it is perfectly clear that, without that section, there is no effective legal redress. The submission again draws upon Mr Justice Sweeney's remarks to show the unsuitability of the existing legal remedies at that time, and of course the amendment passed by this House last week in fact will put the law back even further than it was when Mr Justice Sweeney made those observations. It is a most detailed, thoroughly prepared submission and some of the examples it gives are quite outrageous. We have a situation now where, under this legislation, the members of an increasingly diminishing work force on our wharves, knowing that when it comes to any premature retirement they will be looked after equally as well as those who are the recipients of the matters referred to in this legislation, are deciding whose policies they will agree with and whose policies they will disagree with. They are then making innocent exporters, producers and manufacturers, as well as the Australian community generally, the victims of their activity without any sanction being effectively imposed upon them if the Government gets its way by repealing section 45D. Some issues have been raised as a result of various bans of an industrial character on different vessels, but, because of the secondary boycott nature of those bans, they have fallen harshly upon innocent employers. Quite a number of others were blatant political actions. On 1 May the Australian Chamber of Shipping actually followed up its submission of 13 December with yet another one , this time to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Again it went into great detail and updated the illustrations of where abuses had occurred. It was again made clear that the Chamber was not arguing for legitimate industrial action to be dealt with by section 45D, but it did believe very strongly that the secondary boycott, as applied in the maritime industries and by stevedoring unions, was an outrageous action and one which had to be stopped. Again some examples were given by the Chamber. It alerted the Government to the potential havoc that it can wreak on the stevedoring, maritime and shipping industries if in fact section 45D is repealed. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition, while saying that of course it supports this Bill-it can hardly do otherwise, as it was the architect of the proposals incorporated in it-believes very strongly that the Australian public and the Australian business community must understand what the consequences to the Australian waterfront and our export industries will be if the Government goes ahead in spite of all the advice and all the evidence it has about the necessity to maintain section 45D. The Australian Chamber of Shipping did say in its submission to the Attorney on 1 May: Legal redress of the kind afforded by section 45D is without question the single most important piece of legislation in Australia in relation to overseas cargo shipping. . . . . Primary and secondary boycotts have been imposed by Maritime trade unions, their officials and members upon overseas ships and shipping in support of industrial activities in relation to such matters as the so-called 'flag of convenience', and 'crews of convenience', and the 'ITF' disputes and other general disputes, none of which can properly and fairly be described as ordinary 'forms of union or employee action in support of their industrial claims'. By that the Chamber means matters not ordinarily able to be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and certainly not able to be dealt with by the puny provisions inserted into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the Bill which went through this House last week. So the Chamber of Shipping asks: How can the Arbitration Commission hope to resolve the international questions such as flags of convenience, crews of convenience, the ITF issues and all the other like issues, even if the Commission could be clothed with that power which for constitutional reasons we are sure it cannot be? I do put it very strongly that the Chamber of Shipping speaks for the Australian business community in respect of its public interest and concern about the waterfront and the stevedoring industry. I conclude with one more extract from that submission to the Attorney-General: Ships and shipping are caused substantial damage and disruption by primary and secondary boycotts incapable of being defended as legitimate under Section 45D ( 3). They suffer what is clearly a civil wrong and they claim their entitlement under the system of law to civil redress. The civil redress which they seek is no more in reality than to be able to succeed in getting the ship released from the boycott and despatched. Section 45D has provided them with that redress and that is for the clear reason that the question whether there has been a civil wrong of the kind described by Section 45D is determined by a civil Court whose sanction of injunctive relief is supported by the sanction of damages. It is asserted with full confidence that it is in the best Australian public interest to protect ships and shipping from the substantial damage which is caused by primary and secondary boycotts which are incapable of being defended under Section 45D (3). So, the Opposition, with the same force with which it opposed the amendments to sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act last week, deplores most strongly the failure of the Government to heed advice from those who know, from those who care and from those who have a financial stake in the well-being of our export trade regarding the stevedoring industry and the maritime industry generally. We do believe that the Government has an obligation to the Australian people not to go to the election this time with a commitment to repeal section 45D but indeed to recognise the need to retain it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Lusher —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.07) —I support the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill and oppose the Opposition's second reading amendment. I am extremely disappointed that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has seen fit to introduce that amendment because it is patently obvious, with a Federal election some seven weeks away and the Opposition looking for some issue on which to attack the Government-one has only to look at the Bulletin poll this week to see how rough the Opposition is going-that the Opposition wants to put industrial disputation into the minds of the Australian public. I make it perfectly clear that the industrial disputation that has occurred under this Government's positive policies, compared with that which occurred under the policies of the previous Fraser Government, is virtually non-existent. The honourable member for Balaclava, in talking about industrial disputation and section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, appears to be living in fantasyland. It is a pity that he has not been more positive in his approach to this Bill, but of course I understand that he has to do what he is directed to do by his lack- lustre Leader. I want to make some positive statements on this Bill, particularly because I have had a long association with the stevedoring industry. I have many friends indeed amongst the ranks of the stevedoring workers. It is with pleasure that I say some positive things about those workers. The amendments in this Bill are part of a process of progressive functional change being put into effect as the need for them is identified. When we discuss the stevedoring industry, it is inevitable that we discuss waterside workers in general. No one romanticises about waterside workers. On the contrary, they get a very bad Press; even Labor historians have neglected them. Wharfies, like shearers, have worked on the frontiers of the nation in a hard and dangerous occupation. They too have a heroic past and legends and heroes such as Charlie Fitzgibbon, Jim Healy, Morrie Wallington, Norm Docker and Roy Hunter. I could go on for a very long time listing some of the people who have led this very progressive industry. Wharfies also have a tradition of mateship which is close and fierce. The great advantage of the gang system is that it removed the competition and consequently allowed comradeship to flourish. The gang could help its members. This comradeship is coupled with the fact that the wharfies' generosity towards good causes is legendary. A recent example of this was the response of the Waterside Workers Federation to the appeal made by Father Brian Gore. That direct appeal for support of the oppressed brought an immediate Federation protest by cable to President Marcos. The ultimate result was that Father Gore was cleared of all charges. This was really positive. Mrs Darling —Excellent. Mr O'NEIL —As my friend and colleague the honourable member for Lilley interjected, it was excellent. Above all, wharfies have a continuing tradition of class struggle, of active, militant and successful unionism, of internationalism and political action. Their solidarity is expressed not only in their attitudes towards each other and to other unionists, but also in their stand against their employers, the great shipowners who have long dominated so much of Australian life. The nation's favourite coconut shy is the wharfie. Most people classify the wharfie as someone who collects his pay but does no work. They think of wharfies as being always on strike, putting up the price of transport and blocking materials and goods from going out. In fact, the opposite is the truth. It is about time they were applauded for their mateship and involvement with mankind. Excellent examples of the Waterside Workers Federation's involvement are illustrated on Labor Day when the wharfies organise a fun day of events for the ordinary family. Within their own network they hold an annual show for their children. Functions are organised as a benefit for a sick or injured member's family. Federation members throughout Australia have also assisted British coal miners by voluntary levies. The money from the levies has been used to help the wives and children of miners whose welfare payments have been reduced or disallowed by the British Government. Wharfies have received unwarranted criticism and condemnation. Let us put the record straight: Wharfies are progressive and determined to maintain good working conditions, which are, of course, the right of all men and women. Their progressiveness is illustrated by the historic aluminium agreement made on 16 May 1984. This agreement was negotiated between the Transport Workers Union, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, the New South Wales Road Transport Association and the Waterside Workers Federation. The agreement was on the packing of aluminium into containers for Tomago Aluminium Co. Pty Ltd. This increased the work opportunities for transport workers and members of the Federation, culminating finally in rendering the port of Newcastle more viable, thus decreasing a certain amount of idle time which was being experienced in the industry. Mechanisation has transformed the industry as it has many other industries, continually reducing the need for men. But wharfies are not thrown on the industrial scrapheap, although they may take voluntary redundancy and retire early. Major Federation branches have overwhelmingly endorsed the 1984 national contract. The principle of no compulsory redundancy was reaffirmed in the contract. Federation tradesmen and shipping clerks have been brought within the no compulsory redundancy provision. The main significance of the early retirement scheme changes is that the qualifying age has been reduced from 62 to 60. The national economy has improved dramatically over the last 19 months under this Federal Labor Government. However, the legacy of the disastrous Fraser Government years is still being felt throughout the stevedoring industry. Thus, it has been a time of consolidation throughout the industry and the gains made are the best available in the present economic climate. The early retirement scheme has been extended to cover all Federation members. Another important feature of the 1984 contract is the 15 per cent increase in the stevedoring employees' retirement fund pension benefits. Wharfies shift more cargo than ever before, but increasingly they see themselves as a vanishing race. The introduction of containerisation represented a period of serious threat to the Federation. Last decade the introduction of new cargo handling methods on the Australian waterfront seriously threatened the negotiating and industrial base of the WWF. With ample manual labour and shortages of investment capital, China has not pushed containerisation at the same speed as other trading nations. Consequently, specialists from the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association, of which the WWF has been a member for nine years, have been visiting China for the last three weeks to assist the Chinese in the development process of moving goods more efficiently and economically by the use of specialised service technology. This program seeks to promote international co-operation and understanding. While technological change may render certain skills obsolete, it can also create demands for different skills and lead to the emergence of new occupations . Technological advance has dealt its heaviest blow to semi-skilled and unskilled workers. With the mechanisation of the terminals, specialised servicing and mechanical work have become more critical to the operations of stevedoring. Waterside workers are now required to handle cargo cranes capable of lifting 500 tonnes. They also are required to drive sophisticated machinery such as straddle trucks and 50-tonne forklifts. They are also expected to handle electric winches and hoists and to stow cargo in order to obtain the best possible loading result. Waterside workers are trained to handle the new equipment in the industry at a central training school established in Melbourne where all recruits to the industry attend a five-week induction course. Training and retraining is also carried out in all capital and main ports. It would be extremely difficult to give a full history of the strikes and stoppages that the Waterside Workers Federation has been forced to engage in. The major strikes have been over the question of wages and conditions. They included struggles against discriminatory tactics by shipowners and in support of the right of the individual waterside worker to a share in the work that was offered. It needs to be appreciated that until 1967 every port in Australia worked under a system of casual employment. Therefore, waterside workers worked and received pay only when ships were in port. This system left itself open to abuse by shipowners, who played one waterside worker against another in a competition to obtain work. This system was known as the bull system. Observers have described other strikes as political. The refusal by waterside workers to load pig-iron on ships destined for Japan when that country was attacking China and was shortly thereafter to attack Australia was one such action. Shortly after the end of the Second World War, Federation members refused to load Dutch ships carrying arms and other supplies for use against the Indonesians, who were fighting for independence. In the 1960s Federation members similarly refused to load arms consigned to the French troops in Indo-China, where the French were endeavouring to repossess their colonial empire. Later, as the Vietnam war changed its character with the state of South Vietnam being declared, the United States of America, Australia and others joined in support of South Vietnam against North Vietnam. Waterside workers again refused to load arms and supplies for use in the conflict. Federation members believed that the Vietnamese had the right to determine the form of government in their own country without interference. Direct action has also been taken against French ships and cargoes in protest at the French Government's testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. There have also been bans on Polish, South African and Israeli ships-in support of Solidarity, in protest against apartheid and in protest against the invasion of Lebanon respectively. The Federation is affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As such, it has been very supportive of the prices and incomes accord which has been the basis for Australia's economic recovery. The development of the Waterside Workers Federation since 1902 has been one of definite progression and positiveness. In an effort to better the conditions of the wharfies there has developed on both sides an appreciation of the other's problems and attitudes. Generally speaking, there has been an attempt by employers to meet and understand the needs of the workers. This has certainly been fostered by this Government. There has been a tremendous improvement since the days of casual employment and the bull system. The redundancy payments are necessary to reduce the number of waterside workers. Fewer are required because of technological change within the industry. It is pleasing to see that this is being achieved on a voluntary basis. I sincerely hope that all workers who are accepting voluntary retirement enjoy long and happy retirements. They are retiring from a very proud industry with conditions that were achieved through long and harsh struggles over many years. Waterside workers in this country have every reason to walk tall as they have been at the forefront of progressive unionism in Australia for many years. It gives me great pleasure to commend this Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.21) —As the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) said , the Opposition does not oppose the provisions contained in the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill which was introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). We recall that a former Minister in the Fraser Government, Mr Tony Street, introduced the program that is now being pursued in this Bill. Mr Street introduced a program of redundancy for waterside workers to allow them to retire on very generous provisions. This has helped reduce the number of people required on the waterfront as technology has taken over various functions. I think the House should pay credit to the program that was introduced by Mr Street in 1977 and the efficient way that it has worked since then. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava to the motion for the second reading has very rightly drawn attention to one of the very great concerns of the Australian people today-that is, the disruptions that are occurring on the waterfront and in other places to our overseas trade. I am rather surprised at the sensitivity of the Minister to the highlighting by the honourable member for Balaclava of that aspect. We recall that in recent times the Minister went to Japan to assure Japanese traders that Australia was a very reliable trading partner and that the Japanese need not fear that industrial disputations would interrupt their trade. We share the sentiments expressed by the Minister during his visit to Japan because we, too, would like to be able to assure the Japanese and our other trading partners that there will not be industrial disputation on the waterfront or in other places that will disrupt our trade and therefore the foreign earnings coming into this country. Unfortunately, we do not share the enthusiasm of the Minister that industrial disputation is not taking place or will not take place in the future. We have been reminded in recent times of what has been happening in regard to our wheat trade. The great wheat industry, one of the major export earners for this country, has been very seriously disrupted by industrial disputation on the waterfront and in other areas. I remind the Minister of two disputes-one in recent times and one that has been continuing for some considerable time-affecting our wheat trade. The grain handlers dispute in recent times has held up many millions of dollars of trade for this country and has no doubt disrupted the confidence of overseas importers of Australia wheat. That dispute has occurred because of the selfish attitude of grain handlers, some of whom are earning $60,000 a year. Those people want to retain their penalty rates and overtime earnings instead of allowing the Australian Wheat Board to employ more people, as it wants to do. Another dispute that has been quite disruptive to the wheat industry, as the Minister would be aware, is the demarcation dispute between the Australian Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Federation. This dispute affects in particular the wheat industry in Western Australia and has caused grave disruptions to trade. While the Minister or people in the industry may claim that there is a temporary lull in the ongoing battle between those two unions, I do not think anyone could claim that the battle has ended. There are likely to be outbursts of more disruption affecting those two unions at any time. The dispute does not involve the efficiency of grain handling. It does not affect the working conditions of those people. All it concerns is the union to which the workers belong and to which they pay their subscriptions. I do not think anyone could accept the legitimacy of that sort of demarcation issue on the waterfront, which has grave implications for the trading capacity of this country. Another matter that was mentioned by the honourable member for Balaclava and also by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) is the use of political strikes on the waterfront. I am rather surprised that the honourable member for Grey should speak in such glowing terms and with what seemed to be some pride that an organised trade union such as the Waterside Workers Federation would be prepared to use the political strike weapon for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with working conditions on the waterfront, nothing to do with safety, pay or other conditions affecting those workers. It is purely a political strike for political reasons that are of some interest to the leaders of the union. I doubt very much whether they are of interest to the waterside workers. In recent times-quite apart from the list that was given to us by the honourable member for Grey-we were reminded, of course, of the disputes involving waterside workers and others on the waterfront in Darwin and affecting the berthing of American nuclear powered naval ships. Much the same has happened in other ports in Australia. I do not think anyone can accept the legitimacy of that sort of use of union power for purely political reasons. Also, the port of Darwin has had regular disruptions to the uranium trade. Legitimate exports are being held up for purely political reasons by people who should not be using that form of industrial power. I remind the House of a resolution that was passed by the Australian Labor Party at its National Conference in July 1979. One of the resolutions passed by the Australian Labor Party at that time reads: An ALP Government would 'recognise' that the legitimate role of the trade unions is not limited to legally defined industrial matters'. That effectively means that the Australian Labor Party is giving legitimacy to the use of the political strike. I think that the people of Australia need to bear in mind when they vote at the next election that the Australian Labor Party and, no doubt, the Government are sanctioning the use of political strikes on the waterfront for purely political reasons and for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with conditions of work or other matters relating to the waterfront. The honourable member for Balaclava mentioned in his contribution the impact that the repeal of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act-the secondary boycotts section-could have in disrupting international trade. I share the concerns of the honourable member for Balaclava. I take the view that any matter, industrial or otherwise, that disrupts our capacity to trade with our international partners and therefore to earn income for this country which can be shared by the people of Australia should be viewed with abhorrence. To my mind there is no way that we can sanction people on the waterfront or in other working areas who, for very selfish reasons or for reasons that are known only to themselves, disrupt the capacity of this country to provide what we would consider to be an adequate and decent standard of living for our people. I think that the House has every right to be very concerned about the Government's attitude to section 45D and giving legitimacy to the secondary boycott. I would also remind the House again of a motion passed at the July 1979 Australian Labor Party conference. That motion stated: Unions would be exempted from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. What we are seeing now is the Government in fact playing out that motion which was passed by the Australian Labor Party in 1979. Another motion which gives me even greater cause for concern and which was passed by the Australian Labor Party conference in 1979 states: An ALP Government would move immediately to repeal 'all penalties for strikes against arbitral decisions of the Commission or a conciliation committee and the prohibition of action by the Commission to insert or register clauses in awards or agreements excluding the rights of workers to resort to industrial action. That effectively means that the Australian Labor Party is prepared to put the unions above the law. I do not think we can accept the legitimacy of that motion , nor can we accept the legitimacy of any action that puts the trade union movement, whether on the waterfront or in any other area, on any basis of legality that is above that which would apply to any other person or section of the community. I share the honourable member for Balaclava's concern about the effect that disruptions to trade on the waterfront is having and about the use of political strikes, which is all too common, particularly in the waterfront area. We express our abhorrence of that use of industrial action. We appeal to the Minister to continue to show the same concern in this place and in the legislation that he brings forward in this place as he expressed in Japan. We want this country to be a reliable trading partner and we want our overseas clients to have confidence that trade between them and Australia will not be disrupted by the illegal use of industrial action. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(11.32) — in reply-I would like to make a few comments in reply to what has been said in the debate on the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill 1984. The Government clearly rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), which is nothing more than a political stunt. I suppose one has to expect that sort of thing so close to an election. Clearly, rather than talk about the Bill, all he tried to do in this debate was to beat up an issue which was debated at length in this House last week, and that is the issue of secondary boycotts, and how those boycotts should be treated in industrial law. That is not a debate which I am going to reopen now and I certainly do not have the time to go back to that. The Government has, of course, thoroughly refuted the arguments that have been put forward by the Opposition in relation to that matter. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava refers to the Government's supposed failure to ensure that we have an efficient stevedoring industry. Let me say that what this Bill is about is taking steps to improve further the efficiency of that industry by assisting in the removal of redundant workers. We have already taken steps to remove waterside workers who have been seen to be redundant. This Bill is designed to assist in the removal from the industry of ancillary labour which is likewise redundant for various reasons to which I referred in my second reading speech. So we are, therefore, taking steps to try to improve further the efficiency of this industry. As regards the industrial relations situation in the stevedoring industry in general, there has been a dramatic improvement in the level of industrial disputation in the industry over the last few years compared with what applied previously. This has not happened only since we have been in government. It was beginning to happen under the previous Government, and we acknowledge that, but it has been continued and further improved. In fact, in the last period for which we have figures available, which was the March quarter of 1984, virtually no time was lost because of stoppages in the industry. There have been a couple of disputes since then, but essentially the level of industrial disputation on the waterfront in regard to the stevedoring industry is far, far less now than we were used to throughout most of the 1970s and, of course, the even higher levels back in the 1950s and 1960s. The industrial relations record of this industry has been greatly improved. That improvement is continuing. The measures which are contained in this Bill will further assist in improving industrial relations in the stevedoring industry. Most of what the honourable member for Balaclava had to say related to the shipping industry. Let me acknowledge that disputation in that industry is at a higher level than that in the stevedoring industry. This has much to do with manning levels and the employment situation in that industry. I am not going to canvass those issues now because they are essentially irrelevant to this debate. But let me say that the Australian Chamber of Shipping Press release referred to by the honourable member for Balaclava indicates quite clearly a very significant fall in the proportion of payouts by the 'Strike Club' for disputes in the Australian shipping industry compared with the rest of the world. Although the honourable member says that the level is still high, and I acknowledge that it is still high, it certainly is greatly improved on the figures that he gave on the situation that applied in previous years. Compared with the situation only a year ago, it is about half. That, of course, on the face of his own figures, indicates a very considerable improvement. I acknowledge fully that we have a lot further to go. I believe that the steps we are trying to take in relation to secondary boycotts would not have been unhelpful in trying to bring about that improvement. Of course, the Opposition is doing its best to prevent that happening. Let me note finally that the overall record of this Government on industrial disputation has been remarkable. There has been a dramatic fall in the level of industrial disputation. We now have a situation in which the working time lost because of industrial disputes is at its lowest level for 16 years. Since Japan has been raised in this debate, let me say that when I was in Japan recently I said to the Japanese Government that there had been this dramatic improvement in our industrial relations. I was saying this also to Japanese business. Everywhere I went there was recognition and acknowledgment of that dramatic improvement. Mr Nakasone, the Prime Minister of Japan, said to me that the Japanese Government had no worries about Australian industrial relations. That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister of Japan. Clearly, the Japanese are extremely pleased with what has happened under this Government in relation to industrial relations. They recognise the extraordinary extent of the improvement . They are confident that that improvement will continue to occur. They have very good reason to have that confidence. We have shown in government that the actions we are taking are not likely to lead to increased industrial disputation ; quite the reverse. What is in this Bill will assist in improving industrial relations in the stevedoring industry and I strongly recommend it to the House. Mr Macphee —Mr Deputy Speaker, could I have your indulgence to ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) whether he would be prepared to make public the record of discussions between him and the Japanese Prime Minister. I am sure that the public would be most interested to see it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no provision in the Standing Orders for that matter to be raised at this time. I suggest that the honourable member take the matter up privately with the Minister. 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 Willis) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: REGISTRATION OF DEATHS ABROAD BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Hayden: 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 the Passports Amendment Bill 1984 and the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? As there is no objection, I will allow this course to be followed. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.40) —The Passports Amendment Bill 1984 in part is a further extension of the recommendations from the interim report on passports of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Many of the new procedures were introduced in July 1983, the most important change being the requirements of positive identification before a passport can be issued. The recommendations of the Royal Commission were accepted by the coalition when in government, and in fact this Bill is full of Liberal Party initiatives. I wonder why it has taken the Government so long to bring these amendments before the House. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) announced the new passport procedures he stated that he 'realised that the measures could cause some inconvenience', and he sought the public's co-operation and understanding about the new measures. That is most commendable, but it is only words. Now we have a situation, in Sydney at least, where someone who wants a passport needs to take a day off to lodge the application. In fact at present in Sydney I think we have a situation where the Passport Office was updated at a cost of some $250,000 but has now been declared not sufficient as it does not comply with requirements. That $250,000 has just gone down the drain. As I stated earlier, we do not disagree with the new procedures but honourable members' offices throughout Australia have been inundated with complaints about delays brought about by these new procedures. In the Commonwealth Government Centre in Sydney every day of the working week the crowds outside the Passport Office are immense. I would like the Minister to outline to the House what the Government is going to do about these delays. Is the Public Service properly dealing with these matters or did the passport officers dip out in the huge enlargement of the Public Service since this Government has come to office? The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1983 announced that passport applications could be lodged at post offices. He said at that time that the new arrangements would provide a quicker, more convenient service. I wonder if he has bothered to check on this service since he made this tub-thumping announcement: 'I understand that it takes about six weeks for the application to be processed'. The bulk of the amendments in this Bill are, as I have mentioned earlier, recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Chapter 6 of the interim report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking entitled 'Passports' has six sections. A complete section, section ( v), is headed: 'Who Should Issue Passports'. There is a careful analysis of the relationship between the passport issuing function and the citizenship function administered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which issues certificates of citizenship which are accepted proof of citizenship. The Department has a large administrative function and its officers at the top are specially skilled administrators. It has the function of the oversight of aliens and migrants. The Commission considered the need for computerisation of an Australian record of births, marriages, certificates of citizenship, divorce, deed polls and deaths. This large record system would then provide the basis of administering a multiple set of needs including the issue of passports. The administrative task is a large one and it can be a sensitive one. I am at present sceptical of an administrative system which has the administration of passports competing for the attention of a Minister whose obligations take him, for a great period of his official time, out of the country. I suggest that this part of the Commission's report, recommending that the passports function be shifted from the Department of Foreign Affairs, should not be pigeon holed and that consideration be given to the moving of the passport section to a more appropriate Department. I would appreciate the Minister's response to that request. Passports have been, and still are, occupying special attention because they are important for travel purposes, and drug couriers and criminals are using them to establish false identities. The Commissioner gives examples of the various devices. The official language leaps to life in a section headed: ' Methods of Abuse by Clark and Associates'. Clark was known as the notorious Mr Asia. His associate, a woman called Dine, left Australia on a forged passport to meet Clark in June 1979 and returned a week later undetected. Some time later she was required to leave Australia for a few months. This time she went to a man called Trimbole, who fixed up a passport application. He carried a stack of blank birth certificates; and so it goes on, a sad litany of corruption forming the very basis of a huge crime operation. Ministers also have a special responsibility and have to be very careful. I mentioned the reference here in the report which triggered this legislation. Consider the unfortunate decision the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, had to make in respect of the passport of the Trimbole associate, Mr Sala. The identity of Mr Sala was under question as he had been convicted for taking money illegally out of the country. Presumably he was a drug runner, given his association with Trimbole. The mechanisms were so cumbersome that he had to have his passport restored to him by special decision of the Attorney- General, Senator Murphy, while inquiries were still underway about his true identity. Mr Sala was fortunate. His solicitor was Morgan Ryan. The passport was later found to be a forged passport. Sala stayed at a hotel owned by Abe Saffron , and the nation is relieved to have Senator Murphy's name dissociated from a report that Abe Saffron's luggage was not searched when he came through Customs. The use of Saffron's hotel by Sala at first sight may seem a trivial circumstance on which to base any sinister connection between the two, but the fact that both Sala and Saffron got special treatment by departments administered by Senator Murphy at that time, who was dealing with Mr Morgan Ryan who took up the cause of both Sala and Saffron, is not a very pretty coincidence . An even more unpleasant memory pervades the fact that both the action to restore Sala's passport and the action to lift Customs surveillance on Saffron took place in 1974 and 1975. Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I feel I must interrupt the honourable member for Warringah. There are proceedings taking place in another place involving people that the honourable member is mentioning. I do feel that this may well prejudice the fair conduct of those proceedings and I ask you to rule on the matters that the honourable member is bringing before the House. Mr Hayden —Mr Deputy Speaker, can I add to that point of order in a different direction so that you can attend to both matters at once? I thought the honourable member for Lowe was going to raise the same point, that is, that the matters which the honourable member for Warringah is now raising bear no relationship either to the contents of the amendment Bills which are before the House or to the speeches that have been presented. I am normally rather indulgent about these matters but the honourable member has gone to a considerable extent in developing quite irrelevant points, and I ask you to rule that he is out of order. Mr MacKELLAR —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I am prepared to rule on the point of order that has been made at this stage. Mr MacKELLAR —Could I just make the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are talking about passports and the need for this legislation came about because of the work of the Stewart Royal Commission. I am demonstrating that the question is relevant in relation to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Warringah will resume his seat. I have listened very carefully to his remarks. I was of the opinion that he was beginning to stray quite wide of the provisions of the legislation currently before the House. The point made by the honourable member for Lowe was well made and the point made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs I take particular notice of and refer the honourable member to that point. I suggest to him that while I tolerated those remarks for a short period, I did so in the belief that he was endeavouring to come to a point of explanation concerning the legislation. I suggest that he either come to that point now or, in resuming his speech, get back to the content of the legislation. I call the honourable member for Warringah. Mr MacKELLAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly will, because nothing demonstrates more clearly the need for passport issue reform than the Royal Commission's report into passports. As I have already stated, Mr Deputy Speaker, the basis for this legislation was that Royal Commission report. I would like to draw some further attention to the report because I think it is important. The report includes photocopies of Press articles demonstrating the immensity of the criminal activities of men such as Trimbole, Sala and Clark. You will not be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, to note that one report has a headline 'Mutilation Murder'-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Warringah will resume his seat. I suggest that he may be coming very close to defying a ruling of the Chair. I further suggest to him that he does not run that risk and that he gets back to the content of the legislation before the House. I call the honourable member for Warringah. Mr MacKELLAR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no wish to defy the Chair for one moment . All I am seeking to do is to demonstrate that in fact a royal commission report into drugs and drug trafficking found that there was a very real connection between drug couriers and drug running and the administration and procedures relating to passports. That is the very basis of this legislation. It is important to say that some of the aspects of the report bear on current activities, and I do not think that there is anything wrong in relating those matters. If I may proceed-- Mr Hayden —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not a debate about the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking report which , incidentally, covers a period of serious deficiency in the administration of passport legislation, inter alia, under conservative governments in which the honourable member served with some distinction, largely, for some time. The legislation is quite specific in respect of certain amendments. They cover, first, the removal of the distinction between British subjects who are not Australian citizens and other non-citizens, requiring them all to be Australian citizens; secondly, simplified procedures in respect of unmarried children, including exceptional circumstances where authority to obtain a passport has been required; and, thirdly, authority to review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal certain decisions under the Act and the regulations. This is a very narrow amending Bill and in that respect I believe the debate must be narrowly focused as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the point that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised. I uphold the point of order and remind the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) that, having now listened to the matters mentioned by the Minister, he must realise that this is a very narrow and fairly restricted debate. While I have allowed reasonable reference to matters which are to some extent relevant to the Bill and other matters which I took him to be using as an example of a point that he was probably coming to, I must say that I cannot continue to allow him to go along that line because I believe that in doing so he is superseding the subject matters of the Bill. Therefore I suggest to the honourable member that he return to the matters that are currently before the House and that are the subject matter of this Bill. Mr MacKELLAR —Thank you for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have thought that the fact that this Bill has arisen out of an investigation into drugs and drug running and the fact that I have deliberately referred to the fact that passport control needs to be tightened up-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not need the honourable member to remind me of the matters to which he was referring. I was listening attentively to those matters. I made the point to him that he should now not allow those matters to supersede the debate on the subject matter of the Bill. Therefore, I once again ask him to return to the subject matter of the Bill; otherwise it may become necessary for me to suggest that he resume his seat. Mr MacKELLAR —The tighter controls over passports and the inevitable problems of processing them with such care will provide the ordinary citizen with genuine inconvenience. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, as a member of parliament, will no doubt find complaints being directed to him because of the inconvenience that people will suffer simply because the controls will mean that it will take more time for the actual processing to take place. It will cause the administration some serious headaches. We are doing this because of major crime, crime which must be attacked and cleared up. There are other matters which I wish to raise and I would like some responses from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Talking about passports generally, on whose authority was the crown recently removed from the cover of the passport? Many people have written to me expressing great concern at this move, especially considering the attacks that the present Government has made on the national anthem and the flag without a mandate from the people of Australia. I think the change to the passports was made in a pretty underhand manner, without any announcement. Perhaps the Minister can today enlighten me and the people of Australia as to who advised the Passports Committee on the royal crown and whether the action was the result of a directive from anybody within the Labor Party. I raise with the Minister the problems facing adopted persons in the State of Victoria as a result of changes to the passport application procedures. Persons adopted in Victoria face special problems in producing documentary evidence of their Australian citizenship as the sixth schedule certificate issued to adoptees does not indicate their birth within Australia. I understand that the Victorian Government has introduced legislation to overcome this problem but it is a matter that must be resolved quickly and I hope that the Minister will direct his Department to keep a constant watch on the matter and keep pressing the Cain Labor Government in Victoria to have the legislation enacted as soon as possible. Finally, I find the Government's sensitivity to the question of drugs, drug control and passport control extraordinary in relation to the fact that all of us want to see this horrific traffic cleared up. All of us would like to see the persons responsible brought to justice. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister and members of his Party have been so extraordinarily sensitive to any reference to people who are associated with drug trafficking and the efforts to bring them to justice. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(11.57) —I rise to support both of the Bills in this cognate debate, the Passports Amendment Bill and the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill, but I wish to address my remarks particularly to the second measure. My colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) will make some remarks about the Passports Amendment Bill. It is a matter of pleasure to me that the Opposition is supporting the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill, the need for which has come about by virtue of the fact that there are gaps in the present legislation which mean that a sizable number of Australians who die abroad each year cannot have their deaths registered in such a way as to satisfy the procedures of Australian law. As Australians have become such extraordinary travellers in recent years-we are , perhaps, the most travelled nation in the world per head of population-it is an unfortunate fact that more than 200 and perhaps 300 Australians die abroad each year. The vast majority of those persons can have their deaths registered under existing State and Territory legislation, particularly if they are travelling on an Australian ship or aircraft. But there still remain a number, perhaps a dozen or 15, who die in places or circumstances which do not allow their deaths to be registered. This leads to great distress to the families of the people involved. They cannot get a death certificate and this can lead to legal complications when it comes to such matters as the winding up of estates. In my days as an officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs I had personal experience of the case of a woman who died in Central America. It was not possible for her death to be registered and this led to precisely the kinds of legal complications and social distress to which I have referred. For that reason, I particularly welcome the provision in the Bill which allows it to reach back into the past, as it were, and to permit the registration of deaths of Australians who are still on the books as being officially alive. I might add that this Bill closes another loophole in the legislation in that until deaths are registered it is possible to go on paying social security benefits. If those benefits are paid to people who are dead, the taxpayers are entitled to wonder about the system. I particularly welcome that aspect of the Bill. This is obviously not something which affects the vast majority of people, but those people whom it does affect are affected very seriously in both a legal and a social way. I shall not take up any more time of the House to debate this Bill , but I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the fact that these gaps in the legislation have been closed. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(12.00) —I rise to support the legislation, but I wish to point out that there are continuing problems regarding the issuing of passports. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) mentioned the continuing difficulty at the passport office in the State capital, but I want to draw attention to the fact that under the present system there is a very great problem being faced by people in the more distant parts of Australia. People in my electorate, and the electorates of my colleagues in the National Party of Australia, who are contemplating travel face the difficulty that unless they set about the process of obtaining a passport with a very considerable margin of time before their departure from this country they run a real risk of being unable to complete their bookings as intended and thus are placed at great inconvenience. I hope that the matter will be the subject of further scrutiny in an endeavour to overcome this difficulty. The Passports Amendment Bill which is before us relates to changes that involve probably only a few people in the community, but we must be mindful that changes are cushioned to ensure that those who find themselves in a different category because of changed legislation are not disadvantaged. These changes are but a beginning, undoubtedly, to some of the tightening up that is necessary if we are to see resolution of the major problem that confronts the Government and the people of this country. Passports do get into the hands of people who should not hold them. As the honourable member for Warringah pointed out, there is a very great problem in respect of fraud, crime and, particularly, drug trafficking. Those crimes have a direct relationship to the holding of a passport. The holding of a passport facilitates the kind of situation that I have just described. Certainly, the National Party has a very great concern about this matter. I now turn my attention to the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill. An impediment in this area has occasioned problems for a small number of people, but nevertheless its effect has been significant on the Australian scene. Unless this problem is cleared up a wide spectrum of the Australian community will be worried. Nothing causes greater concern today to a family than that if members of that family, irrespective of whether they are young people or of advanced years, contemplate a journey and then are confronted with the legal tangle of what will happen if there is some problem as a result of an accident or an untimely death while they are out of the country. I am pleased to know that the Government has taken steps to clear up some of the difficulties that can arise in situations of this kind. I will not dwell on the matter because I know that the House is endeavouring to see an end to the business today, but I hope the consequences of some of the matters that have been raised will not be overlooked at a future time. I hope that at the conclusion of this debate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will make some pertinent observations regarding the continuing difficulty in serving the community in respect of the issuing of passports to people with legitimate backgrounds, who have an identity that is clear and positive, who set about the task of obtaining a passport and encounter an unexpected processing problem. I refer to those who have not previously applied for a passport but who have been resident in Australia for a long time-they may have a British background and family connections for a couple of generations-who suddenly need to travel and are then faced with the enormous task of obtaining a passport. I believe the electorate office of every honourable member is monitoring the problems which are occurring and are looking to the administration of this service in an endeavour to overcome the difficulties. I in no way reflect on the administration of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In fact, I want to commend in particular the officer in charge of the passports section of the Department in New South Wales. I have found the service from the staff who serve in that section of the Department to be excellent. Some of the difficulties flow back to the guidelines. I refer to the great problem that can arise regarding birth certificates in the case of adopted children and the traumas in which families can find themselves. But the real problem arises when members of a family of long standing have to travel on short notice because of a family illness or some unexpected occurrence. Unless those people get help from someone such as a member of the Federal Parliament or unless they have quick access to a departmental branch in a capital city-even then, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Warringah, it sometimes takes them a full day to find their way through the network in order to solve the problem-they will be faced with a trauma. I urge the Minister to look again at these problems. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12.07) —Australia, since the war, has taken more migrants per capita than any other country except Israel. It is to our credit that these people have become fine Australians, have integrated and have participated in our society. The Passports Amendment Bill and the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill, which are before the House today, are of great importance to many Australians who were born overseas or those, like myself, who are married to somebody who was born overseas. I, with the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson), who spoke previously, pay tribute to the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs in arranging at very short notice passports for Australians who have to travel quickly because of family illness or a great crisis. I wish to address my comments to the Passports Amendment Bill in particular. While the other legislation is important-it will allow the registration of deaths of the 200 Australians who die overseas each year; one case being a constituent of mine , a poor lady whose husband died in Russia, who had an appalling problem getting the coffin and the body home and arranging the funeral-my concern is in relation to the Passports Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have said, this legislation arose out of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which inquired into the issuing of passports. The situation existed whereby any criminal could obtain a passport. One of my constituents, a Mr Flynn of Abbotsford, found one day that someone, a criminal, had obtained a copy of his birth certificate and had illegally obtained a passport in his name. Mr Flynn was very distressed about this. There was a lot of publicity at the time. There was a need to tighten up the provisions regarding the issuing of passports. The Government, acting on a report handed to the previous Government, tightened up the provisions for obtaining passports. I find that, when I explain the reasons why the provisions are more difficult and more demanding, constituents understand. I now find that I have very few complaints at my office about problems with passports. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is to be congratulated also for authorising a letterbox drop in the city and country areas explaining the new provisions to Australians and telling them to apply for a passport early. For some reason people make travel bookings a long time in advance and then at the last minute ask for a passport. They do not realise they might need to provide a copy of their birth certificate and that there are other requirements. I felt that some of the comments of the honourable member for Warringah deserved mention because I find that, now that people understand the procedures, complaints are not coming in. The Department has been very sympathetic. At least one-third of my constituents were born overseas and many cannot find someone to witness their passport applications. Perhaps their doctors are not Australian citizens. Perhaps they have not been here long enough to know the people in the other categories defined in passport rules who could witness their passport applications. If I refer these matters to the Department they are very sympathetically dealt with. I know of no one who had difficulties in getting the application form witnessed and who has not ultimately received a passport. The honourable member for Warringah spoke about the Government's policy on the flag. What he said was nonsense. The Labor Party's policy is not to change the Australian flag without popular approval, just as the Liberal Party held a poll on the national anthem. A statement to that effect is in our printed policy. The only State or Territory that has dropped the Union Jack from the flag is the Northern Territory. The Country-Liberal Party Government has thrown the Union Jack off the Northern Territory's flag. Mr Bilney —The Northern Territory? Mr MAHER —The Northern Territory has got rid of the Union Jack from its flag. In the poll which the Fraser Government held on the national anthem, people in my electorate were overwhelmingly in favour of Advance Australia Fair. The runner- up was Waltzing Matilda. It was the previous Government which held that referendum. In conclusion, I support the legislation. I feel the amendments are necessary to ensure that criminals, particularly drug runners, and people who should not obtain passports will be restrained in obtaining them. I feel there was a commonly held belief that anyone could illegally obtain a passport, that there was not a sufficient overview and scrutiny of those applying for passports. I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation forward at this time. It follows other steps that have been taken to tighten up this whole area of passport issue. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.12) —I wish to contribute very briefly to the debate on the Passports Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is at the table, for giving me the opportunity to speak although my name does not appear on the speakers list. I simply want to point out to the Minister and to the House my concern that justices of the peace are no longer permitted to witness application forms of applicants for passports. As the Minister would be aware, I have made a number of representations to him on this point. I still remain mystified as to why justices of the peace are not permitted to perform this function. As the Minister would be aware, justices of the peace perform a number of judicial functions. They witness bail applications. Although it is not the case in the State of Victoria now, I understand that in other States they also sit on the Bench. I say in passing that I very much regret that justices of the peace no longer sit on the Bench in the State of Victoria. As a solicitor who appeared before justices of the peace on countless occasions, I found them to be the true arbitrators of community justice. I would appreciate it, as would a number of my constituents who have made representations, if the Minister would address himself to this issue in summing up this debate. Constituents, particularly those in the Alberton Shire within my electorate, have expressed their grave concern that justices of the peace are no longer trusted and that the Government no longer has confidence in those who give up a great deal of their free time to participate in this very important semi-judicial office. I say to the Minister that it seems to me that, if justices of the peace do not have the confidence of the Government in the witnessing of passport applications, it is a rejection of the very important work that they do. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(12.15) —in reply-I will respond quickly to the points that have been made. The first point made by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and endorsed quite strongly by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) was a criticism of the processes and the general accommodation in the Sydney Passport Office. It is correct that money has been spent in an endeavour to improve the arrangements there. I also have a feeling that there is room for further improvement. The Department acknowledges that. Mr MacKellar —They are going to move them again, and the cost is $250,000. Mr HAYDEN —I know. Under the recent Budget arrangements a substantial number of additional staff were obtained specifically to provide services in this area. One trusts that such arrangements will overcome the problems of delays to which the honourable members referred. In that respect I have been provided with a table which shows nonetheless that on average-we should all bear in mind the distortions which can come from averages-the delays at all of the major centres are relatively minor. When there is an emergency, I believe that the processing can be expedited. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DELAY IN PASSPORT ISSUE THIS WEEK Post Counter Office Sydney 14 21 Melbourne 6 12 Adelaide 7 days 7 days Perth 7 10 Hobart 3 7 Brisbane 9 10 Civic 7 10 Darwin 21 21 Newcastle 3 7 Excluding postal delay Average 8 12 Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Cowper raised a number of concerns. Apart from the matter I have just attended to, he was concerned about adopted persons in the State of Victoria. I am advised that statutory declarations can be provided by the persons concerned or, if they are minors, by the adopting parents and that this is acceptable. I am assured this procedure gets over the problem to which the honourable member referred. If, however, he finds that problems still arise, and draws them to my attention or directly to the attention of the Department, I will respond promptly. The honourable member for Cowper raised some concern about people having difficulty in establishing their citizenship. As I recall, he said that when people of British background who live in Australia have a need to leave this country quickly for some personal reason or other and require a passport they are often unable to establish their Australian citizenship. To obtain an Australian passport one must be an Australian citizen. However, when there is some confusion or doubt, as in the circumstances the honourable member outlined, or if a very serious problem stands in the way of rapid facilitation of movement of a person to another part of the world, bearing in mind that the circumstances are pressing as the honourable member pointed out, documents of identification can be provided. This is done regularly. This allows a person to sort out his problems and to get a passport, whether it be Australian or British. The honourable member for Warringah suggested rather unkindly that passports would be better administered under any ministerial responsibility but that of mine. I do not think he put it quite as brutally as that-- Mr MacKellar —Or your successors. Mr HAYDEN —Thank you. I am sifting the kindness of the motivation that directs him, often fairly accurately. I am assured by my departmental officers that they have never been able more successfully to cope with the responsibility of administering passport matters than they have been in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I might add that I am sure that is a very wise declaration on their part. If the honourable member for Warringah or anyone else wants to submit to the Government a strong case that there should be a shift, it will always be looked at. It will be looked at receptively, but it will not necessarily result in our endorsing the proposal. I think it would be unwise to have a closed mind on any proposal submitted to us which was designed for or motivated by the purpose of improving the general administration. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) raised the case of justices of the peace having authority to provide endorsements for applicants for passports. The range of people authorised to provide that sort of declaration was hugely diminished as a result of the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Those recommendations came as a result of the rather startling and very disturbing disclosures about the illicit narcotics trade affecting this country. I do not think one has to labour any points on this issue. On a bipartisan basis we are all concerned about that and we recognise the extraordinary difficulties involved in trying to block off the activities of these people. One initiative that had to be undertaken by government was to put in place the Commission's recommendations. I stress 'government' because my predecessor as Foreign Affairs Minister, the then honourable member for Corangamite, Mr Tony Street, authorised the arrangements which were put in place and which are now operating. I, in fact, was responsible for their inception on a date which had been set by Tony Street, but he put those proposals in place. I do not put the situation in this context to try to shift responsibility. On the contrary, I share the concern and endorse the decision that Tony Street took. I merely illustrate the need to be fairly discerning and restrictive in providing this sort of authority by recalling that in New South Wales alone there are well in excess of 160,000 justices of the peace and in Queensland well over 50,000 people who have that public title. In those circumstances it has been felt that it is not appropriate to relist justices of the peace to have this authority, bearing in mind the very firm conclusions and recommendations in general terms submitted by the Stewart Royal Commission. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.22) —I formally put on record that the Opposition has no objection to the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill. We welcome it because it cuts out a number of problems for the relatives of deceased Australians in trying to settle estates. It also brings us up to date with certain international practices. It may also help to stamp out some frauds in the social security area and that, of course, is also welcome. I have one query. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in his second reading speech, commented that the Bill would also cut out some of the abuse with Australian passports. In view of some of the matters that I endeavoured to raise here today about the problems of passports, I would appreciate learning from the Minister how this legislation will help to stop the abuse of Australian passport procedures. I also hope that the paperwork to be set up for the Registrar will not be cumbersome and that the information and assistance to relatives of deceased persons will be forthcoming easily, cheaply and quickly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) read a third time. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1984 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 49, sub-clause 31 (3), lines 1 to 5, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-sections 26 (1), 27 (1), 28 (1), 29 (1) or 30 ( 1) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.''. No. 2-Page 54, sub-clause 36 (3), lines 18 to 21, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and sub- section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-sections 35 (1) or (3) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.''. No. 3-Page 60, sub-clause 42 (3) lines 34 to 37, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-sections 41 (1) or (2) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.''. No. 4-Page 64, sub-clause 46 (5), lines 33 to 35, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(5) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section 46 (2) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.''. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(12.25) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Government has decided to accept the amendments to the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. The amendments provide for either House to disallow determinations by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to vary certain grants to tertiary institutions. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(12.26) —The Opposition is pleased that these amendments have been agreed to by the Government. We think they provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of quite important decisions in this area. We will naturally support their recommendation to this House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —by leave -I am pleased to inform honourable members that, following consideration of the recommendations put forward in the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Government has moved to establish, from today, a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. In order to ensure prompt action in this priority area the National Commission will be established immediately on a non-statutory basis, pending the introduction of appropriate legislation by the Parliament. Honourable members will recall that on 29 May 1984, when presenting to Parliament the report of the Interim Commission, I reiterated this Government's commitment to improving the national performance in the field of occupational health and safety. Our goal is to reduce the unacceptably high national record of occupational death, injury and illness. On average, every working day in Australia there is one occupational fatality. Industrial accidents leading to lost time injuries occur 600 times a day throughout the nation. Consideration of the recommendations put forward in the Interim Commission's excellent report has served only to strengthen the commitment to addressing these problems and to increasing the Government's determination to implement, as a matter of priority, its national occupational health and safety strategy. Overall Economic Policy A basic objective of the prices and incomes accord is the improvement of working conditions. A national occupational health and safety strategy is, therefore, an essential component of the non-wage aspect of the accord. At the heart of this commitment is the Government's belief that all workers have the right to a safe and healthy working environment. It is important to remember that the establishment of the National Commission is a significant part of the Government's overall economic policy. Taxation cuts represent one aspect of Government policy aimed at improving the lot of wage and salary earners. Of equal significance is the Government's determination to improve working conditions to ensure, as far as possible, that all Australians work in a safe and healthy environment and to encourage work involvement and job satisfaction. To this end, for instance, I announced last month a scheme under which the Government will subsidise selected organisations introducing industrial democracy practices. This significant Government initiative to foster employee participation goes hand in hand with moves to tackle the long neglected area of occupational health and safety, with employees and their employers jointly involved in working to improve conditions. This Government believes that improvements in occupational health and safety will come about only through active participation of workers and their representatives in decisions about their health and safety, whether those decisions are made at the work place, State or Federal government level. These initiatives are part of the Government's integrated, long term economic management plan. Principles In preparing its report the Interim Commission followed certain principles which it has recommended form the basis of the National Commission's operation. The Government has endorsed those principles, and has structured the National Commission in a way that ensures their continuation. The Government agrees that the success of a national strategy relies heavily on the commitment of employers , employees and their respective organisations and governments to an equitable and prevention-oriented occupational health and safety system-a system based on the principles of participation and acceptance of appropriate responsibility. Central to this strategy is our commitment to consultation and co-operation-with State and Territory governments, the trade unions, employers and their organisations, occupational health and safety specialists and community groups. Tripartism The National Commission will be tripartite in nature. The achievements of the Interim Commission have confirmed the Government's view that sustained progress can best be achieved through the close co-operation and involvement of employee and employer peak councils and the State, Territory and Commonwealth Governments . Tripartism is not only the most positive way of working within Australia's constitutional framework; it also ensures that the principal representative parties involved in the area of occupational health and safety develop a close working relationship, an understanding of each others' points of view and a commitment to common goals. The work of the Interim Commission has demonstrated the success of the tripartite approach and it is entirely appropriate to have the national co-ordination of health and safety initiatives being discussed and determined in a tripartite forum. Commonwealth-State Relations The Government endorses the Interim Commission's view that the role of the Commonwealth should be primarily one of co-ordination and facilitation. The major jurisdiction over occupational health and safety lies with the States, some of which have recently taken significant initiatives in this field. State and Commonwealth governments have clear and distinctive roles and responsibilities in this area. The establishment of the National Commission will see no transfer of these responsibilities, but the undertaking of additional, beneficial activities. The significant Commonwealth input will be in standards development, research, training and information collection and dissemination, all more efficiently and effectively done at a national level. The proposals thus represent a positive initiative in co-operative federalism. Through the establishment of the permanent National Commission co-ordination and collaboration of efforts between State and Federal governments will be a reality . Of top priority for the new Commission will be the development of uniform legislative approaches in occupational health and safety and the development of national standards. There currently exist in Australia some 160 Acts and ordinances relating to occupational health and safety. This situation must be rationalised, not only to ensure that the legislation itself is up to date and incorporates the highest possible standards, but also to ensure that it is effectively enforced. Consultation The processes of consultation and participation which were developed by the Interim Commission are to be incorporated in the National Commission's method of operation. The Government agrees that the National Commission's responsiveness and flexibility will be enhanced by drawing upon the existing wide range of occupational health and safety expertise and experience available in Australia. The principal framework for consultation is to be through an infrastructure of committees under the National Commission. These committees will follow the principle of tripartism but, where appropriate, will also include persons with specialist knowledge or experience of occupational health and safety in general, or of the particular subject matter to be addressed by the committee. Care will be taken to ensure that, within the consultative process, there is proper representation of the interests of women, migrants and groups with special needs . In addition, I am cognisant of the valuable work and standing of a variety of community and worker health centres. These groups will have the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the work of the Commission through their participation on standing committees and working parties. Membership Turning now to the operational aspects of the National Commission, I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members of the membership composition. The Government has decided that, in addition to the 16 members recommended in the report, there should also be immediate representation of the Australian Territories through a representative of the Department of Territories and Local Government. This reflects the particular role and relationship the Commission will have to the Australian Capital Territory, where Commonwealth jurisdiction extends to all employees, both in the public and the private sectors. It is the Government's intention to advertise both nationally and internationally the position of fulltime Chairperson and chief executive of the National Commission. Until the Chairperson is appointed, Mr Jim Brassil of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will serve in this capacity. The response of State and Territory governments and their willingness to co- operate in this initiative have been heartening. All States and Territories will be represented on the National Commission and all have endorsed their continuing role in this national endeavour. Composition of the membership is to be: Three members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; three members nominated by the Confederation of Australian Industry; one member nominated by each State Premier, and one by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; one member nominated by the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; one member nominated by the Commonwealth Minister for Health; and one member nominated by the Commonwealth Department of Territories and Local Government. The establishment of the National Commission sees the finalisation of the work of the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the National Consultative Committee, which supported the Interim Commission by providing a forum where State and Federal Governments and union and employer peak bodies could provide input to the deliberative processes of the Interim Commission. Budget Honourable members will have noted the provision in the 1984-85 Budget for developing the Government's national occupational health and safety strategy. The allocation of $12.1m marks a trebling of the Commonwealth Government's funding of occupational health and safety programs-a definitive measure of the Government's determination to achieve real progress without delay. The consolidation of existing programs under the umbrella of the National Commission is a result of the Government's assessment that the effectiveness of the national occupational health and safety strategy will be increased through co- ordination by one agency reporting to a single Minister. The Government has determined that sole responsibility for occupational health and safety matters at the federal level should reside with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. This rationalisation of responsibility will considerably simplify the administration of the occupational health and safety strategy. The activities of a number of existing Commonwealth agencies will be consolidated, without undue delay, to provide a functional base for the Commission's operations. For example, Department of Health staff and resources engaged in occupational health and safety research, training and education functions should become part of the proposed Institute. Apart from this formal transfer of responsibilities, there will be provision for close inter-agency links between the National Commission and all other areas of Commonwealth Government with an interest in occupational health and safety related matters. What we expect from the expenditure committed to the national strategy is not that the Commonwealth will be subsidising the States in their areas of responsibility, but rather that we will enable a national approach to the activities which can be undertaken most effectively and efficiently at a national level. Chemical Hazards Another major aspect of the Interim Commission's recommendations relates to the control of hazardous chemicals. The Interim Commission concurred with previous inquiries in finding that existing controls over the importation, manufacture and use of industrial chemicals were inadequate, and that a co-ordinated national approach to the control of hazardous chemicals was required. Considerable progress towards this end has already been made. A national chemicals notification and assessment scheme, which will provide a mechanism for evaluating new chemicals before they enter the Australian market, and also for the assessment of existing chemicals, has been developed by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, under the auspices of the Australian Environment Council. It is intended that this scheme should become mandatory in 1985 under complementary Commonwealth and State legislation. A discussion paper on the scheme was published in June of this year. The Interim Commission considered that proper control over the occupational use of chemicals would reduce the potential for hazardous exposures both in the work place and the environment and further, since the most significant exposures to chemicals occur in the work place, the National Commission should have responsibility for the administration of the national notification and assessment scheme. The Government has adopted the view that primary carriage of the national chemicals notification and assessment scheme should become the responsibility of the National Commission at the completion of the development phase. It has decided that further development of the scheme should remain the responsibility of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, which will continue to consult with all interested parties including the National Commission. Consultations with State authorities directly and through the National Commission will be particularly important. Under the proposed arrangements there will be only one national notification point for industrial chemicals. Occupational health hazards will be assessed by the Institute, and the risk of chemicals to the environment will be assessed within the Home Affairs and Environment portfolio. The Government is concerned to ensure that the new arrangements will not involve duplication of functions, and that there will be close consultation and co-ordination on a continuing basis between the interested government authorities. The Government expects that the national notification and assessment scheme for industrial chemicals will be established in mid-1985. The scheme will then be the principal means of identifying and evaluating chemical hazards to workers, to the public and to the environment, and will provide the information necessary for the proper control of hazardous chemicals. The introduction of this scheme, with its primary focus on industrial chemicals, will complement existing licensing arrangements and schemes now operating at the Federal and State Government level for assessing the human health effects and efficacy of agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food additives and veterinary drugs. Organisation The National Commission is to be an umbrella organisation encompassing a National Occupational Health and Safety Office, as its operational arm, and a National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety as its technical and scientific arm. The National Commission chairperson will be Chief Executive of the National Commission and Director of the Office. The Institute will be managed by the Director of the Institute, who will be directly accountable to the Commission chairperson. The position of Director of the Institute will be advertised nationally and internationally as soon as possible. National Institute The proposed National Institute is expected to be a most important part of our national strategy. It is to be the scientific and technical arm of the National Commission but it will also be able to develop an identity of its own because of the nature of its work. We expect that it will provide an independent source of scientific research and assessment which will be recognised in the academic world as well as making a significant contribution to the work of the National Commission. While the Interim Commission recognised the importance of the above factors, it is also evident that the complexity of modern industrial processes and technology requires a highly technical and professional approach to many occupational health and safety problems, particularly in the development and application of preventive strategies. An increased emphasis on research and training is essential to develop this expertise. There is also a need to develop facilities dedicated to improving and co-ordinating the wide range of skills required. The National Commission will provide the focus for this range of activities. To assist with the proper development of the Institute I have been in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Officers of our departments are seeking the immediate services of a number of people who would be available to serve on an Institute planning committee. Those selected will be required to have a wide background in research and scientific studies and should include one or more persons acknowledged as experts in occupational health or occupational safety by those currently involved in these fields. We have asked this to be done so that the National Commission will have a range of people to select from when planning the Institute. Location The Interim Commission report recommended that the National Commission, Office and Institute should be co-located in either Sydney or Melbourne. Federal Government resources now operating in this area are currently based in Sydney and Canberra. While I am mindful of the need to finalise the location question, I am concerned that any decision made be based on the fullest consideration of the options which are available. I will give further consideration to this issue as a matter of priority. Priorities There are some significant areas to which the National Commission will want to give attention as soon as possible. The Government does not seek to set the priorities-these should be determined in the tripartite forum which is being constituted. There is considerable community concern being expressed about repetition strain injuries and asbestos and the Government would be anxious for these two areas of concern to be addressed urgently by the Commission. Our strategy should bring a national focus to problems such as these, leading to their control and, desirably, complete elimination. Interim Arrangements While the Government was considering the many recommendations of the Interim Commission we did not permit work to cease. The Secretariat of the Interim Commission was retained and those elements of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations responsible for the physical working environment were combined with it to form a National Occupational Health and Safety Secretariat. This group has been able to take responsibility for ongoing tasks necessary to ensure that the work of the new National Commission will be able to commence without delay. The Secretariat's work, research and the consultants' reports it commissioned, will be available to the National Commission for evaluation and any necessary action. The Government took this step so that there would be no slackening in the impetus which had been generated by the work of the Interim Commission. Commission's role The Commonwealth's aim is very much to give a national focus to the general upgrading of efforts in the area of occupational health and safety. In addition, the Government is committed to implementing efficient occupational health and safety legislation and prevention programs in areas of its own jurisdiction: As an employer in the case of Commonwealth employment, and as a government in the case of the Australian Capital Territory and external Territories. The existing Committee on Occupational Health and Safety in Australian Government Employment is to be brought under the umbrella of the National Commission, to act in an advisory capacity as a standing committee. Australian Capital Territory The Government agrees with the Interim Commission's view that existing Australian Capital Territory legislation is wholly inadequate and that new comprehensive legislation is urgently required. Our objective will be uniformity of legislation and standards covering both public and private sectors in the Australian Capital Territory thus enabling effective inspectorate and prevention services. The Government has determined that the Commission should address the development of such legislation for all Commonwealth jurisdiction as a matter of the highest priority. I will be asking the Commission to consider as a matter of urgency a range of options necessary to improve prevention services in the Australian Capital Territory. I would expect this consideration to result in initiatives in a number of areas including training requirements, occupational health services provision and information dissemination, as well as the development of legislation. The Government's legislative commitments are, therefore, twofold: To develop immediately legislation establishing the national Commission as a statutory body and comprehensive legislation covering the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Both COHSAGE and Australian Capital Territory private sector interests will be closely involved in consideration of this legislation. As a measure of our concern to see real progress in the Australian Capital Territory we have, as I mentioned before, provided for immediate representation on the Commission of the interests of the Australian Territories, through a nominee from the Department of Territories and Local Government. The Future The National Commission faces an enormous challenge. Many current occupational health and safety problems require immediate attention. The first difficult task will be to determine priorities for action. The Government is under no illusions about the magnitude of the job ahead. We are fully aware that the establishment of the National Commission is but the first step towards healthy and safe working conditions for all Australians. Honourable members should, however, be in no doubt as to the seriousness of our commitment to this project. The National Commission forms the cornerstone of a co-ordinated attack on the barriers which have for so long hampered progress in occupational health and safety. A great deal has been achieved by those already working in the area: Governments, the union movement, employers, occupational health and safety specialists and community groups. We are aware of the progress to date, much of which was revealed during the wide-ranging consultations held by the Interim Commission and in the many written submissions prepared for Interim Commission consideration. I am confident that the momentum for activity in this important area can be maintained and will result in measurable improvements in our occupational injury and illness experience and, indeed, the working environments of Australians generally. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.49) —Today in the grievance debate I wish to raise the maladministration of the Department of Health by the current Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). The first matter I raise is the misuse of taxpayers' funds for political advertising. Currently there is an $800,000 advertising campaign. The figure is at least $800,000 insofar as I can get any information from the Minister's office on the matter. I understand that so far about $600,000 has been spent on television and another $200,000 on Press advertisements. This advertising, scheduled clearly in the run-up to the election, is intended to advertise a program of the Australian Labor Party using taxpayers' funds. I will read to the House a Press release which has just been issued by the National President of the General Practitioners Society in Australia, Dr Jodhi Menon, which I think makes the point very clearly. Dr Menon said: Full page advertisements in last Sunday's newspapers contain statements that are blatantly fraudulent and misleading with respect to important aspects of Medicare. While many of the statements are half-truths, two are completely false . These are the assertions that 'you still have the freedom to buy whatever private health insurance you feel necessary', and that 'you can decide how much health insurance you want'. One of the most objectionable features of Medicare is the removal of the citizen's freedom to decide for himself what he wishes to insure and with whom . . . Medicare is a monopoly, and a coercive monopoly at that and has been going long enough now for all to know that it exists. Can Government demonstrate that there was a need to expend such large amounts of public money on these advertisements? We regard this as 'overservicing' by government and its agencies. The person or persons responsible should be ordered to repay to the taxpayer the large sums of money misappropriated in this way. The General Practitioners' Society in Australia challenges the Government to prove that the said statements are not false. If they cannot, then a full retraction should be published. The perpetrators of this fraud should have to meet the expenses involved, and should receive their due in a court of law. Mr Braithwaite —It is an extension of public funding for elections. Mr CARLTON —It is an extension of public funding for elections except that in this case the ALP has fraudulently misappropriated at least $800,000 in addition to what it would get under the public funding provisions. This is not the only thing that this Minister has done. Just after the Budget the Capital Territory Health Commission, which is another statutory corporation directly under his control, issued Press releases about Budget items and in those Press releases quoted the candidate for the ALP in the seat of Fraser as announcing those budgetary measures. So taxpayers' funds were used through the Capital Territory Health Commission to name a Labor Party candidate while there was already an existing member in that seat, and that was a total misuse of taxpayers' money. The Minister did not reprimand the Capital Territory Health Commission. It is quite clear that that occurred under the Minister's political instructions, and the public ought to know that. Another thing about which I am concerned very seriously in the administration by this Minister is the incompetence that he showed over the amendments to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, in the Medicare legislation. We will be dealing with that later on this afternoon when we examine the report of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. But I have already said publicly that the Minister's actions in section 17 were not based on any observable fact and that he himself was fully responsible for a doctors' strike, the first doctor's strike in Australia's history. Through his inciting of State Ministers to take out complementary penal legislation against doctors he was responsible also for the resignations of visiting medical specialists in New South Wales, and that matter still has not been resolved. He was guilty of incompetence in his scheme to categorise private hospitals, and this was also subject to bungling by the administration of his Department. The original categorisation proposals did not meet the requirements of the Act, and every single private hospital in Australia had to resubmit its categorisation proposals because the Department had failed to meet its own criteria in the legislation. But, worse than that, the proposals attempt to categorise hospitals and not patients, so that a patient with exactly the same condition going into a category 1 hospital gets benefits of $160 a day and the patient going into a category 3 hospital for the very same treatment gets $100 a day. That categorisation proposal was absolutely flawed in basic logic from the very beginning. It was a stupid proposal; it remains stupid and, of course, doctors are sending patients with minor conditions to category 1 hospitals where they will get $160 a day. Category 3 hospitals on $100 a day are going broke and their beds are empty through this absurd categorisation provision. I understand a task force report will be published later today pointing out the nonsense of that, but we will not have the opportunity to debate it in this House. The next point of maladministration is the cruelty and the impracticability of the 35-day rule for patients in public and private hospitals, the measure whereby new and cruel criteria are imposed on the elderly and long term sick making it difficult to retain their benefits beyond 35 days in a public or private hospital. I have dealt with that extensively in the House and will continue to do so. The next point I mention is the unwarranted replacement of the Head of the Department of Health, Mr Laurie Willett, by the former Head of the Department of Health in New South Wales, Mr Bernie McKay. This I regard as a very serious action on the part of the Minister because, when I was Minister for Health, I organised an orderly transition from the previous Director-General to Mr Laurie Willett, following all the proper procedures of the Public Service. I informed the then Opposition spokesman, now Minister for Health, what I was doing and why . I was very keen to have an orderly transition. The Department needed this transition in order to improve its management practices and I wanted to bring in a public servant of impeccable credentials, using all the proper procedures laid down by the Public Service Board and the Cabinet rules. I informed my opposite number of that so that there would be no suggestion whatever that that was a political appointment and I know that he accepts that it was not such an appointment. But now, after a very short period and without any evidence at all- for what reason I cannot possibly imagine-he has brought in the head of the New South Wales Department after a period of unprecedented turbulence in the health care services of New South Wales, including the confrontation of the doctors with Mr Brereton, followed by Mr Mulock and Mr Wran's seven-year legislation against the doctors. He has replaced a good, sound, neutral public servant in Canberra with the Head of the Department in New South Wales who has come from a period of great turbulence. That, to me, is an astonishing change to be made. Much of the advice that has come to this Minister has not come from normal departmental officers but from outside consultants who share his socialist views about the nationalisation of health. Foremost amongst these has been the health economist, Dr John Deeble. He has been advising the Minister on such things as section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, which led to the doctors' strike; the categorisation of private hospitals which is unsound in logic and in practice; and changes to the 35-day rule. In fact, all these bungling and incompetent aspects of Medicare have been the result, partly at least, of the advice of outside advisers, including the original architect of Medibank, in the early 1970s, Dr John Deeble. I have to inform the House that there is grave concern based at this stage only on rumour, but rumour which is so serious, and I think soundly based, that it should be mentioned so that the matter can be debated in public. There is grave concern in the Department and in the Commonwealth Institute of Health that the new Australian Institute of Health to be set up under budgetary allocations this year of about $5m will be placed under the direction of Dr Deeble, and that most of the activities of the new Australian Institute of Health will be made up of the Commonwealth Institute, which is based in Sydney. I am advised that the intention is to place a health economist in charge of health researchers, mainly medical people in Sydney, and that Dr Deeble will continue to be based in Canberra, with a minimal staff here. There is grave concern amongst those who work in the Commonwealth Institute that they will have over them a health economist with political and socialist leanings, and also that the head of that group will be responsible in future for the health services planning research and development grants program which was previously separate from the Commonwealth Institute of Health. This means that there is grave concern that $ 5m worth of taxpayers' research money will be under the control of a committed political adviser to this Minister, a person with a record of advising the Minister during a disastrous period of administrative incompetence with this new scheme. I am raising this matter now in the hope that I will stop it from occurring. I raise it deliberately and I am very concerned about it because a number of people have approached me from within the Public Service and other areas expressing their grave concern over this matter. I hope the Minister will give away any ideas he has to extend Dr Deeble's influence in these matters any further. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(1.00) — The 1983 and 1984 Budgets graphically demonstrate the strong commitment the Hawke Government has to the development of the Northern Territory. Much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues, the Northern Territory has become known as the billion dollar electorate. In 19 months the Hawke Government has committed itself to a billion dollar program to develop the Territory's public infrastructure over the next five to six years. I think I can claim some small credit for this massive capital works program. As a part of the Hawke Government I have been able to impress on the very able Ministers in this Government just how important it is to develop our great north . It is important for the nation that the wealth and the resources in the north be developed; it is important for our national security that the north is developed; and it is important to the public purse that the Northern Territory, in particular, be developed so that it can eventually become an independent economic unit. The billion dollar capital works program the Hawke Government is undertaking in the Northern Territory is an integral step in the Northern Territory's development. It is integral to the Territory's eventual economic independence, that it have a secure, infrastructure base. Without that secure infrastructure base the Northern Territory's private industry will continue the cyclical boom and bust that has characterised its past. The Hawke Government, with my urging, has reversed the neglect which the Territory has experienced under the Fraser Government and previous governments. In the next five to six years the Hawke Government will fund the construction of a new power station in Darwin, at a cost of about $480m. We will build the $ 100m Darwin international airport. We will spend around $110m upgrading the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory, on top of the millions being spent on the Stuart Highway in South Australia. That will provide the Territory, South Australia and Australia with a two-lane all-weather link from Adelaide to Darwin by the end of 1987. The Hawke Government will also construct the $176m Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base and when a squadron of FA18s is stationed there towards the end of this decade the north will be much more secure than it is now . Telecom Australia's remote area program, with its digital radio concentrated system, will give everyone in the Territory a telephone by the end of this decade. Our Aussat satellite system will bring radio and television to everyone in the Territory in a little over a year from now. Those are the most significant aspects of the Hawke Government's one billion dollar capital works program to set in place a solid infrastructure base for the Northern Territory and that will happen by the end of this decade. Then, the Territory will have the roads, power stations, airports, communication facilities, defence bases, and so on, that it needs. At the same time, in addition, the Hawke Government has provided $936m this year to the Northern Territory Government. It has also introduced a special remote area allowance, thereby increasing the income of some 16,000 pensioners and benefit recipients in the Northern Territory. It has also increased the taxation zone allowance by 25 per cent, thereby giving Territorians a special tax cut on top of the tax cut given to all Australians. All these decisions are part of the Hawke Government's program to develop the Northern Territory and the north of this great nation. But governments can do only so much. We can provide the public infrastructure and a favourable economic climate. The Northern Territory will reach its ultimate potential only if the Hawke Government's commitment of public investment is backed up by private investment. The Northern Territory is no different from the rest of Australia in this respect. That is why this Government has done all it can in the recent Budget to encourage private investment. The accelerated depreciation allowance from 2 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent for non-residential income-producing assets is an example. That decision should be of great benefit in attracting private investment into the tourist industry in the Northern Territory in particular. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in the House earlier this week, it is: . . . the fabric of confidence for investment in the Territory which can only hold the prospect of ever seeing a true move to statehood. Without high levels of private sector investment, the Territory will never make statehood. However, the Hawke Government's overall commitment to the development of the Northern Territory-its public sector capital works program, the one billion dollar program; its record funding for the Northern Territory; and its encouragement to private industry such as the tourist industry to invest in the Northern Territory-might all be thwarted by the Northern Territory Government's extraordinary confiscation of the casino complexes in the Northern Territory. These complexes were owned by a private company which pioneered casinos not only in the Northern Territory but also in the rest of Australia. It has a very significant stake in the tourist industry throughout Australia. It is quite extraordinary that this company has had its assets confiscated and to this date has not been paid a single cent for them. The Northern Territory Government has, in this instance, interfered in the private market place in a dangerous and extraordinary way. The purpose of the confiscation is not only to hold and operate the assets in some form of nationalisation, but also to give part of them to two overseas operators. Whatever the reasons for it, I do not think this conduct can be justified. The whole unsavoury episode is a sorry warning for private companies that may be looking at investment in the Northern Territory in the future and I am most concerned that this extraordinary action by the Everingham Government will put the Territory's development very much at risk. The whole affair is being condemned by all sorts of people. I will quote just a few. An article in the Age newspaper refers to Mr Haddad, the Managing Director of Federal Pacific Hotels. It states: 'Mr Haddad said he found it hard to believe that the NT Government's legislation could be introduced in a democracy. He said he had received calls from overseas business acquaintances who asked whether Bob Hawke was at last showing his true colours. ''I say on the contrary; it is a Liberal Government,' he said. The Australian Financial Review in an editorial on 3 October said: Anyone else who is contemplating business dealings with the Northern Territory Government will now be asking themselves just how much weight they can put in the assurances of the administration which is establishing this sort of precedent. Will they undertake heavy borrowings and put pressure on corporate cash flow in the expectation of future returns from some enterprise in the Northern Territory , only to find themselves being expropriated by Government legislation with the enterprise they have developed being handed over to some other business interests? . . . If this is the sort of administrative decision-making which is to be practised in the Territory, it is an open question just how many other business investors will be prepared to rely on the vagaries of the Everingham administration's approach to business. In a letter to the editor in the Australian Financial Review today Mr B. J. Allman said: New precedents of government interference, legislation and interpretations of laws are occurring with growing rapidity and with little reaction from opposition parties or the business community. It seems that even the 'letter of the law' can no longer be relied upon. Government moves like the current NT one are dangerous precedents for the future and tear at the fabric of free enterprise. That letter raised an interesting point. I will repeat one section: . . . and with little reaction from opposition parties or the business community. It is amazing to note that none of the so-called free market rationalists in the Liberal and National parties have yet said a word of condemnation of this extraordinary move. None of the people who come in here and rant and rave about socialism has said one word about the extraordinary confiscation of the assets of a private company and its partial nationalisation. After all, the person behind it is one of their candidates for the forthcoming elections. Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) support his candidate in these elections on this extraordinary confiscation move? What about that great free market rationalist, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Where is his voice of protest? The only conclusion that one can reach is that the silence from the Liberal and National parties indicates that they are happy to accept a compromise to their so-called small government limited public sector policy and they support the confiscation of private industries' assets. I challenge them now to join the general condemnation of this extraordinary move of the Everingham Government. As I said at the outset, the Hawke Government has put its money where its mouth is in the development of the Northern Territory. By contrast, the Opposition candidates, with the acquiescence of the Liberal and National parties at a national level, appear to be hell bent on destroying the Northern Territory's hope for future development. Despite this inexplicable sabotage attempt I think that the Hawke's Government's commitment will prevail and in the not too distant future we will see the Territory become a strong independent economic unit and Australia's seventh state. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(1.10) —I rise today to draw the House's attention to the failure of the Government to provide adequately for the funding of child care services. An inordinate delay exists in considering applications for the provision of child care services and the allocation of adequate funding to enable existing services, such as the service at Grafton in my electorate, to continue to operate is a matter of real concern. I call on the Government to relate its encouragement to the communities of Australia to support the development of child care services and similar facilities to its ability to fund such services. I am absolutely appalled to find that with a Budget introduced only a few weeks ago there is a shortfall, as I understand it, of $35m in the amount required to fund child care services for which applications have been made throughout Australia. I see this, of course, more directly in my own electorate. The Grafton child care service was established along orthodox lines a year or so ago. Naturally, it had to meet the requirements of the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services in respect of staffing and the qualifications of those who are engaged to conduct the service. It was able to begin operating because funding was made available in part from a community employment grant, and at the same time from a subsidy from the State Department, YACS as it is known. The service has operated to the advantage of the local community now for a period. But a crisis has occurred. In the last few weeks it became obvious that there was no Federal funding in sight, there was no follow-through funding from the State Government and the benefits from the community employment funding would terminate within a few months. I have made representations in this matter and I find that there is no specific provision to try to ensure that a service already operating can be given the benefit of a subsidy to enable it to continue. In other words, this Government, with all its claim to virtue in the field of social welfare, is presiding over the closing of a child care service. I regard that as a lamentable situation. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in another place on this matter and I hope that he will be compassionate and consider the circumstances very speedily. I just want to clear up one or two misunderstandings that apparently exist on the official file in respect of this matter. First of all, the very excellent leadership given in the establishment of the service by Mrs Fran Hampshire, who is the co-ordinator, goes beyond the ordinary call of duty in a community sense. Having been directly responsible for negotiating the community employment grant application and then its successful approval-I was glad to give my concurrence to that some time ago-it enabled a grade 5 clerk, a trainee under the guidelines of that grant, to assume responsibility for part of the work to conduct the service. But Mrs Hampshire is giving 7 1/2 hours per day, five days a week, to enable this service to operate. In other words, a voluntary worker giving 7 1/2 hours a day, five days a week is the real linchpin in the operation of the service. The 20 per cent grant which came from the State Department of Youth and Community Services enabled, together with local funding, the employment of a qualified person as the staff member directly responsible. Now, of course, that cannot continue because there is insufficient revenue from merely donation sources and contributions from service clubs and local citizens, parents and other sources. It was believed that once the Budget was brought down funding in this field would be sufficient to ensure that a service such as this would have no problems at all. There was no doubt that it could continue but this is not the case. I appeal to the Government and to the Minister to review the whole circumstances of the setting of priorities for services of this kind, to review situations where there is a content of government funding, particularly Federal Government funding through community employment, which comes to an end without any arrangements for the requirement to be picked up by the appropriate department. In this case, a subvention is required from the Department of Social Security with negotiations of an appropriate nature with the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services to ensure that the Grafton child care service is able to continue. I hope that, if this is an example of the administrative skill of the Hawke Government, in the next few weeks this sort of inept inefficiency at the expense of families, children and well-meaning community groups will be exposed to the light of day. I hope that there will be an end to the nonsense of extolling the great virtues of these services, with both State and Federal authorities saying in advertisements and over the radio: 'See your local council, see your local community group, see your local neighbourhood centre. These services are there for the people'. We then find that it is all a sham. I hope that sham will come to an end. Today is the last day on which the service in my electorate that I have just outlined can operate. There will be insufficient funding as from tomorrow for the service to continue. I appeal to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) who represents the Minister for Social Security in this place to ensure that what I have said in this grievance debate is taken very seriously by those who are directly concerned with the matter. I turn very quickly to one or two other significant problems confronting not only my electorate but also that of my colleague, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in northern New South Wales. In the Budget before last, provision was made for funding to enable the upgrading of regional airports under local ownership. Negotiations proceeded but they took time and Budget allocations in the previous financial year were, in fact, not taken up to enable this work to be carried out at Coffs Harbour. In the last Budget the funds were provided again and, in addition, funding was provided for the upgrading of the Casino airport. But the wheels are turning very slowly. While the negotiations for local ownership, in the case of Coffs Harbour, have been concluded and the hand-over took place many months ago, the necessary steps to accord with the studies, the technical designing and so on in the case of both airports is moving very slowly. I am sure that while the local authorities are doing all they can, there is a need for some impetus on the part of the Department of Aviation to ensure that this work proceeds. The work needs to proceed quickly for two reasons: Firstly, to enable these airports to be upgraded as promised and, secondly, to enable much needed employment to be provided. A boost to employment in that region of Australia would be of great value to the immediate community. The final reason I advance is the importance to the tourist industry of the early completion of these airport upgradings to encourage growth for that industry. This is of very great importance, not only to the immediate community but also to other communities that are related to those regions in the north coast area of New South Wales. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.20) —I wish to use the opportunity of this grievance debate to pass some comments concerning the role of the Liberal and National parties in what has become known as the Morgan Ryan affair. I stress that nothing that I say should be taken in any way to reflect on the integrity of the members of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Nevertheless, it is encumbent on me to highlight a number of matters of direct relevance to the basis of the Senate inquiry. I can begin in no better way than to highlight the comments of Sir James Killen, writing in the Melbourne Herald only a few days ago. He said: This country is doing great damage to itself, to its institutions, to its people, to its liberties and its future by tolerating and accepting forms of accusation, enquiry and proof which are absolutely alien to a people whose history encompasses centuries of struggle and sacrifice for freedom, justice and orderly processes. These comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, clearly have the greatest relevance to the current Senate Committee inquiry. Much has been said in an attempt to discredit those who have some past or present association with the Australian Labor Party in the course of the Senate inquiry and during the political debate leading to the establishment of that inquiry. We, on this side of the chamber, have refrained from getting involved in highlighting the role of the Liberal and National parties in what has become known as the Morgan Ryan affair. Mr Ryan, I might add, is still to stand trial in New South Wales and at this time has not been convicted of a criminal offence. He, like other Australians, has a right, or ought to have a right to a fair trial, although his right to a fair trial, like those others, has inevitably suffered during the course of the Senate inquiry. Certain further matters must, however, be raised concerning the Morgan Ryan case which are vital to an informed, public assessment of the credibility of the Opposition in its role in supporting the establishment of a Senate committee to inquire into the conduct of his Honour Mr Justice Murphy. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) highlighted in the House yesterday, it was Attorney- General Senator Gareth Evans who made the decision to send Mr Morgan Ryan for trial. The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday posed the question of the Opposition: 'What did it do about the matter when in Government?' That question deserves an answer. Mr Ryan was committed for trial on 22 March 1982. Then commenced a series of events which leave many questions unanswered concerning the administration of justice in the Commonwealth by the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack. It is a matter of historical record that a member of the Liberal Government, the then Fraser Government, was prominent in making representations on 21 June 1982 for a no bill to be filed in respect of the Morgan Ryan case. Mr Jack Birney, then the member of parliament for Phillip, formally wrote to the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, supporting a no bill application in this matter. My information is that Mr Birney's formal representations to the Attorney-General were supported by further informal verbal representations in support of that no bill application. Mr Birney was not, however, the only prominent member of the conservative establishment to make representations in respect of the Morgan Ryan matter. Mr Ryan's no bill application was also enthusiastically taken up by the late Sir Ernest White, who made representations in support of Mr Ryan on the same date as Mr Birney made his representations. The representations of the late Sir Ernest went right to the top, to the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, himself. In a personal letter to the Prime Minister Sir Ernest requested that the Morgan Ryan matter be finalised without further expense both to the Government and Mr Ryan and informed the Prime Minister that an application had been made to the Attorney-General for a no bill to be granted. Let me make it quite clear that it is not my purpose to attack the role of the late Sir Ernest White in this matter. He was clearly a prominent Australian who had achieved considerable heights in Australian society. He was, after all, a knight of the realm, a successful businessman and a former president of the Australian-American Association. It should be added, however, that the late Sir Ernest was a founder and President of the Liberal-Democratic Party in 1943 and one of the founders of the Liberal Party of Australia. He, in fact, led the delegation of New South Wales Liberals to the plenary and Federal conferences which founded the Liberal Party. He was subsequently appointed to the provisional State and Federal councils of the Liberal Party and he enjoyed an extremely close connection with the Liberal Party until his untimely death. Sir Ernest was also active in community affairs and a member of leading clubs, such as the Australian Jockey Club and the Tattersalls Club. Following the late Sir Ernest's letter to the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser drew the representations to the attention of the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack. The late Sir Ernest again made representations to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in relation to the Morgan Ryan matter on 31 August 1982 and his representations were again referred to Senator Durack. Even after the subsequent rejection of the no bill application Sir Ernest again wrote expressing his regret at the decision to proceed against Mr Ryan. I propose to say nothing further in the course of my contribution about the role of Sir Ernest in this matter. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Birney's role and that of Senator Durack are worthy of much closer consideration. I never cease to be amazed at the gall of leading conservative politicians such as Senator Durack and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) who are so ready to preside in judgment over others when their own credibility and track records are so tattered and torn. In addition to Mr Birney's written representations to which I have referred he made further very strong written representations in support of the granting of a no bill application on 21 September 1982. As I have already indicated, I have information that Mr Birney's written representations were also accompanied by verbal representations to the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and that the Attorney-General was prepared to act on the representations and grant the no bill application provided that political criticism was not likely to be forthcoming. This is not some idle accusation; these are the facts and it is well known that the Australian Federal Police were concerned about the delay in bringing the Morgan Ryan matter to trial. Because of the political pressure applied to the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, he was prepared to terminate proceedings. History will record that he never did so because of his subsequent illness nor, however, did he ever commit Mr Ryan for trial. It was only the Acting Attorney- General, Mr Brown, who made the decision on 1 November 1982 that the trial on the conspiracy charge against Mr Ryan should proceed. After receiving representations in this matter Senator Durack requested his Department to obtain counsel's opinion before he considered the no bill application. This of itself was an uncommon action to take. The common behaviour for an Attorney-General is to place reliance upon the opinion of the Solicitor- General in such cases. Partly as a result of Attorney-General Durack delaying this matter the trial of Mr Ryan did not take place until July 1983 although it was originally scheduled for 19 July 1982. The trial proceeded then, as the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted yesterday, not because of any action of the Liberal and National parties but because of a decision taken by the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Clearly a cloud hangs over the head of Senator Durack in regard to this matter and there are many unanswered questions concerning the role of Mr Birney, the former Liberal member for Phillip. Clearly , however, the Liberal and National parties and their friends have played a prominent role in the Morgan Ryan affair and the Australian people, now knowing the facts, will view with increasing suspicion their political campaign in relation to the Age tapes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude with a reference again to Sir James Killen. I concur with his words. He said: When preference is given to the glow of political advantage over integrity and proper processes of inquiry, then let there be no complaint from those who are left to warm their hands in the dying embers. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(1.29) —The Hawke Government has not yet accepted that the breaking of the drought has been of the utmost significance in the economic recovery which we are experiencing at the present time. While it is a fact that the primary industry sector is enjoying an extremely good season it will take a very long time for the industry to recover from the four years of crippling drought. Forecasts by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics state that aggregate farm income will fall by 30 per cent in 1984-85 and farm costs will rise by 7 per cent over the same period. The wheat industry is in a state of crisis. Cattle producers are facing higher costs and lower returns. There is no relief from crippling meat inspection charges. Many rural research programs will suffer as a result of the recent Budget. The wine industry will be hard hit by the 10 per cent sales tax impost. The income equalisation deposits scheme has virtually been demolished. The dairy industry is in a state of disarray. Need I say more. The Government must recognise that agriculture has provided, and will continue to provide, Australia's economic base. It is still our largest export earner and as such is vital to the Australian economy. In spite of this, the present Government seems hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for farmers. Finance that has flowed into the national coffers directly from the pockets of primary producers is being used to finance vote-catching schemes which are aimed at other sections of the community. Spokesmen for the wheat industry claim that one-third of Australia's 18,000 wheat farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy. This I can well believe. Causes for the crisis in the wheat industry include continually rising government charges, grain handling and railway strikes, and a 17 per cent rise in costs. Against this, wheat prices have risen by only 2 per cent in the last four years. It is anticipated that there will be another carry-over of 3.4m tonnes, following the 1984-85 harvest, at an expected cost of $100m to the nation. The industry is angry at the Hawke Government's decision to place a 15 per cent tariff on imported harvesters. This tariff will add about $15,000 to the average cost of an imported header. It is estimated that the tariff will earn the Government $10m, while the growers pay out an additional $13m per year. The costs involved in bulk handling, storage, land transport, loading and ocean shipping, add up to more per tonne than the on-farm costs per tonne of wheat produced. These costs are completely out of control. There is no single organisation within government responsible for keeping costs to a minimum and there is no competitive downward pressure on government charges as would be experienced in private enterprise. The relative improvement in cattle prices over the last 18 months has been influenced by low world-wide livestock numbers. The estimated beef prices for the 1984-85 financial year indicate a rise of 2 per cent. Taking into account the estimated 7 per cent increase in the farm inflation rate this means an actual loss of 5 per cent. In the 1983-84 year Australia's share of world markets fell by about 8 per cent, representing a loss of approximately $150m to the national income. Meat and livestock industry leaders have continually requested temporary relief from higher meat inspection charges. The Government has also failed to negotiate a new beef agreement with Japan after 17 months of negotiation. A two-year moratorium on the 2.4c a kilogram levy for meat shipped overseas was recently requested to allow time for the Government to improve the efficiency of the export inspection service, and also to help processors recover from the downturn in slaughter numbers. The Government has refused to grant this . Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists are predicting that many rural research programs will be wound down during the next 12 months following severe cuts in the Federal Budget. Rural research projects immediately threatened include those from the divisions of plant industry, forest research, animal production and irrigation research. With the recent passage of the Biological Control Bill through the House of Representatives and its imminent passage through the Senate, it is disappointing indeed to learn that Budget cuts will affect research into the biological control of weeds and pests. I understand that the Paterson's curse program is not under threat by funding costs, but there are many other weeds and pests under investigation which could be affected by the drying up of funds. Small wine producers in north-eastern Victoria will be badly hit by the imposition of the 10 per cent tax on wine. The Government has not taken into account the long lead time of approximately five years to produce wine. Most wine producers appreciate that they could not escape the imposition of tax or excise on wine forever, but feel that it is difficult to justify such a large levy being introduced without warning, especially in the light of promises by the Labor Party before the last election that wine would not incur any taxation penalty. It is a doubly bitter pill, coming as it does in the wake of the devastating drought. Recent reports from the European Economic Community that its wine surplus has reached 2.2 billion gallons are worrying indeed. If this wine is dumped on the Australian market it could destroy the Australian wine industry. Subsidies given to primary producers in the European Economic Community pose a threat to Australian export markets. Two-thirds of the entire annual budget of the community is spent on agriculture. This has not only led to a glut of many products but also created a liquidity crisis of vast proportions. Last month the European Commission released only 40 per cent of the cash necessary for this month's farm subsidies leaving the decision for future payments until after meetings to be held in October. It appears that the policy of paying such large subsidies may not continue for much longer, but there is strong opposition by EEC nations to any clampdown on agricultural subsidies. This may be seen as a possible ray of light in an otherwise gloomy future for Australian primary industry. The abolition of tax concessions for income equalisation deposits has seriously detracted from the full effectiveness of the scheme. The scheme was intended to protect producers from wide income fluctuations created by changing seasonal and market conditions. Under the present Government's new legislation the scheme becomes no more than an alternative way of investing in government securities. In the latest Budget the Government has at last indexed the rebate on diesel fuel excise, but indexation of this rebate will not take effect until next February virtually after the completion of the 1984-85 wheat harvest. Over the last 18 months the excise has been indexed but there has been no increase in the rebate to farmers. The Government's failure to index the rebate has cost primary producers tens of millions of dollars. Despite high productivity at the present time Australia's agricultural industries are experiencing an average of 2 per cent profitability compared with between nine and 12 per cent in other sections of the economy. The fact that the Government has failed to reduce the deficit to under $6.7 billion means that interest rates in Australia will remain higher than the rate which might otherwise have been achieved. The deficit continues to be large, even though private sector growth is much stronger than it was in 1983. However, the public sector remains dominant in the financial market. If public sector borrowings remain high, high interest rates relative to our overseas competitors will continue to be a problem. With high interest rates, wage determinations without regard to the ability of industry to pay and a lack of real assistance in the areas I have already mentioned, the farming community will continue to suffer. Indi is essentially a rural electorate. The towns and cities in the electorate heavily depend for their existence on the income and spending power of the farmers. If the farmers are in trouble so are those who live in the local towns. It is of the utmost importance that the Government should be encouraging and assisting our primary producers at this time. We should be capitalising on the good seasons and the benefits which accrue from those good seasons so that Australia is placed in a strong position to take advantage of rises in world prices and demand. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(1.39) —This is the last day of this session of Parliament. Honourable members are always anxious to persuade their constituents of their high degree of concern for their constituents' interests, but I take the attitude that if my constituents are not already persuaded of my concern for local issues they never will be. When I used to teach at Queensland University I used to say to my students: 'If you have not started studying by the time the jacarandas come out then it is too late'. Back in Brisbane, the jacarandas are well and truly out and there is an election in a few weeks time. I reckon that I have already done my homework, so I would like to take the opportunity to say to the Parliament and to the people of Australia some things concerning Australia's place in the world. The place of a nation in the world is a combination of many things. Its political influence depends on its resources, the skills and information of its people, its trade capacity, its military power, its geographical position, the energy and principle of its leaders, and a host of other things besides. But throughout history there has always been a correlation between economic strength and international significance. I had a suspicion that there were big changes going on in the world so I asked the Parliamentary Library to get me some statistics. I ask leave to have those statistics incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statistics read as follows- PERCENTAGE OF WORLD G.N.P. (%) 1970 1980 1981 (1) Oceania and Indonesia Australia 1.1 1.3 1.3 Indonesia 0.3 0.6 0.6 New Zealand 0.2 0.2 0.2 (2) North and Central America Canada 2.5 2.1 2.1 Mexico 1.0 1.2 1.2 United States 30.3 22.9 22.5 (3) Africa Egypt 0.2 0.2 0.2 Nigeria 0.2 0.6 0.6 South Africa 0.5 0.6 0.6 (4) South America Argentina 0.8 0.6 0.6 Brazil 1.2 2.2 2.0 Ecuador 0.1 0.1 0.1 (5) Asia China 3.8 2.3 2.3 Hong Kong 0.1 0.2 0.2 India 1.8 1.3 1.3 Japan 6.2 9.1 9.1 Korea, Republic of 0.2 0.5 0.5 Malaysia 0.1 0.2 0.2 Philippines 0.2 0. 3 0.3 Saudi Arabia 0.1 0.9 0.9 Singapore 0.1 0.1 0.1 Thailand 0.2 0.3 0.3 (6) Europe Austria 0.5 0.6 0.6 France 4.9 5.2 5.0 Germany, F.R. of 5.6 6.6 6.3 Italy 2.9 3.1 3.0 Netherlands 1.0 1.4 1.3 Spain 1.1 1.7 1.6 Sweden 1.0 1.0 1.0 U.K. 3.9 4.1 3.9 U.S.S.R. 13.5 11.9 12.1 (est.) (est.) PERCENTAGE SHARES OF GDP AT U.S. 1970 PRICES 'BENCHMARK' YEARS 1913-1976 FOR SELECTED NATIONS 1913 1929 1950 1960 1970 1976 Australia 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 Canada 2.3 2.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.9 France 10.1 9.4 7.5 7.7 8.2 8.5 Germany 14.6 11.6 6.9 9.7 9.7 9.2 Italy 5.5 5.3 4.7 5.4 5.7 5.5 Japan 5.6 7.1 5.3 8.2 14.0 15.9 Sweden 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 U.K. 13.9 10.7 10.7 9.2 7.4 6.9 U.S.A. 36.7 42.5 50.3 45.3 40.6 39.6 Notes: The percentages are derived from the total GDP figures for sixteen nations, as follows: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, U.K. and the U.S.A. Mr WELLS —I thank the House. The first statistics I asked for were a percentage of the world's gross national product that was produced by the United States of America. Gross national product is, roughly speaking, the amount of income produced by a particular country. The Parliamentary Library's figures were very dramatic. They showed that between the years 1970 and 1980 the United States' proportion of world GNP had fallen from 30.3 per cent to 22.9 per cent. In the subsequent year-that is the latest figure that was available-there had been a continuation of that decline from 22.9 per cent to 22.5 per cent. This single fact, with the massive decline that it indicates, nevertheless does not show that the United States is any poorer than it once was or even that any person in the United States is any poorer than they were 10 years ago, though, of course, some might be. It just shows us something about the relative importance of the American economy to the world economy. Whereas 10 years ago one third of the world's wealth was annually generated in the United States, now the figure is less than a quarter. Over the same period the other super-powers' proportion of world GNP also declined. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proportion declined from 13.5 per cent in 1970 to an estimated 11.9 per cent in 1980. China declined from 3.8 per cent to 2.3 per cent over the same period. The question is: Where is the influence shifting to? Over the same period Germany increased from 5.7 to 6.7 per cent, and Japan, from 6.2 per cent to 9.1 per cent. Apart from these rich nations a number of other nations, which we could call middle-income nations, increased their proportion of GNP. Brazil, for example, increased from 1.2 per cent to 2.2 per cent, Nigeria from 0.2 per cent to 0.6 per cent and Mexico went up from 1 per cent to 1.2 per cent. Some nations were constant over that period of 1970 to 1980. The United Kingdom went from 3.9 per cent in 1970 to 3.9 per cent in 1981. Italy went from 2.9 per cent in 1970 to 3 per cent in 1981. New Zealand went from 0.2 per cent to 0.2 per cent in 1981. Australia has increased its proportion of the world's GNP very slightly, from 1.1 per cent to 1.3 per cent over the same period. An interesting question is whether these trends, taken over a decade, indicate long term changes and the answer is that they do. I have some figures for world gross domestic product for 1970 prices in the United States. These figures are not strictly comparable with the previous set of figures I have quoted because gross domestic product is assessed on slightly different technical criteria from GNP. However, these figures are internally consistent and they indicate the same trend as the other figures I have quoted. They show the same trend in the world. The pattern of decline which the previous figures indicated in the United States is confirmed by these GDP figures. In 1913 the United States proportion of world GDP was 36.7 per cent. The United States proportion continued to increase from 42.5 per cent in 1929 to 50.3 per cent in 1950. The decline in America became apparent in 1960 when America had 45.3 per cent and 1970 when America had 40.6 per cent. In 1976 it was down to 39.6 per cent. Over the same period the United Kingdom went from 13.9 per cent in 1913, through a continuous decline which began to accelerate after 1950, to reach 6.9 per cent in 1976. Japan at 5.6 per cent in 1913 increased over the period to 15.9 per cent in 1976. Australia's figures were 1.9 per cent in 1913, 1.7 per cent in 1929, two per cent in 1950, 1.9 per cent in 1960, two per cent in 1970 and two per cent in 1976. In this country, therefore, we have been spared the fluctuations which many other nations have experienced. Our percentage both of world gross national product and world gross domestic product has remained remarkably constant. What is the significance then of these changes for Australia? I think the first moral of these figures is that all the super-powers are in decline as far as their pre-eminence in the world is concerned. They are like runners in a race, who are still going forward but are being overtaken by other competitors. They are still making up ground themselves but they are no longer way out in front. When this has happened to nations in the past, considerable instability has occurred, and particularly in the case of a proud nation like the United States it might be difficult for its people, and even more difficult for its rulers, to accept that they are no longer as pre-eminent in the world as they previously were. Those who are in charge of the government of nations are all too human and have all human weaknesses including pride, vanity and conceit. The danger is that these countries, in order to compensate for their declining economic performance, will look instead to those areas in which they remain pre-eminent in order to assert themselves. This is, of course, true also of the super-powers whose economic pre-eminence seems to be diminishing but whose military might remains as great as ever. The sphere in which the super-powers remain super, of course, is the military sphere, and there is a danger that those nations whose citizens regard themselves as 'lords of the earth' will seek to assert themselves militarily when their economic pre-eminence seems to be on the wane. It is to be hoped as nations such as Russia and America are overtaken economically by other countries they will attempt to assert themselves in peaceful ways. The space race might very well turn out to be a safety valve in such a situation. It is important for Australians to realise that the world is going through one of those delicate periods of change in which the balance of economic power is shifting. When similar situations have occurred in the history of this planet there have been outbreaks of hawkishness and jingoism in the country that was losing its pre- eminent position; and there have been wars. For the world to survive this period without a major war will require very careful behaviour for those in control of the foreign policies of nations. It will also help if the people of Australia are aware of what is happening. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.48) —In the West Australian of Saturday, 6 October 1984, a headline appeared saying: 'Canberra land-rights support for Burke'. This, of course, was followed by these words: The Premier, Mr Burke, emerged from his crucial talks with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday confident that the Federal Government will not legislate to override the Western Australian Aboriginal land rights package. I wish to raise matters of great concern to the people of Western Australia in regard to that particular headline and the extent to which it has misled people when one looks at the facts of the meeting of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with Mr Burke. The news item goes on to point out that Mr Burke said: . . . both Mr Hawke and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, had accepted the State Government's statement of principles, despite its categorical rejection of an Aboriginal veto over mining. Mr Burke is quoted as saying: I said that a veto was not-negotiable from our Government's point of view and from that point on it was not discussed. Of course the next few lines are of great interest to me. He says: I think Mr Hawke and Mr Holding accepted it. Well, the headline certainly presents an argument that says a lot more than ' think'. Of course, Mr Burke only thought, because in fact he was talking about a joint Press release that was put out by the Prime Minister and himself on 5 October 1984. One of the statements from that was that discussions were extremely productive; that is the good old hardline regular statement that says nothing. Another statement said that Mr Burke had invited the Federal Government to nominate an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to participate. Well, we do not know whether he is a watch dog or someone to help out. But then, of course, we go on to hear what the Prime Minister had to say: The Federal Government in accepting its obligations at a national level- if this is a matter for the States we must wonder what the national level is- for Aboriginal land rights recognises the interests of Western Australia in addressing its problems. Well they are some nice words, but I am not exactly sure what they mean because the people of Western Australia have made their interest quite clear. They are generally opposed to the concept of land rights, and that is their position. Of course we have to read more of the joint statement. It says: The Seaman Commission's report and recommendations, together with the Western Australia Government's statement of principles, provides a valuable basis on which to address these issues in that State. Well, that is great encouragement also. It is just gobbledegook. It continues: The Federal and State Governments will work together to ensure that common principles are adopted in the formulation of land rights legislation. The Commonwealth remains committed to its constitutional responsibilities in this area. . . It was only the other day that I drew to the attention of the House what this Government considers some of its constitutional responsibilities. They are, of course, set out in the Holding statement, the statement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, of 8 December 1983. The Minister says on page 5 of the statement that the first major area of policy is land rights. He continued: The resolution sets down five principles which will guide us in this important matter. I repeat them here as they appear in the resolution before the House: Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; protection of Aboriginal sites; Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; Now while that stays written down in this Parliament and not rejected by the Minister or the Prime Minister, what good is it for Mr Burke to say: 'I think Mr Holding and Mr Hawke accepted that'? Quite clearly they did not accept it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member that the Standing Orders require that he refer to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by their titles and not by their personal names. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you. What you have said is not exactly correct but I will not waste my time arguing the point now. I just read from a newspaper. It was a quote of Mr Burke, the Premier of Western Australia. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on page 22 of the statement says: The overwhelming vote of the 1967 referendum means this Parliament has the power and responsibility to make laws which enable Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians to come to terms with each other. This Government accepts that duty. In some conservative quarters we hear talk of 'State rights'. The States' legislative powers in this area passed to the Commonwealth sixteen years ago. Any doubts were dispelled by the High Court in the Koowarta and Dams case. Then he says: Human rights are more important than 'State Rights'. . . . . I repeat: the human rights of Aboriginal and Islander Australians must take precedence over State rights. With those things still in place what confidence can the people of Western Australia have in this headline that says: 'Canberra land-rights support for Burke'? There is nothing in the joint Press statement of the Prime Minister and the Premier of Western Australia that denies one word of those statements still existing in the Hansard of this Parliament as a statement of Government policy. It is yet to be changed, and while it is not changed there is only one certainty . We are well aware that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs are correct in claiming the overriding powers of the Commonwealth in this area. We are also well aware of the overriding power of that statement in the Parliament over a Press statement such as this one which tells us nothing. But finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am particularly concerned at other statements that have been made. The report in the West Australian states: However, Mr Burke issued a blunt warning to the Opposition that the defeat or emasculation of the State legislation in the Legislative Council would be an open invitation to Federal intervention. Is it not time that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister told Australians and Western Australians in particular what, in fact, they propose to do if Mr Hassell, the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, keeps his threat to which the Premier has referred and calls on the Legislative Council, where Mr Hassell has the numbers to defeat any legislation put forward by Mr Burke? There is a lot of talk about the power of the Legislative Council in Western Australia but from my observation it passes a lot more legislation than it ever refuses to pass. Like our Senate here it is very conscious of the power and the responsibility it has. It is my observation in Western Australia that when the Legislative councillors take that independent decision they do so in the knowledge that they have total or certainly a high majority of public support. There is evidence of that in other areas. If they take the decision on this occasion it will be because they believe that is the case also. What is the position of the Government in those circumstances? What is the position if the legislation, as weak-kneed as it might be in the interests of Aboriginal people, is rejected? Will the Federal Government then interfere as it did in the dams case in Tasmania, as has been quoted so conveniently by the Minister? Is that its intention? That is the warning that Mr Burke gives Western Australia. I suggest that the intention in either case will be to achieve land rights as per the policy of the Labor Party and as per the statements of different people such as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that have been made . Let me read to the House a summary of Labor's policies in 1984. Under the heading of 'Land' it states: Embark upon immediate negotiations with State governments to provide Aboriginal land rights in line with Labor's stated principles . . . In pursuing its Aboriginal land rights programme, be prepared to use Commonwealth constitutional powers if faced with non-cooperation by State governments. That is what Minister Holding was talking about when he talked of breaking a few arms. We are not really sure that he will come back into the Parliament. In fact , there is considerable doubt that he will continue his bumbling administration of this portfolio, but it is widely rumoured, for instance, that the honourable member for Melbourne, Mr Hand, might take that particular task over and that, of course, would be a faint shift to the Left. What does that promise for the people of Western Australia? The facts are that the Prime Minister and his Minister have not alleviated the concerns of Western Australians in regard to land rights at all. I condemn the Western Australian newspaper for its headline that was based on an article that in no way referred to the Press statement or dealt with the matters that were contained in it; it did not deal with the inferences of the non-event of the Press statement. The rights of the citizens of Western Australia are still under threat. That is my understanding of State rights. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(1.57) —It is a matter of regret that I have only less than three minutes in which to make some remarks about a matter of vital importance to northern Australia. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation established a laboratory in Townsville in 1962 in order to undertake detailed research in the semi-arid tropics. This environment is widely distributed in the world but Australia is the only advanced nation in which it is represented. This laboratory is therefore in a special position in northern Australia. The CSIRO laboratory at Townsville makes a scientific contribution to an important environment which is occupied by less fortunate countries. The rundown in CSIRO's tropical research during the past 10 years has been a part of a trend of CSIRO to move away from rural research. I would like to list some examples. Only two of the 42 CSIRO divisions have their headquarters in northern Australia. Queensland has 16.1 per cent of the total Australian population but CSIRO has only 8.4 per cent of the total staff based in that State. The Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures has had its operating funds cut by 45 per cent and staff numbers by 25 per cent during the past decade. At this rate of decline the division staff will be halved by 1994 and there will be little or no operating funds. During the eight years from 1974-75 to 1982-83 the total number of CSIRO scientists working in rural research fell by 14 per cent, while the total number of CSIRO scientists grew by 17 per cent during the same period. Tropical agriculture is listed as a highly significant rural industry research program in the 1984-85 science and technology Budget papers, but it is not included in the six areas of highest national priority for CSIRO. Water and soils are listed as the highest national priority for CSIRO, but virtually no rural research for the tropics has been included in this category. It is clear, Mr Speaker, that the rundown in funding for rural research has resulted from two factors. The first is the progressive phase down of CSIRO rural research effort during the Fraser Government years. This wind-down continues notwithstanding the fact that approximately 40 per cent of the nation' s export earnings come from the rural sector. Now it is clear that without a sustained research input which has underpinned rural industry to date the competitiveness of the rural sector will ultimately place that sector where the manufacturing industry is today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question that grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —What arrangements is the Prime Minister making for the release of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in light of the fact that the House will rise today? Will he undertake to arrange for at least the Senate to be reconvened, if not the full Parliament, in view of the forthcoming election campaign, so that the Costigan report can be tabled and therefore parliamentary privilege attach to it, in order that as much of it as possible can be published and in order to allow detailed public scrutiny? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand that later this day a motion will be moved in the House relating to the making available of the report by the Speaker in order to get the degree of protection that will be associated with that motion. The Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity of seeing it. We will make it available to him in advance. It is my understanding that the Costigan report will be made available no later than 26 October this year. It may even be available a couple of days earlier than that. It will go to the Governor-General. I have ascertained from the Victorian Government that the Victorian Parliament will be sitting after that date. I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that Commissioner Costigan will make recommendations as to what should not be published. I have told the House, as the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, that we will also properly be referring the report to the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Federal Police for their views on the question of what should appropriately not be published. I hope that there will be a confluence of views of Commissioner Costigan and those others to whom the report is referred. As I understand it, the report will be very substantial in length and substance and it will clearly take some days-I hope perhaps not more than a couple of days-for the various bodies to peruse it and give the Government their advice. I merely give those details to indicate that it would be my hope, therefore, that the report would be able to be published in the Victorian Parliament. I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that, taken in conjunction with the various observations I have made about the full and unexpurgated report being available to him, we want the report to be published as fully and as extensively as possible. I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that we are concerned with questions of privilege. That is why we will be moving a motion in this House and in the Senate. We will also formulate an Australian Capital Territory ordinance so that within the Australian Capital Territory the report will attract the same privilege that will obtain in New South Wales. The position in New South Wales, as I understand it, is that there is a reciprocal relationship vis-a-vis Victoria; that anything that is published in the Victorian Parliament attracts the protection of privilege in New South Wales. That is a complete statement of the arrangements we are making to see that the report can be published in full and can be dealt with in a way that attracts the necessary privilege-I think this would be common ground-that we would want to see attach to it. Mr SIMMONS —Can the Treasurer advise the House whether there is any evidence of bipartisan agreement that the Government's 1 November tax cuts are significant and genuine? Mr KEATING —Unfortunately, the Opposition has persisted in misrepresenting the Government's tax cuts by failing to recognise the fact that all taxpayers will receive a tax cut-the vast majority of them a tax cut of $7.60-by virtue of the fact that there is now a 25 per cent rate step, which did not exist in the previous scales, between the tax free threshold of $4,595 and $12,500. Since the Budget was handed down we have heard constant misrepresentations from the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy, but particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, crying crocodile tears about people on average weekly earnings being in the 46 per cent marginal tax rate area. On 29 September last year the Leader of the Opposition said: I believe that a marginal tax rate of 46 per cent for those on average weekly earnings is totally unacceptable. On Budget night he repeated his lament about the 46 per cent area. I indicated yesterday that to move all persons on full time male average weekly earnings out of the 46 per cent bracket would cost $2,065m. Of course, we have a totally different view from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is on the record on two occasions as saying that he would give no tax cuts. Mr Howard —That is a lie. Mr KEATING —That is not a lie. I will read it to the honourable member. Mr Howard —No, why don't you read the lot? Mr KEATING —The honourable member should withdraw the word 'lie'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that the use of that term is not permitted in the House. The Deputy Leader should withdraw. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I am perfectly prepared, in deference to you, to withdraw the word 'lie' and give notice that I will make a personal explanation. Mr KEATING —That will be a surprise. On 19 March, on the radio program AM, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: I think if the Government is faced with a choice between giving a tax cut of, say, $1 billion and having a deficit a billion lower than it might otherwise be, I think it ought to choose the latter. He made another statement when launching the Opposition's economic policy. But the most revealing thing is that yesterday the Deputy Leader, in putting out a Press statement attacking me, said: For example, we have made no commitment to alter the 46% income tax rate in the next Budget . . . I repeat: . . . we have made no commitment to alter the 46% income tax rate in the next Budget . . . What has the Leader of the Opposition been saying for months and months? We have had matters of public importance every day for weeks, referring to the thousands of people in the 46 per cent area. Now we find that there is no commitment whatsoever to alter the 46 per cent income tax rate step. So much for the crocodile tears of the Leader of the Opposition! Look how long it takes members of the Opposition to back away from their commitment. After one day, under some pressure in the House, they back off on the major commitment to change the 46 per cent area. It is revealing that we have had two Press statements in 12 hours from the Deputy Leader, attacking me by saying that I am simply not telling the truth on three features. In the first instance he got the figures wrong. He misrepresented me yesterday when I said that it would cost $300m a year to wipe out the superannuation tax change. He attacked me yesterday by saying it would cost $600m a year. He had to issue a statement today backing away from that statement by saying, miserably, that it was a typographical error, when he had devoted a paragraph to it the night before. He said: The same goes for his dishonest allegation that removal of the lump sum superannuation tax would cost $600 million when Mr Keating's own estimate . . . $120m. The estimate of $120m is the 1984-85 cost-the full year cost. Yesterday I directed my remarks to Budget deficits, the structural deficit and the full year cost of these measures. The Deputy Leader knows that the full year cost of wiping out the superannuation tax change is $300m, and it is mentioned in the Budget Papers for 1983-84. It is a firm figure. The second matter I wish to raise about these two very revealing Press statements is the challenge by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the figure of $400m I listed yesterday to remove the double tax on dividends. He is now backsliding on that promise by saying that he is going to restore only the rebate for the first $1,000 of dividend income. That is not what he said when he released the industry policy. He said that he would deal with the double taxation of dividends. After one day of scrutiny, he has now repaired to $1,000- he is going to restore the rebate for the first $1,000 of dividend income. So the figure of $400m that I put up yesterday was a correct figure for wiping out the double taxation of dividends. The third matter which arises in these two very revealing Press statements is the figure of $600m for the investment allowance. He says: Mr Keating knows this is simply not true, as his own extension of the existing scheme to cover items with a completion date by the 30 June, 1987 . . . I am talking about the full year effect of wiping out the investment allowance. It is $600m. That is the impact on the structural deficit. Let me just conclude on this point: Yesterday I referred to $2 billion worth of specific tax promises of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader contested only a number of those. He failed to contest any of the others. He contested only about half. Of the ones he contested, he has now backed down on them, said he put the wrong figure in or reneged on the promise. So the fact is that the figure of $1, 950m-odd I detailed yesterday was a correct figure. All that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reveals now is how embarrassed he is by the fiscal portent of those promises. He now seeks to resile from them. But, most revealingly, the additional $2,000m of revenue forgone by moving people out of the 46 per cent rate step is something on which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now says they made no such commitment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his Press statement, said: . . . we have made no commitment to alter the 46 per cent income tax rate in the next Budget . . . So, in other words, what he is admitting is that our tax cuts are real and are big at $7.60 a week. He is saying that he accepts the fiscal realities. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may giggle in embarrassment, but the fact is that he is now saying that the Opposition would not alter the steps which are in the current Australian tax rate scale. That simply means that the Opposition is now saying, through its shadow Treasurer-- Mr Peacock —You take $22 a week and give them $8 back. Mr KEATING —I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be the one most embarrassed by this. He has been up every day parroting about the 46 per cent rate. For weeks the Leader of the Opposition has been raising matters of public importance and talking about the thousands of Australians who are in the 46 per cent rate step area. The Opposition is now saying that it would not adjust the 46 per cent area. The fact is that this makes a total mockery of all of the criticisms of the Government's tax cuts, of all of the criticisms of the policies the Opposition has espoused to give tax relief. The other revealing factor is that, despite two stupid Press statements in 12 hours, the table of costs of the tax promises of the Opposition which I proposed yesterday is a factual record of the fiscal impact of its promises which I said yesterday would produce an $11 billion Budget deficit next year if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition happened to be Treasurer of this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Yesterday I directed the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's Seventh Australasian and Pacific Regional Parliamentary Seminar. Not all were present. This afternoon the remainder of those delegates are present in the gallery. I offer them the same warm welcome offered to their colleagues yesterday. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Special Minister of State to an article appearing in the Bulletin this week. The article states that an Australian Federal Police telephone intercept in the middle of last year provided information regarding New South Wales police corruption. It went on to state: In mid-July this year, Federal Police chief Major-General Grey finally gave the NSW police authority to use the material. Was material handed to the New South Wales police last year? Can the Minister explain why there was over a year's delay in giving authority to the New South Wales police to use the material? Mr YOUNG —It does not require much explanation. Actually the material which was required of the Federal Commissioner was handed over in relation to those cases in the middle of last year. I do not want to put exact dates on it, but I can get that for the honourable member. There was a request from New South Wales for additional material if it were available. Officers from the New South Wales Police Force were sent on a number of occasions during the early part of this year to view material that was available at the Australian Federal Police headquarters in Canberra. At the conclusion of those visits they identified the material that they thought they would require for further investigation and when that was completed the material was handed over by the Australian Federal Police . Mr O'NEIL —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House what the September labour force figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate about the current state of the Australian labour market? Mr WILLIS —I am pleased to advise the honourable member for Grey and the House that the employment figures released today show an increase in employment and a fall in unemployment. They indicate that the Government's projections about the future of the labour market are definitely on track. The actual employment figures have gone up by 111,000 and, seasonally adjusted, by 27,000. Unemployment fell by 6,200 in September or 0.1 per cent to give us an unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent, which is the lowest unemployment rate since November 1982. I think it is interesting for the House to note that since this Government has been in office there has been an increase in employment of 264,000, which is above the rate needed to meet our objective of 500,000 jobs in three years. So we are more than fulfilling that obligation to the Australian electorate. Growth in employment over the last 12 months was 212,000 or 3.4 per cent. That growth rate is extraordinarily high by the standards of this country and by the standards of any other country for that matter. The figure of 3.4 per cent compares favourably with the average rate of employment growth in the Fraser Government years of 0.8 per cent-that is, less than one per cent. As against that, in our last 12 months we have had a growth of 3.4 per cent. So one can see the enormity of the contrast. By international standards we are achieving something very significant indeed. I ask the House to take particular note of the fact that the recently released Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development employment outlook indicated that for this year, 1984, our rate of employment growth is forecast to be 50 per cent higher than that of the OECD countries as a whole-50 per cent above the average of Western developed countries. So there is no doubt that we are performing extremely well in the employment area. On the unemployment side, the fall of 6,200 in September means that the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, has fallen by 84,000 since we have been in office. It means that the rate of unemployment has fallen from its peak in September last year of 10.4 per cent to 8.8 per cent. For three months in a row we have had an unemployment rate of below 9 per cent. I think we can safely say now that the rate is well below 9 per cent and is likely to move down further. In regard to teenage unemployment, we have seen some good news on that front also. This Government inherited an extremely bad employment situation and an exceptionally bad one for teenagers. I am very pleased to say that the figures released today give some encouraging news on that front. They show a decline for teenagers seeking their first full time job. There was a reduction of 8,300 or 11 per cent in the month of September and the unemployment rate for teenagers came down by 1 per cent, which is still far too high but at least it is moving in the right direction and it is about 4 per cent less than it was at the peak in September last year. These figures on employment and unemployment show that this Government is more than fulfilling its obligation to the Australian electorate, in terms of what we spelt out we would achieve, and performing infinitely better than the previous Government. I remind the House of what happened in the last 12 months of the previous Government. In the last-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member who is imitating the sound of a cuckoo to cease. It shows contempt for the institution. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —I know that the Opposition does not like to hear these figures but the nation needs to be reminded of them once again. In the Opposition's 12 months in office the level of employment fell by 190,000. The actual number of people in jobs declined by 190,000 and the level of unemployment increased by a quarter of a million people. In its last year in government the Opposition was failing this nation absolutely abysmally. We have totally reversed that trend. We now have a strong growth in employment, declining unemployment and there is every reason to believe that that trend will continue into the future. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the honourable gentleman to the letter I addressed to him yesterday relating to the taxation affairs of the Minister for Finance. Given that the honourable gentleman would presumably have seen that letter, I seek his leave to table it. Mr Hawke —Yes. Mr HOWARD —Thank you. I ask the Prime Minister: Can he assure the House that he is completely satisfied that in the administration of the taxation laws the Minister for Finance is not being treated in a manner different from that being extended to other Australians in like circumstances? Mr HAWKE —I hope the House and the country take particular notice of the exact wording of the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because the Opposition, not being content with making false accusations against me, the Treasurer and other leading members of this Government, is now questioning the administration of the tax system in this country. Implicitly, questions are now being raised about the integrity of officials in very sensitive positions such as this. People will draw their own conclusions. Let me answer the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite directly. This matter that is involved in his question was referred to in this House on 12 and 13 September and was answered by the Treasurer. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Commissioner of Taxation at about that time, on 12 September. The Commissioner of Taxation is therefore aware of this attempt by the Opposition to raise the affairs of the Minister for Finance as yet another tack on its massively repudiated smear campaign. The simple fact is that the Commissioner of Taxation discharges his duties according to his independent statutory obligations and it would be quite improper for me, or for that matter anyone else, to attempt to question the discharge of his duties or in any way to raise the presumption that he is not properly discharging those duties. Ms MAYER —Has the Minister for Health seen the report in this morning's Age claiming that health fund contribution rates may increase early next year? In view of the criticisms made by the Opposition health spokesman that Medibank Private had kept its contribution rates artificially low for political reasons and was in no position to repay the $10m advance given to it by the previous Government, can the Minister advise the House on the experience of Medibank Private in the first nine months of Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —I have seen the report in this morning's Age and I think it is no coincidence that such a report should be given such prominence two days after an election is announced. I am able to advise the House that private hospital charges will increase next year. This, of course, should surprise no member of the House because private hospital charges have increased every year; so there is nothing unusual about it. The one point that is worth noting is that throughout 1984 we have kept hospital charges stable. That did not occur under the previous scheme either in 1982 or 1983. However, whether those increased charges will flow on automatically to contribution increases depends entirely on the private funds themselves. We have deregulated the private funds-I am sure the honourable member for Mackellar will appreciate that-and it will be a decision for them. I am able to respond in relation to one private fund as this morning the General Manager of Medibank Private issued the following statement in response to the statement in the Age: The front page report in today's Melbourne Age, which suggests private health fund contribution rates are set to rise by up to 14 per cent, is alarmist in nature and completely unfounded so far as Medibank Private is concerned. I repeat: ' . . . is completely unfounded so far as Medibank Private is concerned'. In fact the General Manager was able to go on and announced this morning that: The benefit delay for persons with pre-existing ailments would be cut from two years to 12 months for Medibank Private, and that would have immediate effect. Mr Wilcox said: This move was possible because Medibank Private's trading results since the introduction of Medicare have exceeded our expectations. Again I point out-- Mr Carlton —There is a commitment. Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the honourable member for Mackellar in a moment. I point out to him that Medibank Private has already repaid in August the $10m capital grant provided by the previous Government in 1978. Even more important for the future, the General Manager went on to say: If present conditions continue, Medibank Private should be able to absorb most, if not all, of the projected cost increases in 1985 with minimal or no change to hospital contribution rates. He added: Earlier criticisms of Medibank Private's contribution rates as being set too low had been disproved. Across the Commonwealth they are the lowest of any rates . But he denied in any way that those rates had been set too low. On the trading results, he said: Evidence since the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984 and the efficiency of Medibank Private's operation shows that those rates were not set too low. I want to refer to some statements on this issue made by the honourable member for Mackellar. He is, of course, the chief fantasist on the Opposition benches. Mr Holding —That is the cleanest form of fantasy. Dr BLEWETT —Yes, it is probably a polite statement about that honourable member, but on 14 December 1983 he said that we would force Medibank Private to keep the rates down artificially. On 24 August 1983, he said: There is no way in the world that the Health Insurance Commission could legitimately or prudently send back $10m worth of reserves to the Treasury. What he so confidently predicted 12 or 18 months ago has utterly failed to come to pass. Medibank Private repaid in August the $10m capital grant provided by the previous Government. Mr Donald Cameron —Which State paid it? Come on, smart-Alik! Dr Goebbels! Dr BLEWETT —As I predicted earlier this year-I know this is bad news and quite a shock to the Liberal Party-- Mr Keogh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Moreton has referred to the Minister for Health as Dr Goebbels. While it might be appropriate to say that about some of his colleagues, I suggest it is not appropriate to say it about the Minister for Health. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw. Dr BLEWETT —As I predicted earlier this year, Medibank Private has traded well and profitably since Medicare was introduced, to the point where it can look forward with confidence to 1985. Most important of all, it has disproved the quite scurrilous and malignant assertion that its rates were set too low simply for political purposes. I ask the people of Australia to make a judgment on anything said in the next eight weeks by a member who, whenever the facts have been achieved, as distinct from the rumours, has been proven to be wrong. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health, if we can get him away from figures and back to people. I refer the Minister to his answer yesterday to a question from the honourable member for Moreton regarding the 35- day rule in public and private hospitals. Did he justify his introduction of the 35-day rule on the grounds that it was merely a reduction from 60 days to 35 days compared with the old scheme? Why did he omit to tell the House that the most significant change from the old rule is the reduction in the number of grounds for issue of a certificate from four to one, thereby excluding many medical, psychiatric and terminally ill patients from eligibility for continuing benefits? Does he acknowledge that his answer to yesterday's question seriously misled the House? Dr BLEWETT —I have endeavoured now for several weeks to explain to the honourable member for Mackellar that the criteria were changed not with an intention to limit the criteria, but to allow doctors to exercise their professional integrity in relation to the meaning of 'acute care', rather than to give them specific requirements or guidelines. However, as I told the honourable member in a debate last week, because there was evidence that doctors were not exercising that discretion in the way that was intended a set of guidelines have been prepared and these have been approved by the Acute Care Committee. They are now with the Australian Medical Association for its approval. I quote from the guidelines, which show quite clearly what the Government intended. They read: Rehabilitation is considered to be part of acute care if it is being provided by a hospital with rehabilitation facilities and appropriately qualified personnel in order to improve a patient's functional capacity to a level that will enable a patient to be returned to his or her environment. That is the rehabilitation point. Secondly, or the psychiatric point that the honourable member raised: Patients suffering from psychiatric conditions may require long term acute care . Let me take the point about terminally ill patients: Terminally ill patients in hospitals requiring more than basic nursing care may be considered as needing acute care. All we intended to do by that change in the rule was to leave the discretion and responsibility to the professional integrity of doctors. These guidelines will help them to exercise that. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recent comments by the Leader of the Opposition, together with his ambitious Deputy, relating to taxation policy. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government has specific plans for the introduction of a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or a probate duties tax after its victory on 1 December? Mr HAWKE —It is very likely that the Australian public will be subjected to the standard Opposition scare-mongering tactics on this subject during the next few weeks. So that there can be no basis whatsoever for misrepresentation of the Government's position on this issue, I want to put that position on record in the House. First, I want to quote the text of a Press statement that was put out yesterday by the Treasurer, which I fully endorse. He said: The Leader of the Opposition has been reported as claiming that the Government has prepared, or is having prepared, Cabinet submissions for the introduction of capital gains tax, wealth tax or death duties. The Treasurer went on to say: No such submissions have been prepared or are being prepared. The Government is not giving consideration to any of these taxes. There are no proposals before the Government to introduce these taxes and I have made no requests for such proposals to be formulated by my Department. Secondly, I wish to repeat the main elements of the Government's approach to tax reform. We believe that there is scope for review and reform of the tax system to make it more efficient and more equitable for giving Australians a fairer deal and for promoting economic growth in this country. Because of the fundamental importance of this issue, we will be consulting widely with community groups, including through the Economic Planning Advisory Council, rather than announcing policies that are designed for perceived short term political advantage. Any reforms of the tax system will not result in any overall increase in the level of taxes. The review will be comprehensive and it is pointless to speculate on any particular tax options because the Government has absolutely no preconceived views on the outcome. On that point of preconceived views, there can be no better authority than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. At the National Press Club on 29 August this year in answer to a question as to whether, as part of any restructuring of the tax system, there was room for an effective capital gains tax, he said this- Mr Howard —Are you going to quote me in full? Mr HAWKE —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said this: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question by Max Walsh and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In view of that- Mr Howard —What about the rest of it? Mr HAWKE —Oh well, perhaps we will need personal explanation No. 148. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Howard —Why doesn't he quote me in full? He is a pretty selective quoter. That is totally unfair. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr HAWKE —In view of that statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, any attempt by him to suggest that a review of the tax system implies in some way a prior commitment to the introduction of particular taxes applies much more to him than it does to the Government. In conclusion, I repeat that there is not and will not be any official position taken by the Government on the elements of tax reform in advance of the review. There is certainly no work being done within the Government at our direction on the introduction of a capital gains tax, wealth tax or death duties. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suspect that this will probably be the honourable member for Paterson's last opportunity to ask a question so I think honourable members should show him some courtesy. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. In view of the fact that the long awaited Australian-Japanese beef agreement is likely to diminish our share of the Japanese beef market, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that we lose no further share of the Korean market? Is the Minister concerned that the abandoning of uranium contracts with France might lead to the European Economic Community taking retaliatory action by dumping beef into our Asian markets? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I acknowledge what the honourable gentleman has said. On a personal note, may I offer my congratulations to him for his service to the country as a member of parliament. The question is a very important one. Firstly , there is no sense of any retaliation from France or the European Economic Community because of contractual arrangements that have been deferred in respect of sales of uranium. But there are other problems, which the honourable gentleman would readily identify because of excessive production of beef in the EEC as a result of subsidisation. The EEC is looking for markets, and it could well be looking for markets in South East Asia and particularly Korea. As a matter of fact, the EEC has penetrated the Canadian market much more than we would hope. I made representations to Mr Hafekamp, the EEC's external relations representative, and he gave me an assurance that the EEC would not seek to bring its beef into the South East Asian market. But we are very concerned about the matter. Strong representations have been made to the EEC which, at this stage, has given an assurance that it will not be exploring that market. In respect of the Korean market, it is acknowledged that sales of beef this year have been well down, but that is due to domestic arrangements as a result of the Government in Korea emphasising that it wanted to see more benefits given to its own domestic production of poultry. There has been a change in that direction. In recent weeks there has been a revival of the Korean interest in Australian beef and a substantial contract has been let. I assure the honourable member that these matters are of grave concern to the Australian beef industry. When people talk about free trade and fair trade, we are always anxious to ensure that they talk about them in a complete context. The great difficulty is that agricultural products have been excluded from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That is one of the basic problems. The EEC has been a law unto itself in respect of its agricultural production. It has destabilised a number of other markets in the agricultural area because of surplus production. Until such time as we can get the EEC and other nations in the world to bring agricultural products under GATT there will always be this difficulty. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I assure him that the Government is doing everything possible to ensure that we maintain our market share of beef exports. Mr FREE —I direct my question to the Minister for Science and Technology. Dr Klugman —Your last question, too. Mr FREE —Yes, as the member for Macquarie. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact, as has been stated in the media, that the bushfire research program Project Aquarius has been terminated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. I thought this question might have come from this terrifying Opposition, but it did not. The media reports are wrong and have been denied by CSIRO. CSIRO will spend another $300,000 this summer to conclude in Gippsland fire trials which were interrupted last summer by heavy rains. While the trials will not involve the use of aircraft to drop fire retardant and water as occurred last summer-- Dr Harry Edwards —That is about a quarter of what is needed. Mr BARRY JONES —Just wait-they will be designed to provide important new data on bushfire behaviour in the medium to high intensity range with accompanying infra -red and meteorological observations. As I understand it, the water bombing was a Malcolm Fraser spectacular. It was expensive; it looked good, but it was essentially premature. The statement that I have from the CSIRO Executive reads: CSIRO was opposed to the original Fraser Government proposition that there should be a demonstration of the effects of aerial bombing of bushfires in Australia. It believed more knowledge was needed of the behaviour of eucalypt fires of different intensities and that a rigorous scientific evaluation should be conducted. The first stage in any scientific experiment should therefore be of fire intensity and behaviour in Australia in a number of climatic conditions. Following such studies CSIRO proposed to study the relative effectiveness of aerial suppression and conventional ground techniques on eucalypt fires of varying intensity. A cost/effectiveness analysis of forest fire suppression techniques in Australia would then be undertaken. There are a number of other studies, notably those underway by the Commonwealth Institute of Health, on the physiological stress experienced by fire-fighters. The benefits that have come out of Aquarius are: A computer simulation model showing the effectiveness of air tanker operations under various conditions and valuable information which could lead to revised fire behaviour guides and management practices. The result of this year's fire trials will be used with the computer simulation model to assess the value of using air tankers against high intensity fires. While the researchers have made substantial progress with this model and the economic model, there is plenty more work that can be done to further improve and validate them. Apart from that, CSIRO is also continuing research on protecting houses from bushfires and on the ecological impact of bushfires on the Australian environment. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1983-84 annual report for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which this year incorporates the annual report of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of the following International Labour Organisation instruments adopted by the sixty-eighth session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1983, together with the text of the statement relating to the instruments: Convention No. 159-Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment-Disabled Persons, 1983; Recommendation No. 167-Maintenance of Social Security Rights, 1983; and Recommendation No. 168-Vocational Rehabilitation and Employ- ment-Disabled Persons, 1983. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Federal Police annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters) —For the information of the House, I table a paper outlining the arrangements for the implementation of the new nationality requirement for appointment to the Australian Public Service, including the operation of the waiver provision. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Selection Committee for the period 25 June 1984 to 30 June 1984. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on Australia's population trends and prospects 1984, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement concerning the Government' s response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, 'Interim Report on Motorcycle and Bicycle Helmet Safety Inquiry'. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement concerning the Government' s response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, 'Lighthouses: Do we keep the keepers'. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year on reports made to the Minister. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. Further copies of the report will be made available to all honourable members as soon as possible. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the task force established to review private hospital categorisation arrangements. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present two reports: The report on the exposure of Australians to radiation at Maralinga and the report on British Nuclear tests in Australia by the Australian Ionising and Radiation Advisory Council. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement entitled ' environment assessment'. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Aboriginal Affairs annual report for 1983-84, together with the text of a statement relating to the report . Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the consolidated report on the social impact of uranium mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory, for the period October 1978 to June 1984. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Building Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board annual report 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Surveyors Board annual report for 1983-84. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —On 11 July 1984 I made critical reference to the comments of the Minister for Defence Support, Mr Howe, recorded on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program AM of that day concerning the decision of the biennial conference of the Australian Labor Party regarding the mining and export of uranium. My comments were made on Adelaide television news programs relayed on Channel 10 and Channel 7. My criticism was also broadcast on the ABC news. I made the statements in the mistaken belief that the Minister had advocated that the people take to the streets and riot. The Minister has since denied using the word 'rioting' and has advised me that in fact he used the word 'writing'. Without qualification, I accept his assurance that he did not use the word 'rioting' and withdraw both my allegation and the particular criticism. I offer my apologies for what appears to have been a genuine mistake in the transcript forwarded to me. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM on 11 July 1984, I heard the Minister for Defence Support, Mr Howe, commenting on the decision taken by the biennial conference of the Australian Labor Party regarding the mining and the export of uranium. I sincerely believed he said, inter alia, on the program: Not all the problems in the world can be resolved by a room full of delegates. Problems have to be resolved by people articulating views. Sometimes on the streets on demonstrations, sometimes by rioting and advocating their views in whatever way is open to them. I was surprised that a Minister should use the word 'rioting' and was moved to issue a media statement calling upon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to sack the Minister for suggesting such a violent action. However, the Minister has since stated that he used the word 'writing' and categorically denies using the word ' rioting' and has asked me for an apology. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the 15 years I have had the honour of serving in this Parliament it has not been either my inclination or practice to deliberately malign or attack the character of honourable members as individuals in this place. I therefore accept his denial and extend a public apology for having made my statement and for any embarrassment and loss of reputation caused to him. I retract my call upon the Prime Minister to sack him as the Minister for Defence Support. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time, specifically during the answer in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refused to rule out the possible reintroduction of death duties if his Government should be re-elected, the Prime Minister referred to-- Mr Holding —That is untrue, and you know it. Mr HOWARD —It is true. He said he has no official position. Mr Keating —I take a point of order. This wimp opposite gets up every afternoon on these things. If he wants to say where he has been misrepresented, he may do so. If he wants to propagandise, I will move that he be not further heard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is waiting to hear how the honourable member has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister referred during his answer on death duties to an answer that I gave at the National Press Club. Part of his answer was correct, but he deliberately omitted the last part of my answer. I will read the answer in full, because in deliberately omitting the last part he misrepresented the attitude that I took on a capital gains tax in giving that answer. I will read the answer in full so that there will be no doubt in the minds of the Australian people as to where either I or the Liberal Party of Australia stand on the matter. I said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question by Max Walsh, and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. But the idea that is advanced by so many that you ought to have a capital gains tax or a wealth tax on top of the existing taxation structure I think would be a thoroughly bad move , and I can assure you that the policy of the coalition for the election will include total opposition to the introduction of a capital gains tax. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the issue of Farmers Weekly, a publication of the Primary Industry Association in Perth, dated 10 October, Mr Flugge, President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, is quoted in an article headed 'Tuckey is slated for politicking on AWB Act'. I am quite surprised that I would be accused of that sort of thing. The article stated: In telegrams to branches of the Primary Industry Association and others, Mr Tuckey had suggested wheatgrowers had 'caved in' to the Government on the section of the Wheat Marketing Bill relating to board membership. The article quoted Mr Flugge as saying: At the time Mr Tuckey sent a message I had already had discussions with the Minister for Agriculture- that should be the Minister for Primary Industry- Mr Kerin, where he had agreed to introduce amendments which allowed for reconsideration of membership of the board . . . Further on in the article Mr Flugge is quoted as saying: Then, after the AWF had ironed out the problem with the Minister, Mr Tuckey jumped on the bandwagon and announced he intended opposing the Bill. As the AWF had made it quite clear in discussions held early last week with the Federal Opposition that the Bill would not complete its passage before Parliament rose if it was opposed in the Senate, Mr Tuckey's last minute move must be seen as nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon. I sent the telegrams referred to on Tuesday, 2 October, and Wednesday, 3 October. I also had Mr Flugge and Mr Ian Wearing, the Executive Officer of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, to dinner with me here in Parliament House on 2 October, the evening after I had sent the telegram. I add, and I am sure there are other members in this House who spoke with them at that time, that at no time was Mr Flugge able to inform me of his successful negotiations with the Minister. I am sure that, had he done so, I would have done what I eventually in fact did when the Minister brought those amendments to the Parliament, that is, withdrew an amendment I had on that matter. But, of course, at the time that I had dinner with Mr Flugge and Mr Wearing I had certainly not made out the amendment. I have discussed this matter quickly with the Minister in the last few minutes. He has seen this article. I also made a telephone call to Senator Macklin, who the Minister admits had negotiations with him on this matter. Senator Macklin informs me that at no time when he was debating this issue-we are talking about the actual amendments-had the Minister informed him that he had assured Mr Flugge that he need have no fear and that the form of legislation introduced in the previous two weeks would create no worries. But the actual amendment that he then introduced was prepared after his discussions with Senator Macklin. Senator Macklin confirms that that is his clear understanding of the matter. There seems to be no occasion when Mr Flugge had a clear undertaking from the Minister for Primary Industry that specific amending legislation would be introduced. I therefore point out to the House and to others that this piece of publicity is wrong and I call upon those members of the House who support me in this to do so and speak to the President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. By the way , his Executive Officer, Mr Wearing, whom we have also just contacted, is unable to confirm the statements of his President. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has given the honourable member a good go . I ask him to resume his seat. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two quite separate matters on which I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Mr HAYDEN —There has been some comment in newspapers in the last couple of days, particularly this morning in a very thoughtful editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald, the sentiments of which I largely agree with, about the matter of the Casey diaries. I have some contact with this as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I want to make it clear that the 30-year rule in respect of the Casey diaries has not been applied at the request or direction of the Government but solely at the request of the Casey family. I think the details of the Casey diaries have been adequately attended to in the Press release from the National Library of Australia of yesterday's date. But even that contains one error of fact. I quote : A few minor references of continuing diplomatic sensitivity will also be embargoed in later volumes, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have made it clear in discussions with my Department that the matters which are relevant to that expression of view should not be embargoed but that those matters would not be published under the 30-year rule, as requested by the Casey family, until 1988. That is, minimum embargo is my preference. The other matter concerns a broadcast on Radio Australia and also on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news this morning. Radio Australia stated: A review of Mr Mayer's application to stay in Australia as a political refugee has been delayed while Mr Hayden tries to influence Papua New Guinea. The ABC stated: The office says the review of Mr Mayer's application for refugee status in Australia has been postponed while the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, tries to influence the situation. It has not occurred to me to take such action; I have not been asked to take any such action; and I have not taken any such action. More than that, the journalist responsible for the story approached my office, spoke to Mr Costello, my Principal Private Secretary, and was advised that such statements were not just inaccurate but completely wrong in fact. I have spoken with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). He shares my concern and acknowledges, from his experience in this area in which he has a substantial responsibility, that those attributions to me on both Radio Australia and the ABC are totally unjustified. Debate resumed. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —by leave-My statement is in response to the statement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) just before the grievance debate was called on. I will keep it brief. It covers ground which I have spoken about several times both in government and in opposition. I refer particularly to my contributions on 10 November 1983 and on 29 May of this year on occupational health and safety. The Opposition welcomes the Minister's statement about the establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and, with the qualifications which I expressed previously, we wish the Government well. Occupational safety, health and welfare is an issue which transcends party politics. It is about the health and well-being of members of the community who are engaged in the work force and, of course, their families' well-being also. I made a number of statements as Minister for Productivity when I was responsible for these matters. The commitment of the Opposition parties to reduce the personal suffering and economic loss, as well as the loss of productivity to the country in coping with these matters, is well recorded. There is no doubt that what is required is a major national attack, co-ordinated by the Federal Government, with the State governments, employers and the trade union movement participating, with particular emphasis upon the small to medium sized companies . They are the ones with the poorest record in this field and they are the ones that it is hardest to convince that they should expend money on safety programs in order to save money ultimately. I recall for the benefit of the House that the previous Government actually assisted the State governments to prepare model legislation, which some of them did. We did a good deal in helping to advance the relevance and preparedness of the State government programs and policies to meet this situation. We also did a great deal in the public sector in terms of developing codes which improved the safety of the work place. But the establishment of this Commission does take it a step further. I commend the Government and I commend those who served on the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. But I wish to throw out this very important caution-- Dr Klugman —Especially the Chairman. Mr MACPHEE —Especially the Chairman. There is a jurisdictional complexity here. The tendency for Federal government agencies to centralise bureaucratic power is so well established that I want again to point out that the Opposition is anxious that this not occur in this case. There will undoubtedly be a tendency for that to occur and I urge the Minister to guard against it carefully. I assure him that we will watch it very carefully indeed. The conservative estimates indicate that occupational ill health and injury cost the community about $6 billion a year, which is twice as much as the community loses by way of damage on the roads. Of course, it does not take into account the cost in human terms of family tragedy and the psychological trauma. Some 300 people are killed and 150,000 injured each year through industrial accidents and industrial disease. We are only too well aware now of the repetition strain injuries which are also very serious. The Interim Commission stated: The commitment of employers, employees and their respective organisations and government, to an equitable and prevention-orientated health and safety system based on the principles of participation and acceptance of appropriate responsibility is a major goal. It is a key understanding of us and the public that the Commonwealth's role is primarily a co-ordinating and facilitating one and that major jurisdiction will still lie, in practice as well as in law, with the States. The interim report also recognises that a healthy and safe work place cannot be achieved solely by regulation, and it reveals the need to establish national standards and priorities with greater emphasis upon prevention. As I have said in the earlier debates to which I have referred, prevention is the key and we endorse the following statement in the interim report: A determined effort must be made to recognise, measure and control the causes of occupational injury and disease. I am pleased to say that there is now a greater awareness of this matter in the community than there used to be, including amongst the medical profession. I still have to point out-this is one thing I am sure the Minister will have in mind-that the State governments, regardless of their political persuasion, have not faced up to rehabilitation as much as they might have done. Also, they have not tackled the need to spread the message about the importance of safety amongst smaller employers as effectively as they might have. I think the States have failed their employees in respect of rehabilitation and have sheltered behind a compulsory workers compensation system which has added great on-costs. Great costs in employment have arisen, and some States are more efficient than others. Some are also fairer than others. Generally speaking, workers compensation has reached unacceptably high levels and is now said by employers to be a major deterrent to employing people. Indeed, that is demonstrated by the number of people who enter into bogus sub-contracting arrangements to try to avoid workers compensation, and of course that penalises the individuals concerned who in order to get a job decide to carry the risk of not getting injured. That is a most unfortunate situation to have arisen. While I commend the Minister for trying to tackle this matter at a Federal level, we need to be very careful that the root causes of the lack of rehabilitation facilities, the cost of workers compensation and the deterrent effect that has on employing people are also examined. For our part, we will co- operate fully with the Government in trying to examine all of those things. A great deal of information is available in respect of workers compensation, as well as in respect of occupational health and safety, and, as the two go together and as the rehabilitation aspects go not only with work place injuries but also with home and motor vehicle injuries, more cost effective proposals must be found. I go a stage further and say that it is time that, as a community and as eight governments, we examined as well the relevance of common law rights in respect of injuries at work because I think in many cases they contribute to at least neuroticism and in many cases they add to the unemployability of people. That does require concerted action of the character foreshadowed here, but perhaps it also requires some extension of what the Commission had in mind. So the Opposition supports this attempt to tackle the problem. If in fact it only results in the matter being transferred to the Federal jurisdiction, unevenly because of the constitutional base, and the major problems are not tackled at the grass roots level, the problem will be compounded and not resolved. This item which the Minister has brought to us ought to be high on the agenda of the next Premiers Conference and, in saying that, I think that if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who has a personal knowledge of and interest in this subject, could make the other heads of government equally aware, that would be helpful. For our part, in the event that the Premiers Conference is held after the elections our commitment is to do the same. It is a most important issue. Indeed, it is worthy of a special conference involving not only the Premiers but also the employers and the trade union movement. It is worthy of being treated as a separate subject, on its own. The ramifications are great. It is the trade union movement which has been reluctant to forgo the common law right. I believe it is time to re-examine that because by the time people are convinced that to get damages at common law they have to prove pain and suffering, which is the only difference between what is awarded under workers compensation legislation in most States and what can be awarded at common law, they have usually reduced themselves to a state of unemployability. In concluding, I commend not only the Interim Commission and Mr Brassil and his staff but also the employers and the trade unions who co-operated so fully and so actively in the preparation of this document, and the Opposition certainly will join with the Government, employers, employees and State governments to try to mount a concerted attack on occupational injury and ill health. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Dr BLEWETT —Following the public controversy that arose earlier this year over Government legislation that affected rights of private practice in public hospitals, the Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals was established under the chairmanship of Professor D. G. Penington. The Committee also included one nominee of the Government in Dr B. J. Kearney, and one nominee of the Australian Medical Association, Dr J. D. Cashman . The report that the Committee has produced is both detailed and comprehensive, and the Committee deserves the thanks of all members for their tireless work over the past six months. The Committee has consulted widely with the medical profession, with health care administrators from hospitals and from Commonwealth and State Governments, with other professional groups and with the community. Through this process they have been able to distil from the issues that arose out of the confrontation, the underlying issues of what constitutes appropriate regulation of the health care system in Australia. The report makes 40 individual recommendations arising out of the Committee's six months of consultation and research. They have identified 25 of these recommendations as being a core of major interlocking recommendations that must be accepted as a package for a fair and reasonable settlement to be achieved. These core recommendations seek to achieve a balance between the Government's desire for accountability, given that more than $2,000m is paid annually in medical benefits, and the medical profession's desire to maintain its professional independence. The Committee has recommended that the principles of the section 17 amendments be retained, but with certain modifications, especially in the area of consultation in the planning and implementation of any future changes. While disagreeing with the Government on some matters, the Committee has recommended controls in some areas where the Government had not originally proposed any. This was done within a general framework of putting the onus for accountability onto the medical profession to be effectively self monitoring. However, there are mechanisms built into the proposed system to allow governments to make an assessment after some years of the effectiveness of this self monitoring process. I take these core recommendations individually. Recommendation 3 recommends that there should be billing information systems that enable a public hospital to know the nature and extent of diagnostic private practice within the hospital. This can be achieved either through hospital billing or more flexible arrangements if this is not practical. However , the report acknowledges that the original aim for hospitals to obtain comprehensive billing information on diagnostic services is reasonable. Recommendation 5 recommends that medical services provided in public hospitals be identified, so that information on all private practice in public hospitals is available for planning purposes. Recommendation 6 recommends that the Health Insurance Act be amended to ensure appropriate independent annual review of medical benefits schedule fees. Recommendation 8 recommends that billing for the diagnostic services provided under rights of private practice in public hospitals, currently gazetted under section 17, should be at or below the schedule fee. Recommendations 10 to 13 recommend that for other medical services provided under rights of private practice in public hospitals, the fees charged should conform to either: Scheme A-charged at or below the Medical Benefits Schedule fee. Scheme B-where a higher fee is judged to be appropriate by the medical practitioner, that should be subject to a commitment to accept peer review of billing practices. This review would be conducted at least three times a year by a billing review committee of medical peers from the staff of the hospital, together with a medically qualified nominee of the hospital board. This committee would report at least annually to the hospital board on the appropriateness of billing patterns. Doctors electing scheme B would also be required to inform the patient prior to the delivery of the service of their intended fee. The individual level of charges for the use of facilities should rest with States and Territories, subject to broad principles laid down by the Commonwealth. Honourable members should note that these proposals for regulation of fees in areas other than diagnostic services go beyond the proposals originally put forward by the Government. I believe these proposals put forward a logical framework for guaranteeing reasonable public accountability while retaining acceptable professional independence. Recommendations 15 to 18 provide detailed recommendations concerning the establishment and operation of trust funds to receive and disburse fees income generated from the exercise of private practice rights in public hospitals. These trust funds are to be under the control of the hospital board and ultimately of the State Health Minister. Recommendations 19 to 24 recommend that full time salaried hospital doctors be limited in their private practice earnings to 25 per cent of their basic salary, in most circumstances. No such limits are recommended for visiting medical officers, provided they do not treat private patients during periods when they are receiving payment for treating public patients. Income limits are recommended where this does occur. The Committee's view is that, except for unusual circumstances, rights of private practice for full time salaried doctors must be exercised only within the employing hospital. The Committee recommends that medical services be provided on a contractual basis, where appropriate full time staff cannot be attracted. Guidelines are put forward for letters of appointment for the medical staff of public hospitals. With respect to recommendations 34 to 39, careful consideration has been given by the Inquiry to the recommendations on the consultative and appeal mechanisms. As the report indicates, the final legislative details will need to be worked out, but the general proposals are that a consultative committee be appointed comprising an independent chairman, three nominees of the Minister and three nominees of the Australian Medical Association. This consultative committee would consider, on reference from either the Minister or the AMA, any matter pertinent to the operation of section 17 of the Act and any proposal for amendment of this section of the Act, its regulations or guidelines. The committee should provide a workable arrangement for consultation between Government and the medical profession. The report also recommends that the Health Insurance Act be amended so that decisions by the Minister under section 17 of the Act may be subject to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Where the appeal concerns the AMA or other national medical body, it proposes that the matter be considered first by the consultative committee with the aim of limiting subsequent appeals. Similarly, consultative machinery is recommended for each State where matters in dispute lie within the jurisdiction of the State. New South Wales has already taken action to establish a medical service consultative committee following the recent dispute in that State. Because the financial and legislative details will require considerable development, the report recommends the immediate establishment of an interim consultative committee to report by 28 February 1985 on all matters requiring legislative amendments, and by not later than 30 June 1985 on all other matters. The report recommends that the Commonwealth be given authority to approve appropriate transitional arrangements regulating earnings for private practice. Recommendation 40 recommends a timetable for implementation of changes to the existing arrangements. These then are the core recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry. I am pleased to be able to announce the Government's support for these core recommendations, to be implemented only as a package. The other recommendations in the report cover a varied range of issues, some of which are more for the direct consideration of State governments than of the Commonwealth. Many of them will require detailed discussion and consultation with the States and the medical profession. Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of work ahead in developing and implementing the fundings of the Committee, and for that reason I wish also to announce that the Government has decided to establish immediately the interim consultative committee as recommended by the committee of inquiry. I am pleased to inform the House that Professor Penington has accepted the task of chairman of the consultative committee. It is clear from the manner in which the committee went about achieving consensus positions during the period of the inquiry that there could be none better qualified for this new task. The consultative committee will report to me by the end of February 1985 on all matters requiring legislative amendment and by 30 June 1985 on all other matters . In its progress report the Penington Committee noted that despite the dispute over section 17 the Government and the medical profession have large areas of common interest and a shared goal in terms of good health care for the community . The report noted that it would: . . . require good will on both sides to resolve the dispute and to establish a charter for partnership, in order to secure a constructive future for the public hospital system into the 21st century. It is the Government's belief that this final report does offer the basis for that charter for partnership which would ensure a constructive future for the public hospital systems of this country into the next century. I present the following paper. Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals- Ministerial Statement, 11 October 1984. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.35) —The Opposition would like to pay tribute to Professor David Penington, Dr John Cashman and Dr Brendon Kearney for their excellent work and the report of their Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals, which is both penetrating and scholarly. I note that we have Professor Penington and Dr Kearney here with us today. The report shows a sensitivity to and understanding of a complicated and difficult problem. The approach contrasts dramatically with the approach of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Government. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, this report exposes the monumental incompetence of this Minister. The report is an indictment of the Minister and I believe that it will be his epitaph. His low key statement is designed to suggest to the House that the Penington report is other than an utter condemnation of the Minister and his advisers. Because he has had the support of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government it is also a grave indictment of them. In summary, this report tells us, first, that the Minister introduced legislation vitally affecting relations between the Government, the medical profession and the public hospital system without having the slightest idea what the existing arrangements were between the various State systems and the profession. Secondly, he based proposals for close Federal ministerial control over doctors' contracts with public hospitals on estimates of costs for diagnostic services that were manifestly incorrect. Thirdly, having provoked by his legislation the strong and understandable reaction of the medical profession which was proven by this report to have been totally correct in its understanding of the situation, he added fuel to the flames by insulting it and, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, comparing it with the Builders Labourers Federation. Fourthly, he added injury to insult by encouraging his State Labor colleagues to introduce into State legislation coercive and penal provisions governing medical practice. Fifthly, the resulting turmoil in the form of the first doctors strike in Australian history and the subsequent resignations of visiting medical specialists in New South Wales-a situation which still prevails -occurred as a direct consequence of the bungling incompetence and subsequent truculence of this Minister. The Minister has allowed an ideological blind spot and a natural antipathy to private medical practice to cloud his judgment. However he was advised-no doubt primarily by outside advisers such as Dr John Deeble-he failed in his elementary duty as a Minister to question assertions made, to examine figures carefully, and to carry out the normal courtesies of consultation with those who actually knew what they were talking about. He has failed the high responsibility of his office. He is the cause of immense inconvenience and suffering to the general public. He has poisoned relations between the Government and an honourable profession. By his actions he has jeopardised the operation of the very scheme that he regards, however misguidedly, as the Government's most abiding monument. If he had any decency he would resign. If the Prime Minister had any standards of ministerial performance he would ask for the Minister's resignation. Let us look at the evidence of the Minister's incompetence given to us in the Penington report. It was said that the drastic provisions that were brought in were justified on these counts: There was alarm over rising health costs, a major cause of which was the big increase in the costs of diagnostic services, mainly pathology and radiology through the public hospitals; many diagnostic specialists were charging private patients more than the schedule fee for benefit purposes and such patients needed government protection; visiting medical officers' incomes were grossly excessive and had to be controlled; and visiting medical officers were not making an adequate contribution to the cost of public facilities they were using in their practice for the generation of private income. Those were the assertions on which section 17 of the Health Insurance Act was based. These are very serious assertions on the part of the Minister. Certainly, the draconian nature of the new provisions of section 17 of the Health Insurance Act reflected the apparent serious concern of the Government. One would have thought that extensive inquiries and testing of evidence would have occurred before the Government committed itself to this all or nothing set of measures that were bound to cause grave concern to the medical profession. We know the history of what followed. I have already gone through that and I will not repeat it, as I have been limited in time and am not allowed to make a general statement. What justification does the Penington report provide for the Minister's blunderbuss and his subsequent bluster. The report agrees with the Government that it must show concern for the manner in which upwards of $2,000m of taxpayers' funds is spent. However, we must remember the preceding event; that is, the nationalisation of medical insurance under Medicare. Thus the Government created the need for concern by its act of nationalisation of medical insurance. What about the overall escalation of health costs? I quote from page 6 of the report: The proportion of the nation's wealth devoted to health care has, in the past eight years, been stable in this country. This followed a period of rapid escalation in costs between 1973 and 1976 and factors relevant to both the earlier rapid growth and the more recent stability have been discussed in Chapter 4. So it was only during the period of the last Labor Government that there was a rapid increase in health costs and they have been relatively stable in relation to the nation's wealth over the last eight years. This provides no comfort to the Minister. What about the alarming rise in the cost of diagnostic services? In relation to diagnostic services page 6 of the report states: The apparent foundation on which the Section 17 proposals had been developed was concern over regulation of diagnostic services and the view that control of this sector within public hospitals was necessary. The case put forward by the Commonwealth was based on evidence relating to these services in the country at large and information was not available to the Department as to changes in cost or utilisation of services specifically within public hospitals. Yet the legislation introduced by the Minister related to public hospitals. The report continues: Evidence has been gathered by the Committee from many sources which points to the fact that growth in diagnostic services within public hospitals has been substantially less rapid than that outside public hospitals and indeed, that there has been no growth in provision of services in conventional diagnostic Radiology in the community as a whole over the past eleven years when correction is made for population growth. Let us look at the matter of diagnostic services in more detail. I quote from page 44 of the report: On the evidence presented in the Commonwealth submission . . . it appeared that the number of services provided per patient in Pathology had increased by 105% and in Radiology by 55% in the seven year period between 1975-76 and 1982-83. This contrasted with figures suggestive of an overall growth of 20% in services per patient for all other items in the Medical Benefits Schedule over these years. . . . . In the course of public hearings there were repeated expressions of surprise at the claimed rate of growth in provision of diagnostic services as this did not correspond with the experience of many hospital specialists or administrators. The Committee resolved to analyse the problem using a number of independent approaches. Page 47 states: Over the period studied- this is after more detailed study by the Committee and after looking at the bad figures provided by the Department of Health- there was growth in utilisation of pathology services (of all types) per 100 consultations totalling 39.7% over the nine years. The total of diagnostic Radiology services per 100 consultations declined by 14.1% during the same period. The decline was partially offset by the use of CAT scans, ultrasound and so on, but this did not make any major difference to the pattern. The report continues: When analysed in terms of expenditure per $100 spent on consultations, the pattern of change was in the same direction. Expenditure on Pathology services per $100 spent on consultations . . . increased . . . 13.1%, whilst expenditure on diagnostic Radiology decreased . . . 15.4%. To summarise, so that the House will know exactly what the Penington report says about the basis of the Minister's actions and the basis of the Government's Medicare legislation, the Department of Health and the Minister said that pathology had gone up by 105 per cent over seven years and radiology had gone up by 55 per cent over seven years as against 20 per cent for other services. The Committee found that the reality was that pathology went up by 39.7 per cent over nine years and not 105 per cent over seven years. Radiology did not, as the Department and the Minister said, go up by 55 per cent over seven years; it went down by 14.1 per cent over nine years. In terms of cost, pathology went up by a very low 13.1 per cent over nine years and radiology went down by 15.4 per cent over nine years. In its gentlemanly, precise way the report makes a classic statement relating to this situation. Page 48 of the report states: Whilst the evidence does not conclusively establish that growth in Pathology services has been slight during the period studied, the pattern threw doubt on whether the aggregated figures in the Commonwealth's submission correctly reflected the pattern in public hospitals. That is the understatement of the year. The Committee obviously was concerned that the decline in the use of radiology might not be correct, so it cross- checked. I turn to page 50 of the report, in the limited time that the Minister has allowed me to look at this matter. It looked at the use of x-ray film-both imported and Australian manufactured-between 1974 and 1983. The report states: When corrected for population growth during this period, and checked against evidence on number of x-ray films used per examination, further quite firm independent evidence was obtained indicating little or no growth in the provision of services in conventional diagnostic Radiology during the period analysed in the Commonwealth submission. So the Commonwealth submission to this Committee which was set up by the Minister exposes that the whole basis of the original legislation was wrong, that the figures were dud and that the Minister had not bothered to find out where it was in error. What about the fear that diagnostic specialists were overcharging private patients? The Committee examined practices in all States and Territories. Again, there appears to be no evidence of charging above the schedule fee. Indeed, many charge less than the schedule fee and most billings of private patients are made on behalf of doctors by the hospitals themselves. Also, the following quote is instructive in view of the Minister's repeated attacks on private practice. Page 49 states: Information . . . available in individual hospitals in three States and in each instance, the level of services provided per patient or per admission was either identical or lower for private than for public patients in the hospital. Whilst this pattern might be influenced by many factors such as the mix of disease in public and private categories, nonetheless, no evidence was found to suggest that remuneration on a fee-for-service basis increased the provision of Pathology services in public hospitals. What about the allegedly excessive incomes of doctors? Again, on pages 13 and 14 -which I probably will not have time to quote, so limited is the time given to me-there is a quite good analysis of income limits. But the report contains this gentle rebuke to the Minister: Views as to earnings of members of the medical profession have been widely commented on in the press; such views are commonly based on statements of gross income before payment of expenses and may well have contributed to attitudes on the need for income limitation. The Minister was second to nobody in suggesting on the basis of gross income figures that doctors' incomes were too high. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) backed him in that assertion and made public statements on it. The report states: Medical income is no greater as a proportion of total health costs than comparable countries overseas. What about the contribution to costs of facilities and the need for Federal control? Again, the Committee points out the factual arrangements in the various places and suggests that there is a need to work out these facility charges hospital by hospital. So much for the Minister's assertions. Almost without exception they are totally baseless. The Minister declared war on the medical profession without evidence or cause. He provoked widespread disruption to hospital services throughout Australia. This report is a milestone in medical and hospital history. It is a balanced analysis of facts which should have been available to the Minister before he made his decision and committed the Government to introduce the Medicare legislation. It is an indictment of the advisers he brought in from outside to override his departmental advisers. It is an indictment of his ministerial performance to have accepted whatever advice he was given at face value, to be blinded by his own ideological dislike of private medical practice and to inflict on the Australian community the first medical strike in Australian history and a mass resignation of doctors in New South Wales under parallel legislation introduced by the State Government. I think that a new Minister will be needed to re-establish the kind of charter of confidence with the medical profession as recommended by Professor Penington and his colleagues. I think it is absolutely impossible on the basis of this report, which will be read by every doctor in Australia, for anybody in the medical profession to have confidence in this man ever again. I think it is impossible for the people of Australia to have confidence in a government which would commit itself, through its Ministry and its Cabinet, to legislation which was so ill based. It has taken three honourable members of the profession, it has taken an inquiry that took months to complete and it has taken an enormous amount of digging, cross analysis and so on to find out where exactly departmental figures were wrong. It has taken months of turmoil and effort to expose the basis of the original legislation as being utterly false. This Minister does not deserve to hold the position he holds. If he continues to hold that position, this country and its health services are in dire peril. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I put the question I point out to the honourable member for Mackellar that the time given to him to reply to a ministerial statement is 15 minutes. This is set down by the Standing Orders and not by the Minister at the table. Mr Carlton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to explain what I was saying. The previous ministerial statement, which was made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, was replied to by his opposite number by leave of the House and therefore there was no restriction on the time available to him. In this case the Government quite purposely moved that the House take note of the paper to restrict my time to 15 minutes. It did it on purpose. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The time is set down by the Standing Orders, not by the Minister at the table. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —by leave-The Government's on-going commitment to defence is, I think, a matter of record. We are clearly on record in our commitment to ANZUS, a commitment which has been reiterated on a number of occasions. We have, since coming into office, taken a number of initiatives in order to increase and improve the efficiency within the defence areas and to ensure that the funds which are available for defence are spent in the most appropriate and efficient way. For instance, since coming to office-this has already been the subject of earlier announcements-we have established a procurement organisation to overcome problems which have been highlighted over recent times and established a housing branch within the Department of Defence to administer the very wide range of housing problems which exist in the defence area. The Hawke Government is committed to Australia's security. Since setting down the 1983-84 Budget, the first since Labor came into office, the Government has reviewed the strategic outlook for Australia. It has accepted an assessment that the favourable circumstances that have characterised Australia's security for more than a decade remain. The Government believes that no nation in our region has the capability to threaten Australia with any substantial military power and that none has any cause, nor any intent to develop such capabilities. Nevertheless, the Government accepts that a nation's rights and interests can come under challenge in many ways-the more readily if it is thought to be unable or unwilling to defend them. Australia is a vast continent, and there are so many ways that our security interests can be threatened-ways far short of direct military assault. We need a defence force able to deal with those threats should they emerge at some time in the future. Our approach to defence is consistent with Australia's strategic circumstances. We need to ensure that we have a defence force which is right for our needs. Modern military capabilities and skills are complex. They cannot be summoned up only when they are needed for operations. Australia's defence force will have the right kinds of military skills and equipment and the military organisation best suited for dealing with Australia's special circumstances only if the Government plans well ahead, gives its defence organisation clear guidance on its needs and priorities and sustains a steady commitment to implementing those plans. This Government is shaping the five-year defence program, and planning beyond that, to meet those circumstances. This year's Budget provision marks the commencement of the 1984-1989 five-year defence program. The Budget provides $5.82 billion for outlays on defence in 1984-85. That represents an underlying increase of 3.3 per cent in real terms or 7.5 per cent across the Hawke Government's first two Budgets. It is a higher rate of real increase than the Fraser Government provided for in its seven Budgets and about double that of the last two Fraser years. The Hawke Government makes no apology for the priority it attaches to defence. Part of our spending on defence today is to catch up on the backlogs we have inherited. In the defence program, each year builds on its predecessor and is the foundation for those which follow. Projects have to be funded over five years or more and continuity is all important. Consequently the Government and its advisers have considered the balance of the defence budget as between long term capital investment and readiness for operations. The Government agrees that the weight of resources should continue to be applied to strengthening our long term position. Our priorities also make provision for small but steady increases in the resources devoted to the training of the Defence Force and maintaining its stocks of weapons, ammunition, and other materiel. The Government has been able to do this and yet still continue the steady growth in the share of the defence outlay being directed to capital investment because it has sustained this year the steady real growth we provided for defence in the first Budget. This is in contrast to the 1982 directive of the Fraser Government to reduce Defence Force activities and to curtail exercises and training, a directive which was still in force when we came to office. Despite competing demands on the Commonwealth's funds this year, it gives me considerable satisfaction to be able to point to a second year of real growth. Growth last year of about 4.1 per cent means that the average for the two years of Labor Government is about 3.7 per cent real growth. Over the seven Budgets brought down by the previous Government, the average real growth in defence outlays was barely 2.5 per cent. Our commitment to Australia's security has been made in two difficult years, two years in which the Government was faced with reversing the trend of financial inconsistency and irresponsibility it had inherited. On coming to office this Government inherited a Budget distorted to meet the early election plans of the Fraser Government, not the economic needs of Australia. In 1984-85 the Budget needed to maintain the progress made in the Hawke Government's first year. Real tax cuts were essential and central to the maintenance of stable wages and prices achieved by the accord. The deficit had to be reduced to encourage private sector investment and to support the economic recovery now well under way. The Government has accepted a commitment to strengthen the nation's defence. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is sustained growth that will make it possible to maintain and re-equip the Defence Force. The good old conservative rhetoric may temporarily uplift the spirits but in defence, as in economic management, stop-go policies have no valid place. The fact is that the decisions being made in the present program will largely determine the shape and content of the Force structure of the 1990s and into the next century. The cost of succeeding generations of advanced military equipment continues to increase much more quickly than the rate of inflation. This means that continued real growth is needed in defence expenditure to update or to replace defence capabilities we already have. This Government inherited an immense backlog of deferred decisions and slipped programs. The former Government talked a lot about defence and about the great things it would do, but it did not deliver. The measure of a government's commitment to defence is not its rhetoric. It is not programs announced and never funded and the 1976 White Paper is a testament to that approach. Real commitment means following through a policy, not for one Budget, but for Budgets running many years into the future. The Government has committed $1 billion in future Budgets to meet obligations entered into in 1984-85. This relates to both existing projects and new projects that I will mention shortly. By dint of a large budgetary provision and rigorous management we are seeking to remedy the deficiencies allowed to occur through the mismanagement and procrastination of the previous Government. Not only is there a larger defence vote overall, but the proportion devoted to capital equipment has almost doubled since 1981-82, from 12.5 per cent to 23.5 per cent. Overall capital investment, which includes supporting facilities as well as equipment, is this year almost $1 billion more than was spent in 1981-82 . Even when discounted for three years' inflation, this is still an immense increase. Yet our strategy of directing more of the defence budget to capital investment has to be managed carefully. There is no point in having state of the art equipment and facilities without sufficient personnel trained in their operation and tactical deployment. There is not merely a question of readiness, important though that is for those selected units, such as the Operational Deployment Force, which are earmarked for rapid initial response to defence contingencies. It is also for the whole of the Defence Force, from the newest apprentice to the Chief of Defence Force, a matter of professional pride and sense of public worth . On such things is the morale of a Defence Force built. Without them we can have a Defence Force, but we cannot have an effective Defence Force. Recognising the importance of this, but mindful of demands being made by the long term re-equipment program, the Government has provided for a modest increase of about 2 per cent in real terms in the operating costs-those expenditures which enable the Defence Force to train and exercise. We will spend $1,539m here; almost $100m more than last year. This gives the lie to claims that operating funds are being cut. There will be more steaming time for Royal Australian Navy, track running for the Army and flying hours for the Royal Australian Air Force. There will be more ammunition and other consumable items for training. The Government is very conscious of the effect on morale of the availability of good quality accommodation. I have spent considerable time inspecting Service housing facilities including those in the Northern Territory and New South Wales . I am very concerned at the shameful neglect of this area during the former Government's period in office, and particularly at the results of its two-year freeze on defence housing. I am amazed at the Opposition's sudden discovery this year of the state of defence housing at Holsworthy. Even a cursory glance shows this to be the result of long years of neglect. This Government has not dithered . It has acted. We have provided modern single accommodation for 500 soldiers at Holsworthy. I have re-affirmed the Government's commitment to improving the overall situation. A task force, to report before the next Budget, has been established to examine options for improving the way in which housing is provided for persons in Commonwealth employment including, of course, Service personnel. In the meantime the Government in this Budget is continuing with its program to construct or acquire further Service housing and $48m has been allocated-an increase of 30 per cent over last year. Three hundred and fifty new houses are provided for in 1984-85. By far the greater part of the $1,700m of capital expenditure this year will be devoted to continuing payment for projects approved in previous years. We are now reaching the high point in payments for the FA18 aircraft which will re- equip our tactical fighter force. There has been ill-informed speculation recently about the cost of this project. Apart from the effects of inflation and adverse movement in the exchange rate since it was first approved, and even these have to some extent been offset by savings in elements of the project, there have been no substantive changes to the cost of the project in real terms. Let me point out that the aircraft themselves are only one element in the upgrading of our air defence. This year sees the start of work on the construction of a fighter base at Tindal, near Katherine in the Northern Territory, the first major Defence capability to be placed in that area since the Second World War. There will also be extensive work this year to prepare the RAAF Base at Williamtown, New South Wales, for the introduction of the FA18 aircraft. Large demands on outlay will continue for many years to come for the guided missile frigates program. Four of the vessels being built in the United States of America are nearing completion. This Government has demonstrated its confidence in our local industry by deciding to build two more frigates in Australia at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard at a cost of more than $800m. We took this decision on the condition that satisfactory industrial arrangements could be made. I am pleased to say that my colleague the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and the unions have reached agreement, and the work is going well. Modernisation of the other elements of the destroyer force will continue. It gives me particular pleasure to announce that when HMAS Swan completes her modernisation next year, she will become the second destroyer escort to be homeported at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. She will join her sister ship HMAS Stuart, which arrived on station in January this year. On 9 October 1984 I announced the Government's in-principle decision to buy eight Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters which will provide the frigates with enhanced anti-submarine capability and over-the-horizon surveillance to extend their already potent anti-shipping capability. Helicopters have always been regarded as an integral part of the weapons system of the FFG class of ships. The estimated cost of the project to acquire the aircraft, their sensor weapon systems, and associated equipment is about $317m at April 1984 prices. Initial funding to cover this acquisition is included in this year's appropriations. The contract will provide substantial opportunities for Australian electronics and aerospace industries to participate in the Seahawk project. Resolution of the total industry program will be a key factor in the forthcoming contract negotiations, and is expected to attract another $80m worth of local work spread primarily between Victoria and New South Wales. The package will contribute to sustaining job opportunities and introduce important new technology. The Government has also approved modifications to the Navy's existing FFGs, at a cost of about $51m, to enable them to operate the Seahawk helicopters. Most of this expenditure will be committed to Australian dockyards. The first of the new helicopters should be delivered to Australia in late 1987 and begin operational flights in later 1988. The fleet will also benefit from the increment in long range maritime surveillance capability created by the arrival in Australia of the first of 10 new P3C Orion aircraft. The Army will receive 259 four-tonne and 209 eight-tonne medium trucks as part of a program to replace the medium truck fleet. It will also take delivery of 34 new 155 millimetre howitzers. Payments will be made this year for seven mortar locating radar equipments for the army, with delivery expected in 1986. The big expenditures are on projects already well advanced. But I am pleased to be able to announce a number of other new capital equipment projects which the Government has approved and for which it has made initial financial provisions in 1984/85, recognising that as they mature the demands they make on the public purse will grow. This year will see the manufacture of 59, 105 millimetre field guns commence at the Bendigo and Maribyrnong ordnance factories. The new guns-the British L118/ 119 light gun-will enter service in 1987. The project will re-equip three regular artillery regiments and provide for training and repair support. Practice missile spares will be acquired to improve support for existing standard missile stocks. This is part of a multi-phased proposal in support of the standard surface-to-air missile system fitted in Navy's guided missile destroyers and frigates. We will acquire a shore based combat system trainer van to assist in the training of guided missile destroyer and frigate personnel. The trainer is scheduled to enter service in 1988 and will allow the training of personnel through simulation when ships are alongside. This will permit more effective use of available sea time. Harpoon telemetry missiles will be purchased to maintain a practice firing and proving program for the guided missile frigates and P3C aircraft. The project makes provision for spares and for research and development of a simulator which could be fitted to P3C aircraft to facilitate training. It is a part of a wider program for the acquisition and support of the harpoon anti-ship missile, which can be launched from Orion aircraft, guided missile frigates, F111s, Oberon class submarines and FA18 fighters. This will provide Australia with a considerable maritime defence capability. The initial phases of a proposal to upgrade the management of stores inventories and supply functions have been approved. These phases provide for the purchase of hardware with long lead times and refurbishment of sites necessary for the development and proving of systems concepts. Provision is also made for limited enhancement of present systems until the new systems are in place. The Government has approved further expenditure on Project Kariwarra, a research program directed towards developing a towed sonar array for both submarine and surface ship anti-submarine surveillance. The present phase, to be undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, with assistance from Australian industry, is to identify the technology needed for prototype development. We will spend $19m this year on the first phase of DISCON, the defence integrated secure communications network. An Australian company, Plessey Pacific Defence Systems, has been selected as the contractor. The Government has also approved a number of other significant new projects which will involve expenditure in later years but not in 1984-85. More than 2,000 high frequency tactical radios will be produced in Australia for the Services. These radios will begin entering service in the later half of the 1980s. This proposal forms part of a wider program to replace current tactical high frequency and very high frequency radios. Electronic warfare systems will be acquired for the 10 new P3C Orion long range maritime patrol aircraft. They will be fitted to the aircraft by 1987. As part of the wider proposal to develop Tindal as a home base for a squadron of FA18 tactical fighter aircraft, an air surveillance radar system will be installed. The radar will assist in the air traffic control of both civil and military aircraft and provide a limited air defence training capability. It is schedule to enter service in 1988 in time for the initial stationing of the FA18 at Tindal. A number of other equipment and facilities related projects approved by the Government are listed in an annex to this statement. As I have said, manpower costs have been held about steady in real terms-in the interests of capital investment. Overall, the Service numbers aimed at for 30 June 1985 are slightly lower than those planned for the financial year just ended. The approved strength for Navy will be reduced during 1984-85 by 450 to 16,246. This reduction is the direct result of the decisions not to purchase an aircraft carrier and to cease naval fixed wing operations. Because of the repeated misrepresentation of the decision, I want to set out quite clearly that it was the Fraser Government that decided to disband the fixed wing component of the Fleet Air Arm. This Government does not resile from that decision. On 8 April 1982, Mr Killen, the then Minister for Defence, announced in his news release No. 44/82 that: The Government had decided that the Tracker and Skyhawk aircraft should be paid off as soon as practicable. As a result of this move, there would be a reduction in the requirement for Fleet Air Arm personnel in the short to medium term. On 29 April 1982, Mr Killen repeated in the Parliament: as a consequence of a Government decision-these aircraft are to be paid off as soon as practicable to provide early savings in expenditure. It is expected that there will also be consequent manpower savings. The Skyhawk and Tracker front-line squadrons were disbanded on 2 July 1982. This Government did not disagree with that decision. We confirmed it soon after taking office. I hope-without much confidence-that the Opposition will now have the honesty to acknowledge its own decisions. The approved strength for Army remains at 32,677. The Air Force's strength is to increase by 120 to 22,797. This increase is to provide for the transfer of functions following the cessation of fixed wing flying activities by Navy. The Army Reserve remains at an approved strength of 30,000 for 30 June 1985. An increase in the Navy Reserve and a reduction in the Air Force Reserve from last year's planned figures have the net effect of a slight reduction in total Reserves from 34,952 to 34,900. The 1984-85 year sees the introduction across the Australian Public Service of the new human resource budgeting process. This replaces the former system of control, based on an end of the year staff ceiling, with an across the year average expressed in staff years. For Defence the average civilian staffing level for 1984-85 will be 24,931 staff years. This figure includes part time and casual staff as well as full time, and represents a reduction of 150 staff years from that for 1983-84. The main elements in this reduction include a reduction in locally engaged staff in Butterworth, Malaysia; a slight decrease in staff numbers in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation; and transfers in functions between departments. Australian defence policy recognises the value of co-operation with those countries in South East Asia and the South Pacific with which we share important security interests. In 1984-85 we plan to spend $48.2m on the defence co- operation programs with the regional countries-an increase of $2.6m over expenditure in 1983-84. Of that amount, approximately $23.3m will be devoted to activities and projects with the Association of South East Asian Nations countries and over $24m to the South Pacific, including almost $18m for Papua New Guinea. The program will provide for projects, training and combined exercising with a number of regional countries. Major projects in train this financial year include assistance with a study of the manpower requirements and organisation of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force ; Nomad aircraft projects in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines and provision of an Army advisory team to Malaysia. This year there will also be initial expenditure on the South Pacific patrol boat project. The intention is to provide our South Pacific Pacific neighbours with easily maintained, Australian-built vessels suitable for patrol and surveillance work in their waters. We will provide training in Australia for almost 1,250 personnel from South East Asian and Pacific countries-an increase of about 10 per cent on 1983-84 levels. To conclude then, the defence budget this year is the clearest possible evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to defence. The real growth that has been allowed for meets the expenditure requirements arising from previous decisions on equipment purchases and construction projects and for a modest real increase in operating expenditures. It also provides for the commencement in 1984-85 of a number of substantial new projects. Taken as a whole, the budget for defence emphasises the Government's priorities and its determination to sustain and upgrade our present defence capabilities, infrastructure and support. The path we have mapped out is a long one, not to be tackled by fits and starts. Our path is not based on talk and meaningless promises; it is based on real needs and real commitments. That we have again budgeted for a substantial real increase in defence spending is a measure of our commitment to providing for the nation's security. I present the following paper : Defence Force-Ministerial Statement, 11 October 1984. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Scholes)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.12) —We have just heard from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) an apology as to why and how he, in rhetoric, is seeking to explain to the people of Australia that the figures that are in the Budget, which was presented the other day, are sadly not what they seem. The Minister for Defence has misrepresented the position in a number of significant instances. I am afraid that it is necessary for us all, if we are to get an accurate assessment of what is happening in defence, to look at those figures initially. The statement itself does accompany a number of new equipment decisions and I want to talk about the figures and the consequences. It is a statement which is of tremendous importance as far as Australia's defence is concerned, for we all know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is running around the world alienating all our friends and allies. We are in a period of not high risk but a period when our defence capability needs necessarily to develop a greater measure of self-sufficiency. That is not happening. Nothing in this Budget, sadly, is giving it the additional boost that is needed. I want to say initially that all those who serve in the defence forces, I believe, deserve the commendation of everybody in the Australian community. Those people provide a very effective level of service within their capability. The sad part of our defence vote is the inadequacy in funding in the areas where there are serious shortfalls. I want to talk about those. I think we should start from a recognition that there are two principal areas of the Budget. One concerns capital acquisition and the other concerns recurrent expenditure which is designed to maintain efficiency. In all the major areas of capital expenditure the decisions that have been taken are not ones of this Government; they are decisions of the previous coalition Government. The decisions on the character of equipment have been taken largely, with the exception of the Sikorsky helicopter decision the other day, not by this Minister but by his predecessors. I think it is important that we realise that in policy terms this statement tells us very little except that in a few areas the Government will be prepared to maintain a commitment. When we look at it we see, sadly, that the pace of expenditure has not been maintained. An example is the decision not to buy an aircraft carrier. Let us start by looking at the figures. The Minister, in his statement, has tried to show that Labor in government has a greater commitment to defence than the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Unfortunately, in doing so his figures are shoddy and questionable, to say the least. The Minister claims that the real growth in defence spending last year was 4.1 per cent and the underlying increase this year is 3.3 per cent; that is, an average annual real rate of 3.7 per cent. He claims that the average real growth over the Fraser-Anthony years was only 2.5 per cent. Sadly, he does not seem to have read the Budget Papers which set down the figures and show that to be false. According to Budget Paper No. 1, the average annual increase in defence spending in the Fraser-Anthony years was 4.2 per cent. The statistics are there for everybody to see in Budget Paper No. 1 in the Budget for this year , 1984-85. If we look at those figures we find that not only was our increase in spending 4.2 per cent but also we cut back our expenditure in that period when we took a decision, as everybody will recall, to buy HMS Invincible. We were advised that we would not be able to acquire it. I will say a little about that in a moment. In April 1982 the then Minister for Defence, Sir James Killen, my predecessor, made an announcement to this Parliament which set down fairly succinctly and in very considerable detail the changes in funding that flowed from the decision to acquire HMS Invincible. We cut back our expenditure significantly because we were going to pay for the Invincible. To the time the Government changed we had not taken a decision on a carrier and had not reinstated those decisions. In spite of that cut our average throughout the period was 4.2 per cent. The average over the two years of Labor's Budgets has been only 3.2 per cent. We start off by looking at a comparison which certainly throws into very serious doubt the contention of the Minister that the Government's Budget figures show a greater annual growth rate. Not only has the Minister failed to do his sums properly in that respect but also he has derived his figure for underlying real growth by double counting this year's figures. He has two budgets and in his second budget he has double counted the same figures, so the figures are not what he says they are. If one attributes, as he has, the same outlay on advance payments for defence purchases for two successive years one finishes up getting a figure that is far higher than it should be. The true figure for growth in defence spending in real terms in this year's Budget is not the 3.3 per cent he claims but only 2.4 per cent. That is an average annual real growth rate of 3.25 per cent. We need to start off by realising that the Minister has not presented accurate figures in trying to pretend that Labor has a greater commitment to defence and that there has been a greater real growth in defence spending, for that is not so. The second item which I think we need to realise is that the figure for defence spending this year is $5,820m. It sounds a lot of money, but we need to remember that it is only marginally greater than the amount spent on public debt interest . In other words, the amount of money that this Government is borrowing in its deficits and the more it borrows overseas, the higher that amount of money will grow and the less will be available for defence spending. I am afraid that in the comparison with the amount of public debt interest there is again a figure that does not reflect very much to the credit of this Government. Let us look within the Budget itself. We know that this is the largest taxing, largest spending, government in Australia's history. We know that this year we have the largest deficit that we have ever had. The Government is a big spending , big taxing and big deficit government. Yet if we look at the Budget we find that defence spending this year will be 9.1 per cent of total Budget outlays, which is the lowest proportion since 1978-79. The increase in real terms-again I cite not my figures but those contained in Budget Paper No. 1-is only 1.5 per cent, which is among the smallest increase in this big spending Budget and represents only 25 per cent of the rate of increase in real spending overall. In other words, the Government is spending big everywhere else but it is certainly pruning the amount of money it is prepared to allocate for defence. Sadly, in spite of the statement made by the Minister and the details he is trying to present to conceal the reality of the rundown in funds being provided to the Department of Defence, this Budget marks a slowing of the rate of progress in several significant areas of defence activity, progress which has been tremendously important and has been achieved since we came into office in 1975. Since we took over in 1976 this progress has led to a significant commitment to re-equipping the forces, a significant commitment to modernising the forces and a significant commitment to a rolling five-year defence program which ensured that we would have a modern, well equipped Defence Force able to meet any potential threat and able to deter any aggressor. Sadly the rate of real increase in total outlays has slowed and there is no doubt that this defence budget represents little more than the average rate of compound real growth if one takes the real growth rate over the period from 1976-77 to 1982-83 . On any measure, real growth fails to sustain the rate of increase needed to finance the Government's five-year defence program, and that is the most serious indictment of all. Not enough money is even being allotted in this Budget to fund the capital procurement committed under the Government's five-year defence program. Even if there were, there would be very little room to fill the still far too plentiful significant gaps in our defence capability. I will say a little about that in a moment. Purchase of new equipment now represents 23.2 per cent of total spending. I well understand the Minister saying that that represents an increase, and it does statistically at least. It has risen from 21.9 per cent last year. However, the rate of increase has been slowing. The five-year defence program envisages a 30 per cent share by 1988-89 and, at the rate the Minister and this Government are going, that figure will not be achieved. We need to realise that the big expenditure increase applies to aircraft. We all know that the FA18 program represents a major commitment by Australia. We entered into it on the advice of members of the Defence Force because we believed that the FA18 is ideally suited to be the new tactical fighter for the Australian Defence Force. We need to understand that, while overall expenditure on aircraft has been increased, expenditure on eight other programs has been reduced. There has been a very serious decline in spending in the other equipment and stores division. We need to understand that the other equipment and stores division within the Budget is an area from which a wide range of smaller equipment projects are funded. Quite often-nearly always-that other equipment area represents the means of applying the latest technology and maintaining the combat effectiveness of the very expensive platforms. So, while these new capital procurements are proceeding, sadly the amount of money needed to equip those very expensive platforms is not being provided at a rate which enables the Defence Force to meet the capability of the equipment that is being acquired as a result of the policy decisions that we took when in government. If we look at capital facilities, we find the rate of increase is lagging behind the Minister's predictions. It is still only 4.7 per cent of total spending, not 5 per cent as the Minister forecast only in November last year. If we look at defence co-operation, we find it is reduced in real terms. If we look at manpower, I am afraid we will see that the position is very serious. Manpower costs are estimated to be only 45.7 per cent of total spending, going down from the rate of 46.5 per cent last year. If we look at the actual numbers available- I want to say something about the Army Reserve in a moment as the position is becoming increasingly serious there-we find in the Minister's statement that, for example, the manpower figures for the Royal Australian Navy are going down. He attributes it all to the fact that a decision was made against the acquisition of a new carrier for the Navy and consequently the disbandment he has announced of the fixed wing aviation component of the RAN. I mentioned that the Minister has been very misleading in his statement. That is one area, apart from the figures which I have demonstrated are wrong, in which the Minister has totally misstated the position. He quoted Sir James Killen with gay abandon. He mentioned that Mr Killen, as he then was, announced on 8 April 1982 that the Tracker and Skyhawk aircraft should be paid off as soon as practicable. He mentioned that Mr Killen, in his statement on 29 April 1982, repeated in Parliament that those aircraft were to be paid off as soon as practicable. That is true, but he did not recognise that those decisions were taken because we were buying HMS Invincible. I would have thought that even the Minister would know that those types of aircraft could not be operated from HMS Invincible. HMS Invincible has a jump lift facility in its bow. It was a craft which, certainly at the time we took the decision, was intended to be an anti- submarine helicopter platform. We had the Sea King helicopter which after all is a very efficient piece of equipment designed to maintain the anti-submarine warfare patrol for the fleet. We took decisions to acquire HMS Invincible. In order to fund that purchase, of course it was necessary for the then Minister to make an announcement about the phasing out of those pieces of equipment that were part of HMAS Melbourne. In case the Minister has forgotten, we were going to replace HMAS Melbourne with the Invincible, which all honourable members should remember was going to be renamed HMAS Australia. But in the light of the Falklands incident we offered HMS Invincible back to the British Government, and the British Government accepted that offer. The consequence was that those aircraft that were in service in the Fleet Air Arm no longer needed to be scrapped until such stage as a decision was finally taken on procuring a carrier. We had not taken such a decision, nor had I as the predecessor of the present Minister for Defence made any decision about what we would do about fixed wing aircraft. Indeed, we decided that we would retain the A4s and the Tracker aircraft until we had worked out whether we would buy a carrier and then whether or not we would need those aircraft and what their residual capabilities are. What has happened is that the Government has denied Australia the capabilities that were in the A4 and in the Tracker. Mr Charles —Would you have bought another carrier? Mr SINCLAIR —Well might the honourable member cry out from the other side. The point is that the A4 aircraft at the moment is the only aircraft able to provide adequate fleet exercises. At the moment the papers show that there is a significantly greater use of Lear jets chartered from civilian operators because the Services do not have an aircraft that can properly provide the low level surface skimming simulation of a missile that the Navy needs to test its Harpoons. The product of the decision on the A4s is that we have lost the only in-service air refuelling self-capability. The A4 is able to refuel other A4s in flight. At the moment we have two 707s which in due course will be re-equipped for aerial refuelling. That re-equipment has not yet been undertaken. Until that happened the A4s could have provided cover for the fleet, which certainly would have been restricted because there was no surface platform from which they could operate at sea, and they could have provided a capability in training, in exercising and in ground support for other elements of the ADF which this Government's decision has denied. The decision taken by Mr Killen, the then Minister for Defence, was taken in the light of a decision by our Government to acquire HMS Invincible. The aircraft were not going to be capable of operating from that ship. As that was the case, the sensible thing to do was to re-equip the ADF so that it would be able to operate to the maximum ability with the facilities available. This Government's decision was taken not because we had acquired an aircraft carrier. It decided not to proceed with the acquisition. Its decision, taken without regard for the consequences to the ADF-not specifically to the Navy, but certainly to the ADF-was to disband the fixed wing aviation component and to sell the Trackers and the A4s. The part of the Minister's statement on that decision should be read honestly and not in the way it has been presented. The second problem in regard to the Government's decision relates to naval staffing numbers. It was mentioned in the statement that the approved strength of the Navy will be reduced during 1984-85 by 450 men. Those figures are quoted at page 19 of the Minister's statement. There are several real problems in the Navy at the moment. Not only is there a problem which is the product of that cut in numbers but also there are very significant problems in the establishment levels in a number of sectors of the Navy. Reports have been given to me about the difficulties that some elements of the Navy are finding because there is insufficient flexibility to adjust and to move people around. Sadly, the result is not to maintain the level of efficiency in some areas that we on our side of the House all believe is necessary. Another element is running costs. Running costs are expected to be 25.5 per cent of spending-down marginally from last year. The largest elements are those most closely linked to service deployment and training. In this area funding has increased by only 5.1 per cent. As far as I am concerned, 5.1 per cent is no real growth. Whatever the fiddle of the Medicare figures and the consumer price index to keep down the present prospective CPI increase over this period, nobody can look at 5.1 per cent as allowing for any real growth in running costs. I am afraid that the result will be that, quite contrary to the Minister's statement, the level of training and exercising for the Services, on the figures that have been presented to us in the Budget and in this statement today, will decline.The allocation to running costs certainly does not meet the objective of a real increase of 2 per cent. There are already signs of long term dangers in keeping restraint on running costs. It was argued that new equipment is less expensive to maintain. But there are already two instances in the running costs appropriations totalling $2m where there is increased spending because of the greater sophistication of new equipment. If these types of restrictions continue , the Government could well find itself in a financial crisis such as happened last year when we all recall that postings were prevented and sailors and members of the Services were not even allowed to transfer to those new posts that are customarily announced from time to time. We need to remember in respect of the policy and Budget elements of the statement that the decisions on equipment were not taken by Labor. They were decisions taken by the coalition Government. The Minister has made a great deal of fuss and hoo-ha about the fact that they were not totally funded. The point is that they were decisions taken in full knowledge that they would be funded in those years in which payment was due. Sadly, as far as the coalition is concerned, many of those equipment purchases have to be made abroad. The very nature of the sophistication, for example, of the FA18 and the cost of developing a very advanced platform of that character was regrettably beyond the cost capability-not the technical capability-of a nation like Australia. So the payments are on a rolling basis. We all knew the crunch was coming this year for the FA18s. We knew of the FFG decisions and the Government now in office certainly should have known that at the time when those decisions were taken the coalition had accepted the consequences of upgrading our defence commitment in a way which would allow an adequate level of funding of those forward equipment purchases as well as an adequate level of funding for manpower training and operational needs. I am afraid that the real problem in the whole area has been aggravated. There are several examples of Labor not keeping its commitment on new defence purchases. For example, last year the Minister announced a decision on the very low level defence system, the Redeye replacement, and that it would be made in 1983-84. No decision has been made and it appears to have been dropped from sight. We know that the Sikorsky decision was very nearly put to one side. As is the case with everything else this Government does, it went to the Australian Council of Trade Unions for advice. We have learnt that there had even been a decision deferred because the Government had to go to the ACTU to see whether it could convince the ACTU that it had bought the right piece of equipment. We know that the ACTU is setting the Government's tax policy. We know that the ACTU significantly is there as the manipulator of the Labor Party in almost every direction. We know that the accord is the vehicle by which confidential information is being given to the ACTU. It is denied to everybody else in our community. We now find that the ACTU is influencing not only tax decisions and the accord but also what happens in defence. We have had the Sikorsky decision, with too few aircraft, which was affected by the ACTU. We have had the dropping of the very low level air defence system. We have problems about what will happen with the Oberon submarine replacement. Honourable members would remember we were told that there will be some acceleration in the selection of manufacturers so that the Department of Defence could proceed with detailed studies into construction of an Oberon submarine replacement and its fire control system in the last financial year. But to date no decision has been announced. Of course, the Government has also benefited in its defence vote from the wage stability that came from the Fraser-Anthony pay pause. In the overall capability , the result is sadly that, instead of this paper and the Budget showing Labor's commitment to defence, it shows exactly the reverse. If we look at the situation of the reserves, we perhaps see the effect of Government decisions on service conditions most dramatically. It is true that some money is being allocated to upgrade service housing. I commend everything that is being done in that respect. Certainly there is quite a number of areas where members of the ADF are housed in conditions that are far from satisfactory . But any government being honest in that area needs to look quite seriously at giving to the Department of Defence the funds that can be raised from selling existing housing so that the Department can build new houses. At the moment repairs and maintenance on housing quite often cost a very significant sum of money, far more than it would cost to replace the housing. But, because of the way in which defence budgets operate, instead of being able to dispose of service housing and accommodation and to build new homes more appropriate to modern standards, the budget system prevents it. There are housing problems. I commend the Government for what it has done but I believe far more needs to be done. We all remember what the Government did with superannuation. We all remember that it went to the polls in 1983 and said that it would ensure that the real value of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits entitlement was maintained. That did not occur. It brought in a tax scale which meant that it had to introduce legislation so that the basis of commutation of DFRDB entitlement could be varied to give about the same return because of the tax liability and also to ensure that there would be a resultant pension reduction for those servicemen who took advantage of the commutation. But very few servicemen leave after the age when the minimal rate of taxation applies. Because of their very nature, the Services lose more than 95 per cent of their personnel before they reach the age of 50. Consequently, all servicemen are charged at a higher rate on their superannuation DFRDB commutation benefit than are other members of the community who receive their benefit in a different form when they retire, almost exclusively, over the age of 50. The second decision included the taxing of pay for members of the reserves. The Government modified the decision by taxing only half of the pay of reservists. But, surely to goodness, the Government realises that, if we are to maintain sophisticated equipment and have the reserves properly integrated in the Defence Force, it is essential that we provide stimulus for those who have skills, trade training and professional training outside to come and work within the Services. There is a real disincentive to that happening because of this tax, albeit on only half of the reservists' pay. There are very serious stories about the decline in numbers in the reserves. I know that at the moment in some areas there is a suggestion that, instead of the 30,000 figure in this paper, there may well be only 22,000. We are told that the rate of resignations is exceeding the rate of new recruitment. I believe this is due to a combination of the lack of numbers and the change or reduction in training days that is now causing enormous problems for the maintenance of an adequate, efficient Army Reserve. This Government has a great deal to answer for in that respect. I am told that, in the latest figures that came out today for August, the total number in the Army Reserve has fallen again. It has fallen by over 6,500 since October 1983-a decline of 19.5 per cent. Frankly, the Government is running down its expenditure in other areas of the Services at a time when we ought to be strengthening, not reducing, the capability of our reserve forces. This Budget and this statement do not correct that. There is a reason to increase the number of training days for the reserves. There is a reason for the Government to attend to the problem of numbers in the reserves. I am afraid that the result of this statement will not be to do that. If we look at the Minister's statement and the overall capability, we see that what the Minister is saying to Australia is that he believes everything is all right. Frankly, it is not all right. A submission from the Department of Defence on 21 March 1984 to a Senate committee said that Australia's defence capability was incapable of supporting any sustained combat involvement. On 4 April, the retiring Chief of Defence Force Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, said: We do not know what is going on in our own airspace in so many parts of Australia. On 25 May, Rear Admiral Guy Griffiths, Royal Australian Navy retired, said that the RAN's surface fleet, once the most powerful in the region, was now inferior to those of India, Korea and Taiwan and barely stronger than Indonesia's. He said the Navy no longer had the capability to act as a credible deterrent to attacks on mainland Australia or its outlying territories. Unfortunately, we hear such comments time after time. There are problems in the defence aid program. The defence co-operation program has been cut in real terms, as I have explained. This is a time when the Minister could have come into this place and told North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd in Cairns that it would place the order for more patrol boats. That would have helped at least in upgrading that area of capability. In all, this program does not show that this Government is committed to defence . It is not a program that we believe is adequate and in government the coalition parties would allocate meaningful funds to the defence forces to upgrade their capability and to maintain both their manpower levels and their operational capability. Those funds have not been provided by Labor and I do not believe that the statement by the Minister today has in any way allayed the real concern of the community about the attitude of our Defence Force. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister seek to make a personal explanation? Mr SCHOLES —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SCHOLES —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) indicated that certain figures I gave were incorrect and that the figures in the Budget Papers reflected that. The figures in the Budget Paper which he quoted are based on the implicit price deflator for non-farm gross domestic product, a figure never used in defence assessments-a fact of which I am sure he is aware. The paper to which he referred indicates quite clearly on page 75 that defence funding assessments are based on the defence index, which reflects defence costs and not general overall inflation costs which are not in any way relevant to defence costs. I also table the annex to which I referred in my speech. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-The Government has decided to retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs as a statutory body active in multicultural affairs. However, in some areas the Institute will be reoriented to give it a more effective role in implementing Government policy-a role which recognises the multicultural nature of Australian society and the need to encourage improved community relations. The review of AIMA was a pre-election policy commitment. It reflected the Government's desire to ensure that administrative arrangements used to implement our multicultural and community relations policies were effective in meeting the needs of both migrant groups and the community generally. The Government has received two reports as a part of its review. The first was from the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, under the chairmanship of Dr Moss Cass. I tabled the Committee's report in this House on 8 December 1983. The Committee's report recommended that AIMA should be replaced by a new independent statutory commission which should act with due regard to the interests and concerns of the States and Territories; that it should involve them actively in its work; and that it should act as a national co-ordinating body in the field of multicultural affairs. I advised honourable members in my statement of 8 December 1983 that the Government had accepted the recommendation of the Committee of Review that the Council of AIMA conduct extensive consultations in the community with interested ethnic and other groups and individuals on the report, and that the Council be asked to report on the outcome of these consultations before the Government determined its response to the report of the Committee of Review. The Committee of Review itself had undertaken a major program of community consultations in all States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The further opportunity for public consultations on the recommendations made by the Review Committee has given the Government a valuable perspective on community views. The report by the Council of AIMA, under the title 'Looking Forward', was tabled in this House on 6 June 1984. The AIMA Council has reported widespread support for the general ideals of a multicultural society, and that the overwhelming consensus of opinion expressed in the consultations was that an authority with distinct multicultural responsibilities within such a society was essential. The Government has considered fully the recommendation of both the Review Committee and the AIMA Council that AIMA should be replaced by a commission. The Government does not accept this recommendation. The Government does not see that replacement of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs with a Commission is absolutely necessary to give effect to the Government's policies, and the retention of AIMA allows an earlier and more efficient response to the major findings of the review. However, the Government believes that what is needed to respond effectively to contemporary community interest about migrants and community relations is to expand its objectives and functions, re-order work priorities, and achieve greater public visibility of, and openness in, AIMA's operations. I refer first to the objectives of AIMA. The present objects can be summarised as : development of community awareness and appreciation of migrant cultures; promotion of tolerance, understanding, harmonious relations, and mutual esteem between people in Australia; promoting a cohesive society through sharing of cultures; and promoting an environment allowing full participation in Australian society. The Government accepts the Review finding that the promotion of justice and equity for ethnic communities and cultural groups should be an essential element in the task of the Institute. It therefore proposes to amend the objects specified in the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act to include a positive affirmation that AIMA should promote a just and equitable society which , firstly, accepts people irrespective of their particular ethnic background, cultural-including linguistic-background or immigrant origin; and secondly, affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia an effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and achieve their own potential. This would give effect to the Government's recognition and support for the rights of migrants within our multicultural society to remain free to retain and express their ethnic identity without sacrificing their right of equal access to all community resources and Government programs. It is proposed also to remove the current restriction of the Institute's activities on cultural matters to those relating only to migrants. The AIMA Council has pointed out in its report that the existing wording of the AIMA Act could be interpreted as indicating that Aboriginal affairs fall outside the province of the Institute. I believe this was not the intention of the previous Government when establishing the Institute. Nor should such a restriction apply now, because the Aboriginal people are an essential part of our society, and the implementation of multicultural policies should properly take full account of their participation in Australian society. There is obviously a need for close co-ordination with other bodies specifically established for the Aboriginal community, and the Government will ensure that this occurs. I refer now to the functions of AIMA. The Institute's current major statutory functions are provision of advice, research, reports to the Minister on matters relating to the objects of the Institute, and community education. The Government has accepted the need, identified by the Review, for a more specific statement of the functions of the Institute. The Review also pointed to the need for the Institute to address current policy objectives. It is proposed that the functions of AIMA be expanded to include, firstly, specific statutory functions of co-operation and promoting co-ordination. The Government has accepted the findings of the Review on the need for AIMA to liaise, consult, co-operate and promote co-ordination of activities and services with departments, authorities and agencies at the three levels of government and with community groups, voluntary agencies, the media, and employer, employee and other organisations. This acknowledges the vital interests and responsibilities of the wide span of organisations which have a valued and effective role on migrant, multicultural and community relations issues. AIMA's role in co- operation and co-ordination will ensure that the complementary activities of these various bodies are integrated and co-ordinated and not duplicated. Secondly, it is proposed that AIMA have a new statutory function in relation to community representations. The Review has shown that there are significant barriers to ethnic communities being able to express effectively their concerns on matters affecting them. The smaller, less well established communities are particularly disadvantaged in this respect. The Government therefore accepts the need for ethnic communities to be able to obtain guidance in the exercise of their legitimate rights to make representations. It is proposed that the Institute have specific responsibility for this important task. It is proposed, thirdly, to give AIMA responsibility for encouraging other bodies to conserve materials relating to migrant communities as part of the larger collection of the nation. This will replace the existing AIMA function of establishing a repository of literature and other materials on cultures. The Government has accepted the finding of the Review report that it is undesirable and impracticable for the Institute to have such a national repository function. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act at present gives AIMA responsibility for conducting promotional and community educational activities to promote the objects of AIMA. Hitherto this has not been a priority area in the work program for AIMA. The AIMA Council has reported that the public consultations showed almost unanimous support for the Institute to have an active role in community education. The report of the Committee of Review identifies a close relationship between community education and community relations. The major areas of need for community education are on the ways migrants are integrated into Australia while maintaining their cultural heritages; awareness and knowledge of the diverse cultures in the community; and the promotion of good relations between groups in the Australian community. The Government endorses these needs, and proposes to give AIMA a stronger charter to address them. The Government sees the community education function as having a vital role in promoting a social environment accepting of racial and cultural diversity and free of discrimination. Because of this important role, the Government also believes that membership of the governing Council of AIMA should be strengthened, so it has been decided also that the membership of the governing Council of AIMA should be increased from a maximum of nine to 12 persons. The public consultations showed substantial support for a community input into the determination of the composition of the membership of the Council. It is proposed this be achieved by public participation in the nomination of names and expressions of interests in appointments to the Council. The Government has extended, as an interim measure, the terms of appointment of the present Chairman and Council members of AIMA to 30 June 1985. This is to ensure continuity of AIMA's operations while the present legislation is amended and until the process of selecting the enlarged Council can be completed. A Bill to amend the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act will be introduced during the autumn sittings. The five-year term of appointment of the present Director of AIMA expires on 31 January 1985. The position will shortly be publicly advertised. The reports by the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Council include various other recommendations which are not covered in the Government's decisions I have announced in this statement. Many of those recommendations relate to matters on which the Council of the Institute should itself make decisions or provide me with advice. They include the establishment of State or Territorial committees and the role of members of the Institute. I will refer these matters to the Council. The Council will have a major task of defining strategies, activities and initiatives and re-directing resources in ways which will most effectively contribute to the Institute achieving a major breakthrough in attaining its objectives, in co-operation with the various other government and non-government bodies concerned with multicultural and community relations issues. The Government has not accepted the recommendation of the AIMA Council that a change of portfolio arrangements for AIMA is desirable. There is a close interrelationship between the work of AIMA and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The working relationship between the two bodies will be enhanced in future, particularly having regard to contemporary community focus on migration and race issues. One of the objectives of AIMA's work will be the maintenance of a social environment accepting racial and cultural diversity, and the contribution of the migration program to Australia's national development. The Government has also not accepted the recommendation that AIMA should combat prejudice and discrimination against members of cultural and ethnic minority groups; nor will the Institute have complaint handling powers on discrimination matters. These functions and powers are solely the statutory responsibility of the Human Rights Commission, which it is proposed will become the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, with a Commissioner for Racial Discrimination. It is expected, however, that the work of AIMA will contribute to reducing prejudice and discrimination. The Institute will work closely with the Human Rights Commission and the proposed successor body to ensure there is close co- ordination of activities. Australia has been immeasurably enriched by the contribution of migrants to our national life. One of our nation's greatest achievements has been its acceptance of people from a wide and diverse range of backgrounds, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Honourable members might recall that the communique of the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983 stated: There is acceptance that the future well-being of this country depends upon the acceptance of the cultural, social and economic implications of a multicultural Australia. Through its proposed new role, AIMA will be developed as an Authority with a positive role in giving effect to this declaration. I present the following paper: Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-Reviews-Government response- Ministerial Statement, 11 October 1984. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.59) —I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) this afternoon. I am very pleased that the Minister and the Government have again looked closely at the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-which Committee was chaired by Dr Moss Cass- and have rejected a great number of the recommendations, because when that report was tabled there was a corresponding response from the AIMA which detailed a whole host of alleged inaccuracies in the original Committee of Review document. When I was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1979 I introduced into this House the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Bill which set up the Institute. The need for such an institute was highlighted in the Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants under the chairmanship of Mr Frank Galbally. One of the specific findings of the Galbally report was that there was very little information available on multicultural development in Australia and overseas. Yet there was a need to assist the development of a multicultural society on the basis of skilled research and on lessons to be learned from experiences overseas. The principal aims of the coalition's policy on multiculturalism were set out in clause 5 of that Bill. They were: Firstly, to develop among the members of the Australian community an awareness of the diverse cultures within that community that have arisen as a result of the migration of people to Australia and an appreciation of the contributions of those cultures to the enrichment of that community; secondly, to promote tolerance, understanding, harmonious relations and mutual esteem among the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia; thirdly, to promote a cohesive Australian society by assisting members of the Australian community to share with one another their diverse cultures within the legal and political structures of that society; and, fourthly, to assist in promoting an environment that affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the opportunity to participate fully in Australian society and achieve their own potential. The Opposition is pleased that the Institute will remain as a statutory body. As I have already said, it is pleasing that the Government has not adopted all of the recommendations of the Cass report, some of which, in my view, would not progress the Institute and its role. The Minister noted that the existing wording of the AIMA Act could be interpreted as indicating that Aboriginal Affairs fall outside the province of the Institute. He went on to say that he did not believe that this was the intention of the coalition Government when establishing the Institute. When I introduced the Bill in 1979, I specifically touched on this area. I wonder whether the Minister has read my speech because if he has not, I think it is worth quoting the words used at that time: Honourable members will note that the provisions of the Bill have given the Institute of Multicultural Affairs wide powers to carry out its functions. However, the Institute will not overlap the functions of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. That Institute's role is directed towards research and study in relation to the Aboriginal people of Australia, whereas the Institute of Multicultural Affairs will be concerned with undertaking research and studies primarily directed towards the awareness of, and understanding of, non-Aboriginal cultures and the promotion of harmonious relationships among all elements of our community. Nevertheless, the concept of multiculturalism does embrace all cultures in a nation and the Aboriginal people are an integral part of the Australian multicultural society. Indeed, when considered from an international standpoint, it is imperative that the Aboriginals be included within the total framework of Australia's multicultural policies. Therefore, whilst the Institute will not direct its research programs into Aboriginal issues, it is clear that a close co -operative working relationship with the various organisations involved in Aboriginal issues will be highly desirable and that joint programs and projects, particularly in community education, could well eventuate from such relationships. I think that the Minister must be careful not to involve himself too closely with existing bodies that have been working very well for the Aboriginal people. I note that the functions of the AIMA are to be expanded and this should be of benefit to the community. The review showed that there are significant barriers to ethnic communities being able effectively to express their concerns in matters affecting them. The Minister has accepted the need for ethnic communities to be able to obtain guidance in the exercise of their rights to make representations. I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister's feeling on this matter. But I am concerned about his actual intentions. In Australia we have many bodies where people can go for advice. I hope it is not his intention to have the Institute represent the views of small ethnic communities to governments and other bodies throughout the country, views that may not necessarily be representative. The Minister points out the need for community education in such a way that one could well go away believing that the Institute has done nothing in this area. I think that credit should be given where it is due and it is most unfortunate, I believe, that the Minister has not mentioned the recent work of the Institute in the publication of a book and a migrant experience film. It has done some very good work. On the membership of the Council, I wonder how all ethnic groups can possibly be represented. It is very difficult to achieve. I am not sure that his proposal for membership is necessarily the best way of going about it. Obviously we will have a further opportunity to debate these matters if and when amending legislation is introduced into this place. The Opposition firmly supports the work of the Institute and is pleased that the Minister has responded relatively quickly to the Cass report. Now the Institute can continue its good work in promoting a cohesive Australian society. There is one other matter that I would like to raise. The position of the Director is to be publicly advertised early next year. I would like to think that this was not inspired by political considerations. Mr West —It is a normal process. Mr MacKELLAR —I understand that it is a normal process. But I hope, as I say, that it is not inspired by or added to by any political considerations because the present holder of the office, Mr Georgiou, has, I believe, made a distinguished contribution to the innovations of the former Government in the area of ethnic affairs. He was an important influence in the direction to set up the ethnic television service, Channel 0-28. He was the principal figure for generating the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. It would be a great pity if politics were imported into a decision on the future of the organisation. Such a development could spill over to affect the present incumbents of public positions, who could be replaced by people who have done a political party service. I do not think that that is the way we should be going about things. Even the Chairman of the Public Service Board is, in a real sense, a man who comes and goes in government service, according to the ebb and flow of Australian Labor Party fortunes. But this Government, more than any in the history of the Commonwealth, has used political patronage as a factor in Public Service appointments. I do not think it is to its credit that it has done so. It is a factor which deserves close consideration if the effect is to generate an attitude which sees Public Service appointments as a function of political partisanship. Overall, we are glad that the Government has, as I say, rejected the main recommendation of the Cass report and that the Institute of Multicultural Affairs can now get on with its most important business, free from the sword of Damocles which has been hanging over its head for some time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —by leave-The tabling of the report of the National Road Freight Inquiry in this House last week marked another milestone in the Government's record of achievements in the portfolio of transport. The completion of the inquiry into the road freight industry fulfils a commitment made prior to the last election. This Government saw then that little attempt was being made on a national basis to address the deep-seated problems of the road freight industry. For years conservative Federal governments had put the problems of the road freight industry into the 'too hard ' basket, ducking the issue as a State responsibility. On the other hand, consistent with our style on all matters of intergovernmental relations, this Government is working with the States in a genuinely co-operative fashion to tackle the problems of the road freight industry in a systematic and forthright manner. Accordingly, 13 months ago we initiated the Committee of Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry with the full support of all State and Territory governments. That support has continued throughout the life of the inquiry and I believe will continue as we now collectively begin to address the implementation of the recommendations. Let me say, however, that this report does not stand alone. The road freight industry forms an essential part of our national transport network. Any improvements introduced by the implementation of the report's recommendations will flow on to the community in terms of greater efficiency, improved safety, and hopefully a lower level of business failure amongst operators. The road freight industry is inextricably linked with the rest of the transport industry. The benefits already emerging from the turnaround in the Australian shipping industry-directly the result of this Government's policies-dramatically increased investment in road construction and maintenance, and the emphasis being given to more efficient operation of the Australian National Railways are complementary. The report then is a package with far reaching ramifications. I would like to place on record in this House my appreciation of the work of the Committee-Mr Tom May, the Chairman, and his colleagues Professor Gordon Mills and Mr Jim Scully. The May report is the most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of the road freight industry. May I also commend the inquiry's support staff which was so ably headed by its secretary, Mr Robert Gunning. First and foremost, the report underscores the vital role played by road transport in the day-to-day functioning of our national economy. The most important finding was that the industry generally provides efficient service to its customers. At the same time, however, the report confirms that there are costs associated with achieving that efficiency. These hurt some sections of the industry far more than others. The report points to the need for all governments to co-ordinate transport policy relating to the treatment of the road and rail sectors. It also identifies steps which can be taken to improve the quality of working conditions in the industry and it makes some very worthwhile suggestions aimed at improving truck safety. The inquiry developed a comprehensive package of 98 recommendations which are designed for implementation on an Australia-wide basis by both Federal and State governments. For the benefit of honourable members, I note that the recommendations cover road-rail funding and cost recovery; economic regulations; operator licensing and enforcement; truck safety measures; vehicle mass and dimension limits; finance and insurance; and industry consultation and research. It is clear to anyone who reads the report that it did not back away from addressing those issues which have been seen as being too hard in the past. The inquiry itself emphasises that its recommendations should be taken as a whole. They constitute a well thought out integrated package. The inquiry recommends that road and rail cost recovery arrangements need to be more clearly defined, better co-ordinated and more equitable. It recommends a phased program for reforming road user charges to be undertaken in tandem with improvements in cost recovery from railways. With regard to economic regulation, the report concluded that neither capacity licensing nor rate regulation would be in the interests of the community or the industry. Importantly, the inquiry concluded that the industry generally provides an efficient service to its customers. It found that road transport in Australia offers freight rates which are comparable to those anywhere else in the developed world. At the same time, however, the report confirms that there are costs associated with achieving that efficiency. These hurt some sections of the industry far more than others. In recognition of these problems the inquiry recommended the establishment of operator licensing arrangements to widen the range of industry participants legally responsible for the safe operation of such vehicles. These operator licences are also designed to enable more effective monitoring over extended periods of compliance with safety standards and load limits. Underlying these recommendations is a concern to increase the professionalism of the road freight industry and enhance community acceptance of the industry. Together with the introduction of an upgraded licensing system, these recommendations are also aimed to improve conditions for the industry's work force and self-employed operators. In respect of truck safety, the inquiry has argued for a directed multi-faceted approach impinging on drivers and operators, the vehicle and the road. As I have said before, the truckie is not as tough as his truck. The May report agrees and recommends that seat belts must be worn in trucks. The inquiry also recommends that speed limits on the open road be raised to 100 kilometres per hour for trucks with brakes that comply with the latest Australian design rules. It does so in recognition of the safety benefits which flow from traffic moving at a uniform speed and the evidence that 47 per cent of fatal truck crashes involved overtaking manoeuvres. The point the industry makes is that we can reduce the road toll by reducing the number of impatient car drivers who attempt to overtake slower moving trucks in dangerous situations. I already have a number of initiatives under way in this area. The House can be assured that this Government is firmly committed to reducing the loss of so many Australian lives on our roads. It is one of our greatest social problems and, additionally, is estimated to cost the community $3,000m a year. The inquiry has recommended that there should be uniform vehicle axle loads, width, length and height limits among the States. It recommends that the limits should be determined on the basis of a proper economic evaluation of the scope for relaxation. The general thrust of the inquiry's proposals regarding finance and insurance is that truck owner-operators, whether operating as a company or not, should be accorded the same rights as other purchasers under consumer protection legislation. The inquiry also proposes arrangements to improve government-industry consultation. It recommends that an advisory committee be established which should also participate in a national research program and commend road expenditure priorities. Clearly, the report outlines a comprehensive package which demands adequate consideration. It is a detailed and innovative report and will be actively pursued by the Government in consultation with the States and interested industry organisations. There has been some suggestion the May report ignored the problems of the owner -driver. In fact we saw the introduction into the Senate last week of a private member's Bill seeking to provide some industrial recognition of owner-drivers. This criticism is totally unfounded. It indicates a complete lack of understanding of the breadth of the investigation undertaken by the inquiry. The package of recommendations in the May report when implemented would improve conditions for owner-drivers. The report examined the position of owner-drivers and came out strongly against economic regulation. It also noted that the question of industrial representation for owner-drivers was before the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and that this very complex issue was most appropriately left to that forum. The report found that improvements to owner-driver working conditions would be more effectively secured by other means, such as higher driving standards, operator licensing, improvements to insurance and credit arrangements and a revitalised safety enforcement program. The benefits which accrue would then flow on to employed drivers in the hire and reward sector, to road fleet operators and to the railways. I have already sought the views of all interested parties on the recommendations in the May report. It will then be considered by the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Finally, I must point out that the national road freight inquiry is but one element of the Government's overall approach to the development of a national transport policy. In just 18 months we have seen the establishment of the Inter- State Commission; amendments to legislation governing the Australian National Line and the Australian National Railways Commission, putting them on a more competitive basis; measures to revitalise our shipping industry; a concerted examination of the problems of lowering shore-based shipping costs; an increase of 46 per cent in Federal expenditure on roads; and a significant boost to our national effort to improve safety on our roads and thereby reduce the number of road casualties. During our next term of government we will continue with these major initiatives. We will do so in full consultation with State and Territory governments and all interested industry associations and individuals. Our policies will continue to be directed toward benefiting all Australians. They will be implemented with conviction. We will build on our successes and energetically pursue the development of a more effective transport system which maximises social benefit to the community. I commend the statement to the House and present the following paper: National Road Freight Industry-Ministerial Statement, 11 October 1984. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.19) —I would like to say a few brief words about the report of the Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry to which the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has just referred. Like so many reports, this report has become known by the name of its chairman-in this case Mr May. The Opposition generally is pleased with the outcome of the inquiry and the recommendations which the inquiry has brought forward. On behalf of the Opposition I would like to take the opportunity to compliment Mr Tom May and his colleagues, Professor Mills and Mr Scully. The report, which is probably an inch and a half thick, provides a very good, if not excellent, data base and an enormous amount of information which is essential for those who are interested in or have a concern for the trucking industry. The report provides a basis for action in a wide range of areas which affect the trucking industry-areas such as cost recovery, economic regulations, licensing, safety, vehicle mass and load limits, finance and insurance for the trucking industry, and consultation and research in the industry and with government. As the Minister has said, the report does provide a very comprehensive range of information and the Opposition supports in broad terms the outcome of the inquiry and the findings and recommendations which have been brought down. Obviously, the Opposition would want to have a detailed look in the period ahead at so much of the mass of information which has been made available by the inquiry and which has been included in the report. We would obviously want to give consideration to the specifics as they come forward over the period ahead. I look forward to the change of government that will occur in December and to being able to give consideration to these matters as the Department of Transport brings them forward to me as Minister for Transport. As the Minister says, one of the most important findings of this inquiry is that the industry generally provides an efficient service to its customers. As he says somewhere in his statement, the freight rates which are offered by the road transport industry in Australia are comparable to those anywhere in the developed world. It is very pleasing to note that the inquiry has found in this way. It is an indication of something which the Opposition has been saying for some time-I have been saying it for years-that the competition benefits the consumer. The more competition there is in these industries, the better it will be for the consumer. The inquiry into the national road freight industry has found in that way, and it is very pleasing that it has. To me, that points to the fact that the Government will continue along the road of supporting the sorts of recommendations which the inquiry has made and will not involve itself in those things which seek to shackle the industry and bind it up with regulations. The report, as the Minister also points out, refers to the need for all governments to co-ordinate transport policy relating to the treatment of the road and rail sectors. It identifies steps which can be taken to improve the quality of working conditions in the industry and makes worthwhile suggestions aimed at imposing truck safety. The Opposition supports the general thrust of those findings and recommendations. The Opposition points out that it would want to pursue strongly the references that are made to the rail sector. The Federal Government should use any opportunity available to it to ensure full disclosure and accountability of the State rail authority deficits because there is no doubt in my mind, and in the mind of the Opposition, that the deficits which are being run by the State rail authorities are having an enormously distorting effect on the overall freight industry throughout Australia. As long as the taxpayers of the States are going to be asked to contribute enormous amounts of money-in New South Wales the amount is of the order of $2m a day-towards the cost of railway deficits, there will continue to be this distortional effect flowing on to other transport modes within the transport sector. We support very strongly a thorough examination of the cost recovery arrangements and the relationship between road and rail as it affects freight industries at large across Australia. I think we are seeing an increasingly distortional effect as a result of the enormous losses being made by State rail authorities and the tendency to try to attract freight at whatever price, even if it is totally uneconomic. This must be having a detrimental effect on road freight, air freight and, also on freight that might otherwise go around the Australian coast on ships. I turn to economic regulation. The report has found that neither capacity licensing nor rate regulation would be in the interests of the community or the industry, and the Opposition is very pleased that that finding has been made. We would have argued very strongly against a different finding. I am pleased that the Minister again indicates his broad support for that finding. The report says that the industry generally provides an efficient service to its customers and that freight rates are comparable to those anywhere else in the developed world. They are findings which we, as an Opposition, are more than pleased about because they indicate that this is a competitive industry. Such a competitive industry, unfettered by constraints that may be imposed by government regulation, is able to offer freight rates comparable to those anywhere in the world, and generally to provide an efficient service to its customers. I hope the sort of recommendations which the inquiry has brought down which, generally speaking, should assist in a number of ways, but not cause over -regulation to occur within the industry and do not over-involve the Government in the important aspects of the industry, will be followed through and that we will not see the Government involving itself too much with the industry. There are important recommendations which I am sure members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety will be pleased to see in respect of the safety of trucks. Obviously, the Opposition will be very pleased to support anything that will improve truck safety and reduce the incidence of accidents which involve trucks. We have seen all too many of those over the years, and particularly in recent times, with some very horrific accidents which are not always the fault of the truck drivers. They are often the fault of the drivers of vehicles who find themselves on the wrong side of the road. Anything that can be done to improve overall safety, and particularly the safety of trucks, will be supported strongly by the Opposition. There is a range of other findings and recommendations which obviously the Minister did not go into and, in the circumstances that are before the House, I will not go into them. But I do want to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we are generally pleased with the outcome of the report and the recommendations that have been made. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our broad support for the findings in the report. Mr Cadman —What about the unionisation of owner-drivers? Mr LUSHER —The question that the honourable member for Mitchell has referred to has been left in the hands of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The general thrust of the recommendations that have been made is such that a fair inference could be drawn that the Committee would not have supported the unionisation of owner-drivers. As I say, the Opposition's main response is one of support. We are pleased to see the Government and the Minister generally supporting the concept of deregulation and of promoting competition to the maximum extent in this industry. We hope that it will follow the same broad thrust in relation to other industry sectors and other sectors within the transport industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1984 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1984 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984 Medicare Levy Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1984 The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Aliens Act Repeal Bill 1984 Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Pages 12 and 13, clause 12, line 16 (page 12) to line 22 (page 13), leave out the clause. No. 2-Page 13, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: ''12A. Section 15 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph 1 (b) 'sub-section (2) of section 14' and substituting 'sub-section 13 (2)'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (3) 'sub-section (8) of section 14' and substituting 'sub-section 13 (9)'; (c) by omitting from sub-section (3) 'paragraph (d) of that sub-section' and substituting 'sub-paragraph 13 (9) (d) (ii)'; and (d) by omitting from sub-section (4) 'sub-section (9) of section 14' and substituting 'sub-section 13 (10)'.''. No. 3-Page 18, clause 27, lines 24 to 27, leave out the clause. No. 4-Page 19, paragraphs 31 (c) and (d), lines 33 to 35, leave out the paragraphs. No. 5-Pages 21 and 22, paragraphs 37 (1) (a), (c) and (d), lines 39 (page 21) to line 2 (page 22) and lines 4 to 7 (page 22), leave out the paragraphs. No. 6-Page 22, sub-clause 37 (2), lines 11 to 17, leave out the sub-clause. No. 7-Page 22, clause 38, lines 18 to 20, leave out the clause. No. 8-Page 22, clause 40, line 24, leave out ''Schedule 2'', insert ''the Schedule''. No. 9-Page 25, Schedule 1, leave out the Schedule. No. 10-Page 25, Schedule 2, leave out ''SCHEDULE 2'', insert ''SCHEDULE''. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(5.32) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The intent of these amendments passed in the Senate and which we voted against is to restore the oath of allegiance, to restore the swearing of allegiance to the Queen of Australia in both the oath and the pledge. The Government accepts that it is not able to get this change through the Senate. We take the view-and I am sure honourable members opposite will agree- that, as this Bill contains the most far-reaching set of constructive amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act since 1949, we are not prepared to see the whole Bill lapse. The Bill will make things easier for the 1.2 million people in this country who are eligible for citizenship but who, as yet, have not taken it out. We want to help and encourage them to take out citizenship, so we are not prepared to lose this constructive measure which, as the Democrats pointed out in the Senate, is a major reform. In this chamber we passed the Bill and in the Senate there has been no extensive criticism of the majority of the reforms. Most of them have been supported by the Opposition. We are not prepared to see this major reform of Australian citizenship laws lapse just because we are unable to get a change to the oath of allegiance through the Senate. For those reasons, we accept the amendments and I commend the Bill plus the amendments to the Committee. I trust the Opposition will join me in supporting the complete Bill because we are encouraging people to take out citizenship. They are taking out citizenship. Applications are up by at least 30 per cent in the last 18 months and I am sure everyone in this chamber will applaud that fact . Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.36) —I wish to speak only briefly on this matter. Whilst not providing any further difficulties for the Government on this point, I want to say one thing-and I do not say it in terms of congratulations to the Government; it should have seen it in the first place-- Mr West —But you are pleased about it. Mr PEACOCK —Of course I am pleased about it, but I note from the way in which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) spoke in accepting the amendments that he did not do so because of any firm affirmation in support of the Queen or oaths of allegiance, but simply because he wanted other measures to get through. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) may want a republic in this nation by some sort of decree and the Australian Labor Party may want it, but I say bluntly-- Mr Duffy —Are you serious? Mr PEACOCK —The Minister for Communications, a man I respect, interjects and asks me whether I am serious. I am deadly serious and so is every honourable member on this side of the Parliament. The Government should produce arguments in favour of a republic and bring them in here. It should not try to rewrite the Constitution by stealth. It would know, if it took the bother to look, just what law this Parliament operates under-this indissoluble Federation that was established under the Crown in 1901. The Government seeks to play about with that. Anyone who comes here and says 'We will reinsert the question of the monarchy and the oaths of allegiance simply because we want other matters to go through' reveals himself for what he is-a spokesman for a party in favour of republicanism. Therefore, the Minister not only represents the antithesis of what we believe, and what the overwhelming majority of Australians believe but also, far more to the point in a way, is seeking to negate elements in our very Constitution. The renewal of the oath of allegiance should never have been proposed in the first place. If the Government had not agreed to its retention today one of our first actions upon our return to Government would have been to do just that. The Australian people can thank the Opposition parties for the moves that they took in the Senate and here to ensure that these changes did not take place. The oath reflects not only tradition and obedience under the law, but also the desire of the overwhelming majority of Australians. The sooner the Government recognises that, both in terms of the law and the desires of the Australian people, the sooner it will recognise that to tinker with our national symbols which are the visible reminders of our very rich heritage, and the sooner it will recognise that governing in this country is not just a matter of making speeches and putting through legislation; it is a matter of abiding by tradition and heritage and the law. The Government has turned its back on all three. Thank God it has come to some reality, if only for the wrong reasons. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.38) —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman ) is absent at the moment; he is under suspension. But I believe it should be recalled that he spearheaded the Opposition's attack at the time the Government was setting about removing these provisions from the Australian Citizenship Act. Mr Duffy —Where is he now? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Minister for Communications asks where is he now. He was railroaded out of the chamber because he was fighting a battle on another front. I support the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the way that he interpreted-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Moreton has indicated to me that he may be reflecting on the Chair in what he has just said about the reasons for the honourable member for Denison not being in the chamber . I suggest that he should be careful to avoid that in his further remarks. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am sorry. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Chairman, that I had no intention of reflecting on the Chair in those comments. We are dealing with a matter of greater significance. It should be noted today that hardly more than a handful of Labor members are in the chamber. They are absolutely dedicated to the cause of removing all traces of the Crown from Australia. For the first time in my life I am going to stand in this place to congratulate the Australian Democrats for having recognised that the people of Australia did not want this to happen. The Democrats joined with the Liberal and the National Party senators to defeat the Government in the Senate. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has bent the knee at the last moment. Tragically, he would never bend the knee to Her Majesty. The only thing he has bent the knee to is expediency, in recognising that if the Government was going to get this measure through it had to buckle to the expression of view of the Senate and the vast majority of the people of Australia. I do not go along with all the utterances of some of the Bruce Ruxtons of this country, but on some of these issues Bruce Ruxton is very right. He represents a majority view when he says: 'Leave our monarchy alone'. In a lifetime of mixing with migrants and new arrivals I have never known one to come up to me and ask: 'When are you going to get rid of the monarchy?'. They all believe that this country's stability has been contributed to in part by our system of government which includes the monarchy. It is good news for this Parliament that the Government has been forced into retreat. Mr Peacock —But they will campaign against the Queen. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is right. We all recognise that, if the Government wins the next election and particularly if it gets the numbers in the Senate, this issue will be back again. It will be 'Bye bye, Queen'; 'Bye bye, monarchy', and 'Bye bye, oath of allegiance'. That is one reason why all those people out there who might be lulled into accepting some of the falsehoods that get spun out of this place each day in Question Time by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers should realise that if they want the traditions of this country to continue there is only one way to vote on 1 December, and that is for the Liberals mostly and, if there is no Liberal candidate, for the National Party. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Chairman, I was on my feet. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I suggest that if honourable members wish to rise they do so fairly promptly. I call the honourable member for Mitchell. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Bilney, G. N. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J.Keating, P. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Millar, P. C.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. (Teller) Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Katter, R. C.Jacobi, R. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. 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 failure to address the fundamental economic and social challenges facing Australia. 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)(5.50) —The Opposition has proposed the following matter of public importance for discussion today: The Government's failure to address the fundamental economic and social challenges facing Australia. We have proposed this matter of public importance because in the forthcoming election, for which honourable members opposite ought to leave the chamber and start preparing, the overriding issue at stake is the direction that this nation will take not for some months to come but for years to come. It will be an election about people and their future security. Several questions will be in the forefront of the minds of the men and women of Australia throughout the coming election campaign. The first question relates to the immediate and longer term future of the economy. At a time when we all fervently hope that the economic recovery will gather force and reach all Australians, new figures and new forecasts of independent experts raise serious concerns about such vital matters as employment, investment and the competitiveness of business and industry. The latest manufacturing industry production statistics show a distinct slow-down in the rates of growth experienced a few months ago. The sharp growth characteristic of early emergence from recession is now flattening out and the indications are, according to the National Institute of Economic Research, that this trend will intensify as we move towards the end of this financial year. The Institute has forecast an unwelcome rise in unemployment to a level above 10 per cent. The authoritative Syntec economic report states: The longer term attractiveness of this economy is in the balance. The September issue of the Westpac Review puts its finger on the major reason why there is genuine concern about the economy for 1985. In regard to Labor's second Budget strategy the Review states: Its overtones of short term expediency are disturbing. The fact is that at a time when Australia has a rare opportunity to chart a course into a new decade of prosperity, when we all want to be more optimistic, unnecessary risks have been placed in the way of sustaining the recovery, risks taken for immediate electoral gain. The short term expediency which has dictated this Government's economic policy is typified by its second Budget. By squandering the windfall receipts enjoyed largely due to non-recurrent factors, such as the growth in farm products, the unique opportunity to the Government to restrain growth in the deficit was lost and we are living on more and more borrowed money; yet high Government deficits push up interest rates, hold back exports, retard investment, keep unemployment up, stop growth and close off our prospects for the future. The Government's economic policies are not the policies we need to sustain recovery. They are creating a massive problem for the future, and that future is not just ours but that of our children. By taking a short-sighted view, based on calling an early election, the Hawke Government has set the scene for further increases in taxes and in the public debt next year and thereafter. In contrast, the policies set out in the coalition's economic statement are the right policies for today. They are policies of control, policies of restraint in public spending, winding back the tax burden and the nation's indebtedness, policies to increase the flexibility in the Budget and in labour markets. We need these policies now, and we will have them in a matter of a few months. I mentioned the importance to economic recovery of reducing the tax burden. There is general agreement in our nation that Australians pay too much tax and that the tax system should be fundamentally reformed. What happened at Question Time today? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not deny that a capital gains tax and death duties would be imposed after the next election. Yet we have the situation in Australia today wherein people are overtaxed and their income tax cannot be increased any further. Being a Labor government it is a big spending government. That is why it is now the biggest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. It is squeezing the resources of the great majority of the people. It cannot increase income tax any more. So what is it intent on doing after this election should it be returned? I will tell honourable members what the Government will do. All honourable members found out at Question Time today. It will tax people's savings and assets and it will tax them to the grave and after the grave because a capital gains tax and death duties, judging by the Prime Minister's answer, are on should Labor be returned. Let no one in this nation have any doubt. The Government will move beyond income tax and beyond the extensive indirect taxes which will be brought down as a reform measure-there is no disagreement with the need to reform the income tax system-to a direct assault on the assets and savings of individual Australians. We have said unequivocally that we are in favour of a restructuring of the tax system but we are committed to restoring individual incentive and to letting men and women work to get ahead. The other day when speaking in the assets test debate I said, when I reminded the people of Australia that we would revoke the assets test, that by implementing that measure the Government is not just taxing the assets of so many people; it is attacking a deep seated belief of generations of Australians that they should save for a rainy day. Many of these people have found it has been raining like hell, but they have still kept that nest egg for use in their retirement. The Government attacks that fundamental notion of generations of Australians when it brings in an assets test and clearly moves on a capital gains tax and death duties. That is why I say the Government is taxing these people to the grave and beyond. We are committed to encouraging families through tax incentives. I say ' families' because that word is not in the Prime Minister's vocabulary. When did honourable members opposite last hear him talk about families and what this Government would do for them? They have not heard him because he does not use or comprehend the term. What about ordinary Australians? I am not talking about big business, big unions or big government, which this Government is all about; I am talking about ordinary Australians. We never hear the Prime Minister talk about workers. We never hear him talk about small shopkeepers. We never hear him talk about the small farmers. It just does not happen. What do ordinary Australians have after two Labor Budgets and 19 months of the Hawke Government? Fact one is that the Labor Government is the highest taxing peacetime government in Australia's history. Fact two is that the Government has failed to address itself to the need for desired tax reform, not reform involving a capital gains tax and death duties, as it is considering now. Fact three is that average wage earners are now paying 46c in tax for every extra dollar earned. I say to honourable members opposite that they should go out in the community and talk with some ordinary Australians for a change instead of talking to the proletarians and ideologues with whom they associate. They should go and talk to some ordinary people and ask them what they got for a tax refund. One half of them will tell them they got much less than they did last year and the other half will say: 'We did not get a refund. We got a bill'. Honourable members opposite should go out and ask that question. As we have said time and again, high taxes penalise people for their hard work. Australians have a very clear choice as to the future direction of taxation at this coming election. It is a choice between Labor's continued high levels of personal tax compounded by its intention to introduce a range of new taxes including a capital gains tax, gift duties and death duties-- Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —I know because the honourable member for Casey is on the record in favour of all those. He has confirmed it on every occasion that I have asked in this Parliament. Mr Steedman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has just made certain accusations. If he reads the Business Review Weekly of three weeks ago, he will find my statements in full which will contradict what he said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Casey will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Before I call the Leader of the Opposition , I remind all honourable members, particularly a section of honourable members on my right, that all interjections are out of order. I am sure that it would be in their own interests, if they are not prepared to accept that, to withdraw from the chamber. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —I said that Australians have a clear choice at the next election on taxation matters and that it is a choice between Labor's continued high levels of personal tax, compounded by its intention to introduce a range of new taxes, including capital gains tax, gift tax and death duties. On the other hand, the coalition program offers genuine tax reform with lower income tax levels, immediate action to scrap Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments and the scrapping of the assets test on pensions. We have heard a lot about the so-called tax cuts in the Budget but, as we have shown even before the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down the Budget, the so- called $7.60 tax cut comes after months of Labor taking an extra $22 a week from ordinary Australians. Some tax cut! Mr Howard —Twenty-two? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. It took $22 a week and then offered people less than $8 back. That is no tax cut. It is an absolute fraud and the Government will be revealed for what it is. It is not fair dinkum about tax reform. It is not fair dinkum about tax cuts. It is determined to impose further taxes on savings and assets of Australians. This brings me to how the tax levels in the Budget were arrived at, to the Government's much vaunted consensus approach, if one likes, to decision making. As I have indicated, the coalition supports the broadest consultation with community representatives on government decisions. That is our approach. It is our method of achieving genuine agreement, of reaching sound decisions which reflect the views of the community. That is not the meaning of consensus with this Government. It consults but one group. It brings that group into the Cabinet room and takes directions from it. That group is the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Was anybody else brought in to determine the nature of the Budget? No. Were the unemployed brought in? No. Was small business brought in? No. Were the pensioners in the electorate of the honourable member for Casey brought in? No. It was the ACTU officials who were brought in. In preparing the Budget, the Government gave the ACTU documents which it is not prepared to give to the rest of the public. It took one interest group only into consideration. Honourable members should not think this is an isolated incident. The Government even brought in the ACTU when making the decision on which helicopter to buy for the defence forces. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard ) pointed out the other day, the Government, in discussions with bank unions, was prepared to make confidential material available when determining which foreign banks could come into Australia. What Australians have seen is a succession of big government and big union deals which do not take into account the interests of other groups in the community. We will bring millions of Australians back into the consultation process. I mention again some of those groups of forgotten Australians. We will open up new opportunities for small business through a flexible industrial relations policy and less Federal red tape. We will meet the hopes and protect the rights of the elderly. They were not consulted on a means test or the assets test. On the fourth occasion, through a panel, they were consulted. They were not consulted on the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments. This Government imposed those measures without thinking through the consequences of its actions. Australians have a very clear choice on this matter and others. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, and the overwhelming majority of Australians, reject the actions of this Government which says to those people who have worked and saved to put aside a nest egg for retirement: 'We are changing the rules overnight. You are to be penalised for your foresight'. We believe that to be totally wrong. That is why we will scrap Labor's assets test and the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments. We will put families first. We will bring families back into the mainstream of government consideration through real tax incentives and allowances. The unemployed have to be given hope. We categorically reject the defeatist attitude of our opponents to the unemployment problem. The greatest goal before us today-the goal which Australia should set for 1988- and not just for the ceremonies relating to the bicentenary-is a return to full employment. We can achieve it through positive policies and programs-programs which free up the private sector. It is private enterprise, not governments, which generates wealth, growth and development and creates the jobs necessary to put Australians back to work. Whether it be the assets test-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(6.06) —This is the last day of this Parliament, at least insofar as this chamber is concerned, and it is, of course, the beginning of an election campaign. But it is a campaign which is more about the future of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) than it is about the future of Australia or the future of this Government. The trouble is that it has taken the Leader of the Opposition all this time to raise an issue which will be central to this campaign, that is, who can be entrusted with the economic and social future of this country. The Leader of the Opposition's failure to address these issues is part of the reason why he goes into this campaign in the worst shape of any Leader of the Opposition in our history. He has behaved extraordinarily badly in recent times, demeaning himself and demeaning this institution by his reckless attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He hoped that, by making enough noise, creating enough havoc and by making enough baseless charges, somehow the Government would be damaged. Mr Tuckey —Baseless charges-you ought to talk. Mr DAWKINS —I know something about the tactics of opposition. In fact, one of the reasons why the Opposition is over there and I am over here is that I do know something about the tactics of opposition. But one of the things that the Opposition Leader has not recognised is that the times have changed and the people out there have rejected his style of politics. They want politicians to be positive and helpful and to help to work Australia into a new period of prosperity. They have rejected the kinds of attacks that the Opposition and particularly the Opposition Leader have embarked upon in recent times. The more reckless he has become, the less popular he has become. But that is only part of the Leader of the Opposition's problems. His biggest problem is of course his friends. First of all, there is his Party, the Liberal Party of Australia. Do honourable members know what they say in his Party? They say: 'The trouble with Andrew is that he is here today and still here tomorrow'. But that is not really the problem. The real problem is much more deep-seated than that. The real problem is in two parts. Firstly, there is his disloyal, discredited and, frankly, delinquent Deputy. Secondly, there is the alternative Deputy Prime Minister. What a dreadful combination it is for any Opposition Leader to have to rely on-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). One of them, his Deputy, is always picking on him while the other is always picking pockets. But together they make-- Mr Howard —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Finance , true to form, made a scurrilous allegation against the Leader of the National Party and I require that it be withdrawn unambiguously and without qualification . Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw unambiguously and without qualification. Mr Steedman —Grave robber. Mr Peacock —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that the remarks by the honourable member for Casey which related to the Leader of the National Party be withdrawn. Mr Steedman —I didn't hear it. Repeat it. What was it? Mr Peacock —I heard the honourable member say it and I am prepared to repeat it because he has to get up and withdraw. He said he was a grave robber. I want it withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The level of conversation and noise in the chamber is just intolerable. I take this opportunity to remind the honourable member for O'Connor that, although he was not here, the Leader of the Opposition was heard in relative silence when he spoke. I suggest that the honourable member, having come into the House, should not engage in a tirade of interjection. I did not hear any remark from the honourable member for Casey but I suggest to him that, if he did make an offensive remark, he will assist the Chair and he will assist the Minister for Finance by withdrawing that remark. Mr Steedman —Could the Leader of the Opposition tell me what it was? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member has made an offensive remark, he will withdraw it. Mr Steedman —I will certainly withdraw anything that is offensive to the Leader of the Opposition. I withdraw unequivocally. Mr DAWKINS —Of course it is an awful amount of lead for any Leader of the Opposition to have in his saddle bags when he has to take into an election such a deputy and such an alternative Deputy Prime Minister. How on earth can he begin to look good in the eyes of the people when he is surrounded by that particular pair of failures? Of course the former Treasurer is a failure and the people recognise that. They will not have him at any price. He is the one who withheld the truth about the size of the prospective Budget deficit for 1983-84 and who, though now wanting to take credit for stopping the tax avoidance industry, was the one who in fact let it start. It was his negligence, his failure to respond to the increasingly impassioned pleas of the then Commissioner of Taxation, which in fact created the industry. It was his negligence which allowed well over $2 billion to be robbed from revenue as a result of that. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister just mentioned tax avoidance again. I have some documents here which I will take to the Tax Commissioner with him any time he likes to go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that, if he has come into the House with the idea of rising on frivolous points of order, he might reconsider that attitude. There is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —It is no good the former discredited Treasurer now relying on the statements of the new Taxation Commissioner because in fact the Taxation Commissioner said that it was during the Deputy Leader's period as Treasurer that the industry mushroomed, flowered, ignored by him. He failed to take the action that should have been taken and that would have resulted in the industry not ever getting off the ground and now he tries to take credit for having made some little contribution towards stopping it.That was the only thing he stopped. The real problem is that he stopped the economy. Under his careful care, Australia's strong economy was reduced to a zero level of growth, for the first time since the War. That is his great contribution to economics. Then, of course , we saw inflation go through the roof. We saw the great wages explosion. We saw interest rates climb. We saw the collapse of the job market in which nearly 200, 000 jobs were lost in just one year-his last year as Treasurer. Yet he comes here in support of his Leader as the one who can offer some solutions to the economic problems of this country. One would have to have some special kind of genius to mess up the economy in the way that he messed it up during the five years when he was Treasurer. It is true that the Deputy Leader is occasionally disarming in his manner but the fact is that that will never disguise his incompetence, his unreliability and his great capacity for deceiving not only this House but also the entire nation. His use of statistics is probably the most sloppy of anyone in this House. I give honourable members one example. He stumbled across some figures which he thought would demonstrate that the Public Service would grow by 10 per cent during the first two years of this Government. In fact, growth will be only a little over half that. He is always very ready to correct the record as far as he is concerned but he is always very tardy in acknowledging his manifest errors and deception. The fact is that the people of Australia do not trust him and they will never forgive him for the havoc that he wreaked on the Australian economy. The trouble for the Leader of the Opposition is that he goes into the campaign with his great economic spokesman having one of the most appalling, disgraceful records of economic management of any person that any Leader of the Opposition has had to take into an election campaign. The Leader's own ignominious popularity is not all his own work. His deputy and the Leader of the National Party have made a great contribution to it. It is not his own work but it will be if he does not do something about it. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already given the Leader of the Opposition a bit of advice. He said he can continue to have the Opposition coalition performing so abysmally that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party will be glued to their own seats. They will not be able to participate in the campaign at all while they try to save their own political hides. He does have a more honourable course. The Leader of the Opposition ought to call a Party meeting immediately and get rid of his deputy because if he goes into this election with him as the spokesman on the economy, how on earth will anybody be able to trust the Leader as the alternative Prime Minister? I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition ought to take this course because he will benefit from a few more years as Leader of the Opposition. He will probably shape up to be quite a good Leader of the Opposition and a few more years in the job would be of great benefit to him. But he will not shape up unless he does something about the appalling condition that his Party is in as it goes into this election. The economic and social challenges facing this country are serious, but the first thing the Labor Government had to do before it could face the future with any confidence at all was to restore the disintegrating economy that it inherited-an economy which disintegrated under the negligence and incompetence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition while he was Treasurer. What have we done in the short period that we have been in office? We have halved inflation, taken growth from zero to 5 per cent and employed 250,000 people. Interest rates are down by 2 per cent. The rate of growth in wages has been halved. We have reduced the deficit. Private fixed capital investment is again on the way up. How could we have faced the future with any kind of heart, with any kind of confidence, if we had not restored some health to that battered economy we inherited? Notwithstanding the constraints that confronted us during this period of restoration of the economy, during this country's return to economic health, we have moved massively towards doing something about the great social challenges which confront us. Look at education and the mess it had fallen into under the previous Government's policies. Participation rates fell to levels which were a disgrace to a country like Australia, a country which ought to be providing more and more opportunities for young people. We have begun to do something about creating those educational and training opportunities for young people. In the area of pensions, we have provided the first real increase in pensions since the indexation of pensions was first introduced. Then, if we look at the opportunities being provided for young people, we are not only providing opportunities in the area of education but also, as a result of an overall review of training allowances and training opportunities, starting to provide employment opportunities for a wasted generation-a generation which was neglected and abused by our predecessors. We saw more and more young people simply joining the dole queues as a normal expectation. Then there are the circumstances of Aboriginal people who, while they continue to be the most underprivileged in this country, will have the very passionate concern of this Government. It is very sad to see this Leader of the Opposition go out with such a whimper. Unfortunately, unless he does something about it, he will deserve nothing but our pity. He goes into this election campaign like a punch drunk fighter. He will need in close order a couple of stretcher bearers to look after him when he drops. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr CROSS(Brisbane) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee's report entitled, 'The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CROSS —by leave-The report follows a reference by the Joint Committee On Foreign Affairs and Defence to the Sub-Committee on Defence Matters on 1 December 1983 to inquire and report upon: The capability of the Australian Defence Force to fulfil its role, with particular reference to force structure and command and control arrangements. This is a particularly important report with significant conclusions bearing on the defence of Australia. It covers a broad range of issues relevant to a detailed consideration of the Australian Defence Force structure, and the command and control arrangements necessary for that Force adequately to fulfil its role. Ideally, the Defence Force structure should reflect, and be logically derived from, considerations of our national interests and our projected strategic and geo-political circumstances. Such a process would incorporate a wide spectrum of views and interests and would typically involve the following steps: First, determination of Australia's national interests and objectives; secondly, delineation of a strategic or national defence concept describing how the national interests and objectives are most effectively and efficiently promoted and defended in the light of the strategic assessment; thirdly, delineation of an appropriate military strategy and concept of operations, describing how the strategic concept is to be achieved; fourthly, development of an appropriate force structure-encompassing organisation, capabilities and doctrine-with which to carry out the military strategy; and finally, the procurement and maintenance of the forces and supporting infrastructure and their deployment in peace. In practice, the development of the Defence Force structure is more complex. Not all elements of the ideal planning process are present and others are poorly defined. Decisions are often constrained by external factors or by past choices. Moreover, the process itself is inhibited by strong interest groups which have a particular concern with advancing favoured roles and functions. In Australia's case, the planning and development of our force structure is complicated further by the absence of any clearly defined present threat to national security. The Defence Force must be structured, therefore, to meet a wide range of potential threats without knowing what form these threats will take or when they might occur. While these factors constrain the operation of the rational model of Force structure development, they do not detract from its importance. Unless each of these steps is present and structured together in a clear and coherent manner, the structure of the Defence Force is likely to evolve more by accident than by design and the probability of achieving an optimum force posture will be reduced . In order to provide a systematic and comprehensive review of Australia's Defence Force structure, this report follows the broad format of the rational model just described, moving from a discussion of Australia's national interest and objectives, through an examination of our overall military strategy to a detailed consideration of the functional capabilities required for the defence of Australia and how these should be grouped together. At each level in this process, the considerations were both analytical-highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of our present position-and prescriptive, examining alternative approaches and options. The report begins with a brief survey of the various factors that influence the development and maintenance of Defence Force structure. A complete understanding of our present position and where and how we should move in the future is not possible without being aware of past and projected developments in our strategic environment. Any future changes to our Force structure will also be subject to a range of basic constraints arising from such factors as Australia's alliance relationships, the nature of our physical environment, the resources that are available for national security purposes and the nature of the defence decision- making process. A discussion of the external and internal factors influencing Australia's Defence Force structure is followed by a brief description of the current functions, roles and capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. The findings of the Committee's detailed examination of the Australian Defence Force structure and capabilities are then outlined with a definition of Australia's national interests and objectives. From a consideration of our military role in global and regional affairs, the Committee developed a national defence concept for Australia and its off-shore Territories. A key element in this consideration is the definition of an area of principal defence interest on which our military strategy should be focused and within which Australia's military forces would be required to operate. The Committee examined Australia's overall military strategy for achieving our national defence concept. It concluded that our current approach is inadequate in a number of important respects and recommends that we should change the present emphasis of our military strategy from one of reacting to threats as they emerge to controlling our threat environment. This would be achieved by giving priority in peacetime to deterring threats to our national security and by providing a rapid response to those low-level threats that may not be deterred. The report examines the capabilities required for this revised strategy under the broad functional categories of intelligence, surveillance and early warning, strategic strike and interdiction, maritime defence, land warfare and air defence. A number of important functional deficiencies in our present inventory are identified and an order of priority for the acquisition and development of new capabilities is suggested. One important limitation of our existing Defence Force structure is its system of command and control. The Committee, after detailed consideration, has concluded that we should move away from the current single Service command structure towards a structure emphasising joint Service roles and tasks, with a direct line of operational command from the Chief of the Defence Force. A principal finding of the report, and one that is generally recognised, is that Australia's military capabilities will increasingly depend on a range of non-military factors and capabilities such as our industrial capacity and our ability to mobilise civilian resources and services. The integration of our military and non-military capabilities into an effective whole is examined in the latter stages of the report which deal with national security policy-making and the development of Defence Force structure. The Committee is particularly concerned at the lack of clear policy guidance at all levels within the Force development process which has led it to conclude that our Force structure is not being developed in a clear and logically coherent manner. The Committee appreciates the ready assistance given to the Sub-Committee throughout the inquiry by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and his Department. The co-operation and assistance given by members of the Australian Defence Force with whom the Sub-Committee dealt in the course of the inquiry was particularly noteworthy. It has not been an easy task to analyse the range of issues relevant to a detailed consideration of the terms of reference, and the Committee is particularly grateful to those who have assisted, by making submissions and by giving evidence. The nation's defence is of fundamental importance, and the Committee trusts that this report will contribute to public awareness and discussion of the issues involved. All members of the Sub-Committee have been impressed with the dedication and professional competence of members of the Defence Force and, in particular, its senior officers. We have acknowledged the ready co-operation of the Minister for Defence, the Secretary to the Department of Defence and the Department. It remains to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the Sub-Committee, the main Committee and our staff. All members of the Sub-Committee have contributed to this report. The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) not only has given leadership to all sub-committees, but also has made a major input to the work of the Defence Sub-Committee. It is perhaps unwise to mention individuals but I place on record the contribution made by Senator David MacGibbon. Responsibility for servicing the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was transferred early in the Thirty-third Parliament from the Senate to the House of Representatives. Our staff has served all sub-committees well. I place on record in particular the work of the Secretary to the Sub-Committee, Peter Gibson, and the defence adviser to the Committee, Dr Graham Cheeseman. I commend the report to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —by leave-I wish to comment on aspects of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', which was tabled in the Parliament today . The report shows that both Government and Opposition members in this place can agree amongst themselves across party lines. Little is heard of that in the context of an election campaign. People listening to this debate may be very surprised about it but there is a large degree of almost unanimous support across party lines. I think that this report is the most significant report presented to the Parliament by the very distinguished Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is chaired by a member of the Australian Labor Party, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). I pay tribute to the way in which he chaired the meetings and also to the Chairman of the Defence Sub- Committee, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) who has just spoken. I said that there were matters of agreement across the board, and that is true as to almost 98 per cent of the recommendatons. I did, however, table a dissenting report on three matters and I will speak briefly about that. In the section of the report entitled 'Principal Conclusions and Recommendations' I said that I disagreed with the wording of that paragraph because I believe that the only circumstances that would lead to a serious deterioration in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union would be provocative action by the Soviet Union. In regard to the Australia-American alliance, there was agreement among Committee members that, of course, it is in Australia's interests to maintain the ANZUS Treaty, and I agree with that. But I added the additional words that I think at this time, when there are threats to the treaty because of New Zealand's position, we ought to be working with the United States to strengthen the treaty. The other point of dissent was a reference in the Palme Commission's report on common security which is shown at paragraph 1.9. I agree with some of the comments of the Palme Commission but I disagree with others. I will not go into the matter now. I believe we should enuciate our own principles and not rely on anyone else's. In the time remaining to me I repeat that this is a most significant report. I hope that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Department of Defence will take note of it. I think it is critical of the Government. It is interesting that, across party lines, Government members on this Committee have operated in a bipartisan way to present a report which points out a number of deficiencies in Australia's defence at present, and that is very worrying. A particular matter of importance to me is the limitation that the report refers to in regard to our existing Defence Force structure, its system of command and control. The Committee concluded that we should move away from the current single service command structure towards a structure emphasising joint service roles and tasks, with a direct line of operational command from the Chief of the Defence Staff. That is a significant and important recommendation and a criticism of the current state of affairs. I hope that the Minister for Defence will respond very shortly, certainly before the election, and say that that particular recommendation will be implemented and brought into effect. The report is also critical of the Government in a number of other ways. It clearly states that Australia's current approach on defence is inadequate in terms of its limited short term operational deployment capacity and combat sustainability, its limited expansion potential and its inadequately defined operational structure. That is an indictment of the current situation and most concerning for Australians, not only those interested in defence but Australians generally. Again, I hope that the Minister will move quickly to implement these recommendations and overcome these criticisms of the current situation in this report. The Committee was not satisfied, across party lines, that the Australian Defence Force can quickly deploy sufficient men and material to meet low level threats; nor can it sustain them for long enough in operations, and heaven forbid, a high level threat. But that is the report's conclusion in relation to a low level threat. The Committee also considered that the fundamental weakness detracts from the credibility of our defence capacity and that is very important in relation to our deterrence capacity-our ability to deter intermediate and high level threats . To underline this weakness the report states that Australia's military strategy is essentially a reactive one being driven by changes in our strategic and operational environment rather than seeking to control or make better use of the environment. That is what the Committee believed and that is what I believe. I believe it is something that the Government and the Minister for Defence believe that we should do. I hope that he will respond. I know that he made a statement in the Parliament today but in the remaining hours of the life of this Parliament I hope he will give us a reaction to this very significant report on defence which has been tabled in the Parliament. The Committee clearly says that an alternative approach or strategy is needed which overcomes or minimises the current weaknesses that the report so adequately describes and which, in relation to a defence concept, the Chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee, the honourable member for Brisbane, referred to. In conclusion, I repeat that it is a most significant report. As I said earlier , it is the most significant one that has been tabled in regard to defence for consideration by the Minister, the Government, the Defence Department and those interested in the defence of Australia. I see that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) is trying to interject. I will pick up his interjection if he cares to repeat it. Mr Allan Morris —It is an indictment of the previous Government. Mr SHIPTON —No. Let us be sensible. The honourable member cannot keep blaming the sins of his generation on past generations. He must stand up and deliver. The Government of which he is a member has had 18 months to change the operational structure. If he knew what he was talking about and what he was doing, he could say: 'We will change the operational structure now'. I know that if the honourable member for St George, a former Minister for Defence of this nation and Chairman of this distinguished Committee, were the Defence Minister he would change it tomorrow. It is a pity he is not the Defence Minister instead of the one that we have. He would be a very competent Minister. He would implement this report and we would have a better defence structure and strategy for this nation. I hope that the honourable member who interjected realises that because the Chairman of the Committee, a member of the Australian Labor Party, understands, but I do not think the honourable member understands, and nor does the Minister. I will deal with any other interjections that he cares to make. I am quite happy to speak all night but in the interests of time I will conclude. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Chairman of the Committee. As I said when I began my remarks, this report is an example, in the closing days of the Parliament, that there can be agreement across party lines. I think that is a good thing for the nation. Mr MORRISON(St George) —by leave-I thank the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) for some of the observations he made in passing. He was correct in that the report is critical of the policies of governments-of successive governments. It is also true that the criticisms that are made in the report are constructive criticisms. We placed very clearly on record recommendations that we trust the government of the day, which happens to be a Labor government, will pursue. In the very short time that I have, I draw the attention of honourable members to a couple of the recommendations and conclusions in the report, the significance of which may not be immediately obvious. The first one is that the Committee has added to the standard concept of Australia's area of strategic interest, which is broadly South East Asia and the South Pacific area, the new concept of Australia's area of principal defence interest, and this area comprises the Australian continent-I hasten to add that it also includes Tasmania in case some of our Tasmanian colleagues take exception-and Australia's off-shore territories. The report goes on to recommend that the principal focus of our Defence Force operations would be the maritime and air approaches to Australia and any potential bases and staging areas from which opposing forces may be launched. I believe that the adoption of this concept would require significant changes in our force structure. The Committee also gave detailed consideration to the operation of command and control of the Defence Force. Briefly, the Committee opted for an extension of joint service commands responsible directly to the Chief of Defence Force Staff rather than establishing broad functional commands. I direct honourable members' attention particularly to paragraphs 42 to 46 of the report. The Committee found that there was general agreement that any future military conflict involving Australia's armed forces is likely to be based on joint, rather than single, service operations and that the Australian Defence Force needs to be well practised in joint operations in order to facilitate the transition to this wartime structure. The Committee considers that there are deficiencies in the present Australian Defence Force command structure to meet current peacetime tasks and roles. Of particular concern to the Committee is the fact that the command structure does not, as presently constituted in doctrine and practice, provide a suitable means for meeting future operational requirements. The Committee believes that the command structure of the Australian Defence Force should be restructured along joint service lines and considers that the detailed composition of Australia's joint operational command structure should be determined by the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Department of Defence and recommends that studies be conducted into this matter. In addition to the Army's operational deployment force, early consideration should be given to establishing joint force headquarters tasks of surveillance, early warning air defence and coastal surveillance. The Committee considers that the present chain of command linking the Chief of Defence Force Staff and his commanders in the field is unduly complicated and subject to conflicts of interests at all levels and recommends that the chain of command be simplified by removing the service Chiefs of Staff from the operational chain of command. The Committee considers that the present staff support for the Chief of Defence Force Staff is inadequate and recommends that this matter be investigated as part of the studies into an appropriate joint service command structure for the Australian Defence Force and that at least the nucleus of an Australian Defence Force headquarters be established to exercise operational command over our armed forces in peacetime. Implicit in this recommendation is a complete overhaul of the traditional approach to command and control of the Australian Defence Force. The Committee was not satisfied, as honourable members have pointed out, with the present arrangements for coastal surveillance. The Committee notes that there is considerable correlation between defence and coastal surveillance requirements in peacetime and concludes that the Australian Defence Force should be assigned overall responsibility for co-ordinating all forms of surveillance tasks. The report speaks for itself on a wide range of issues. The Committee believes that the report will provide the focus for an enlightened debate on Australia's defence requirements. In commending the report to the House, as Chairman of the Joint Committee I wish to place on record our appreciation of the work of the Sub-Committee and particularly its Chairman, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross). The Sub-Committee was fortunate in having Mr Peter Gibson, a former Army officer, as Secretary and the expert advice of the Committee's defence adviser, Dr Cheeseman. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —I present a report, together with minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence, from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into disarmament and arms control. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CHARLES —by leave-This report on disarmament and arms control by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has been brought forward today as we have been unable to complete our report into this extremely complex matter-one of the most important issues of our time-because of the calling of the election. The Committee feels, however, that it will be in a position to present a full and comprehensive report to the Parliament in the first part of the Thirty- fourth Parliament in 1985. I thank members of the Committee secretariat who have worked so hard for the 10 months that the Committee has been working on the disarmament and arms control reference. It has been an exhaustive but very informative 10 months. I would like to thank all members of the Sub-Committee, especially the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), who will not be standing for re-election at the next election. I wish him all the best. This very important inquiry will be completed. It will be put before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence when it is reconstituted in the next Parliament. I hope that a full and comprehensive report will be brought forward in the early part of 1985 on what is an important issue. Many people in the community will be anxious to see the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee. Mr MORRISON(St George) —I present a report, together with the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence, from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MORRISON —by leave-The Committee has been associated with the work of the Jackson Committee. The House will recall that a report of the Committee on the provision of development assistance and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa was completed late last year and was made available to the Jackson Committee during its deliberations. The report which I have just tabled points out that the Committee in its report 'Australia and ASEAN. Challenges and opportunities' dealt with a number of issues in the Jackson report of particular relevance to the Association of South East Asian Nations area. I draw attention in particular to the Committee's discussion in that report on the education in Australia of overseas students and the recommendations of the Committee on the arrangements for those students. I trust that the Government will take the Committee's reviews into account in its consideration of the proposal of both the Jackson Committee and the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy. The ASEAN report also took up another issue relevant to the Jackson report. I refer to the Committee's discussion of mixed credit schemes which is contained in paragraph 176 to 182 of chapter 3. Paragraph 9 (b) of the ASEAN report reflects the Committee's conclusions and recommendations in respect of mixed credits. The report states: The Committee generally shares the aid and trade-related concerns of the Jackson Committee about mixed credit schemes. At the same time, it is mindful of the prejudice to Australian manufacturing exports and industry resulting from the extensive use of mixed credit schemes by foreign competitors. The Committee therefore urges the Government to call for and participate fully in multilateral attempts to regulate and enforce tighter rules for the operation of such schemes . The Committee would prefer that any Government assistance to Australia's manufacturing export sector be not funded from the overseas aid budget. If however extensive use of mixed credit schemes by foreign competitors persists, the Government should consider alternative sources of support. We are requesting in the report we have just tabled that the matter be referred again to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of the next Parliament. I trust that that Committee will be able to bring down a report for the benefit of members of this House. I commend the report to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —by leave-I wish to speak in support of the comments made by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, that this matter be held over because the Committee was unable to complete its inquiry. I support the recommendation of the Committee that it be reconstituted and that the Jackson Report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program again be referred to the Committee. I think the work the Committee is doing on the Jackson report and on the other reports that have been tabled, which the honourable member for St George referred to, show the very valuable work of parliamentary committees and particularly the work of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As I think the honourable member said, the Committee appointed a working group of Committee members to consider the Jackson Report. The working group held preliminary discussions with Sir Gordon Jackson and other members of the Review Committee on overseas aid, which is a very important matter for Australia, for the region and for our relations with nations in the region. As I have said, I support the work of the Committee and the recommendation that the matter be taken up in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —I have received the following message from the Senate: The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives that, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, the following senators have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority: Senator Crowley, Senator Georges, Senator Haines, Senator Hill and Senator Missen. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of members to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Members' Interests: Mr Kent, Mr Lindsay, Mr Maher and Mr Simmons, who have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Ruddock and Mr Tuckey, who have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), and the Honourable I. L. Robinson, who has been nominated by the National Party of Australia Whip. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the tenth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. I wish to thank the secretariat and all the members of the Committee for all the work they have done Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Baldwin, Mr Brumby, Mr Griffiths, Mr Hall and Mr McGauran be members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(6.54) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to the Parliament; Improvements to On-Base Housing, RAAF Base, Darwin, Northern Territory. The proposed work is to refurbish 248 on-base married quarters which are presently below acceptable maintenance and structural standards. The work to be carried out involves general repairs to improve their livability and various structural improvements to increase resistance to high winds. In 1974 Cyclone Tracy destroyed most of the operational, technical and domestic support facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force Base Darwin. Some facilities, including 73 on-base houses, suffered severe damage and were subsequently demolished. The remaining houses suffered varying degrees of damage and were capable of restoration. They were immediately protected against the weather and repaired during 1975-76. Further work to improve the houses has been postponed because of uncertainties about the future of RAAF Base Darwin and its longer term housing needs. With the establishment of the F/A18 fighter base at RAAF Tindal, RAAF Darwin will revert to its previous operational role prior to the arrival of 75 Squadron from Butterworth in August 1983. Consequently, there will be a continuing need to house RAAF personnel in Darwin. The extent of the work planned to be undertaken is dependent on the age, condition and type of house. The Public Works Committee, in its report on the proposal, has recommended a substantially different solution involving the upgrading of only 148 houses to a higher standard than proposed and the construction of 100 new houses. The Committee has reported that the cost of such work would be in the order of $12.2m not including additional leasing and further improvements recommended by the Committee. This compares with $8.7m estimated for the upgrading of 248 houses as originally proposed. The Government has decided that the Committee's recommendations warrant further consideration, and therefore proposes to the House that approval be given to proceed with the upgrading of only 148 houses this time. This upgrading would be to the additional requirements recommended by the Committee for internal upgrading of the houses. The Government undertakes for the departments to report back to the Committee as soon as possible on the cost and desirability of proceeding with the external works recommended by the Committee which involve improvements to water supply, boundary fencing, and sealing of areas underneath houses. The report would also canvass the broader question of the provision of new houses versus further upgrading. It should be noted that by the time the Committee is re-formed in the new year, work will have commenced on only a small number of the houses. This preliminary work will provide valuable data for further consideration of the balance of the works by both the Government and the Committee. The estimated cost of the scope of work recommended to proceed at this time is in the order of $5.2m not including the additional internal work recommended by the Committee. The proposal I have outlined will enable a start to be made on this most important project and, if the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed. In commending this motion to the House I wish to thank the Committee for the very prompt manner in which it has conducted its inquiries and tabled its report . I also congratulate the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) for a successful campaign to get this work done after years of procrastination. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(6.58) —The Opposition warmly supports the motion moved by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). We are pleased that the project will get under way. As Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I am also glad to note on behalf of the Committee that most of its recommendations in relation to this proposal will be put into effect. The Committee was most concerned to learn of the poor condition of these houses and the recommendations it made as to additional work were based on advice received from Royal Australian Air Force wives who live on the base as to the most urgently needed improvements. The Committee is pleased that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will give further consideration to providing these houses with boundary fences to enhance the safety and security of children, to the sealing of the areas beneath the houses to provide additional amenity and play areas during wet weather, and to improving the water supply. As a member of the Committee I was able to inspect some of those houses during a visit to Darwin. I reiterate what I said at the outset, that this work is urgent work. It is much needed and both the Opposition and the Public Works Committee warmly support the motion. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(7.00) —I also support the motion, but I do so with some reservations. I support it because it will allow an immediate start to be made on the upgrading of 148 of these houses during the recess period. By the tenth anniversary of their initial damage-25 December, 1984-work should be under way to bring these houses up to a basic, habitable condition to enable the Royal Australian Air Force people to live in them. I have said in the House and on the Public Works Committee on a number of occasions that it is a disgrace that these people should have had to live in houses in this condition for more than 10 years without any action being taken to upgrade them. The submission to the Public Works Committee by the RAAF wives points graphically to the adverse effect the condition of these houses has had on the families who have had to live in them. It is only in the past 19 months that any action has been taken to upgrade these houses, and of course that action coincides with the election of the Hawke Government. These houses are a glaring monument to the neglect of defence housing and facilities by the Liberal -National Party Government over the past seven years. This is further evidenced by the fact that it will take $35,000 per house to bring them up to a basic condition. On top of that the report states that at least 100 of the houses are in such a bad condition that it would be better if they were rebuilt. That indicates just how much neglect has been heaped on the houses in the last 10 years, for most of which time the Liberal and National parties were in government. I support the motion with reservation because it does not cover the additional work recommended by the Committee; that is, external work on fencing and other things. The Public Works Committee's recommendation is a good one and it should be supported. The need for fencing and improvements to the water supply and sealing underneath the houses is so obvious that I am surprised that that work is not included in the motion. I get constant complaints from RAAF personnel, particularly mothers living in those houses, about the problems caused by lack of fencing. Young children are able to wander out on to the streets and the mothers are most concerned about it. I do not see why we have to wait another few months. Why can we not take action now to get the houses fenced? My second concern is for the occupants of the 100 other houses which are not covered by this motion. They will have to wait for some months to find out what is going to happen to their houses. These houses are in appalling condition at present. I hope that the Committee's recommendation in relation to the 100 other houses does not get lost in the system and that it will receive early attention in the new Parliament. My final comment is that even after the upgrade these houses will not meet the Northern Territory building code relating to cyclone proofing. They will be upgraded so that they will not break up and damage nearby houses, which is good news for the people living in the Narrows area of Darwin because their homes are the closest to these RAAF houses. The advice to the Committee was that it was not economic to upgrade the houses to full cyclone standard. I suppose that when it comes to a choice between providing RAAF personnel with houses that are at least in basic livable condition and having further delays while the question of rebuilding the houses altogether is considered, the only choice is to go ahead with the work immediately because these people have been living in these conditions for almost a decade now. I support the motion with the reservations I have mentioned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 10 September, on the following message received from the Senate: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate authorises the President to permit any person to examine and copy evidence submitted to, or documents of committees, which are in the custody of the Senate, which have not already been published by the Senate or its committees, and which have been in the Senate's custody for at least ten years: provided that if such evidence or documents were taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, disclosure shall not take place unless the evidence or documents have been in the custody of the Senate for at least 30 years, and, in the opinion of the President, it is appropriate that such evidence of documents be disclosed: provided further that the President report to the Senate the nature of any evidence or documents made available under this Resolution and the person or persons to whom they have been made available. (2) That the disclosure of evidence of documents of joint committees be authorised by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Represenatives under the same conditions as are provided in paragraph (1). (3) That the foregoing Resolution have effect not withstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Representatives in that part of the Resolution relating to the evidence and documents of joint committees. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(7.4) —I move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the House authorises Mr Speaker to permit any person to examine and copy evidence submitted to, or documents of committees , which are in the custody of the House, which have not already been published by the House or its committees, and which have been in the custody of the House for at least 10 years: Provided that if such evidence or documents were taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, disclosure shall not take place unless the evidence or documents have been in the custody of the House for al least 30 years, and, in the opinion of Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that such evidence or documents be disclosed: provided further that Mr Speaker report to the House the nature of any evidence or documents made available under this resolution and the person or persons to whom they have been made available. (2) That the House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 265 of the Senate, agrees that the disclosure of evidence or documents of joint committees be authorised by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative under the same conditions as are provided in paragraph (1) of the message. (3) That the foregoing resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. This message updates that considered by the House on 22 May 1980, when a resolution was agreed to excluding in camera documents. The current message followed a report from the Senate Standing Orders Committee dated October 1983 which recommended that Presiding Officers be authorised to grant access to in camera evidence or evidence submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, subject to the same restriction embodied in the Archives Act, namely, that material must be at least 30 years old. An enabling resolution of this occasion would vest in Presiding Officers the authority to release documents under certain conditions. A case by case decision will be required. The main effect will be to bring the practice of the House of Parliament into line with practices under the archives legislation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.5) —The Opposition supports the motion. However, one matter needs to be addressed. Whilst accepting that there is a necessity for such in camera information to be made available after the period that has been laid down in the motion, in the event of that information in any way offending people still alive, perhaps you, Mr Speaker, or Mr President in the other place, when considering approving that information, will consult either that person or the family of any person who might be named, to ensure that if there is any risk of some personal affront or some other quite valid personal reason why the person does not want that information disclosed, that is taken into account before that disclosure is permitted. With that reservation and taking it as a matter of course that the good judgment which you have exercised in other areas, Mr Speaker, will be applied in the new discretion to be conferred on you, the Opposition concurs with the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(7.7) —I ask leave of the House, Mr Speaker, to move a motion to enable the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to be distributed to all honourable members of the House when it is made available by the Prime Minister. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: That this House authorises the Speaker, notwithstanding the dissolution of the House, to provide to all members of the House of Representatives of the Thirty- third Parliament a copy of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in the form in which that report is received by him from the Prime Minister. Mr Costigan has informed the Government that he will present his final report by the end of October. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced today that it would be about 26 October. It will be a large report, of several volumes , and he is likely to recommend that only parts of it be made public. The relevant Commonwealth agencies, the Attorney-General's Department, the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police, will examine the report as a matter of urgency to ensure that what is published will not damage ongoing investigations or infringe civil liberties. This examination, which will be conducted in consultation with the Victorian Government, should take only a couple of days, and the report, subject to such deletions as prove necessary, should be available for publication in the Victorian Parliament before it rises. The tabling of the report in Victoria does not of itself attract privilege outside that State. That depends on the relevant laws in each State. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we propose to put the matter beyond doubt in the Australian Capital Territory by making an ordinance to make it clear that privilege attaches to the report, as tabled in the Victorian Parliament, in the Australian Capital Territory. In addition the motion that I am moving now and the parallel motion to be moved in the Senate will ensure that the report will be available to all honourable members and senators and it demonstrates the Government's determination that it be made public as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.9) —Whilst welcoming the statement by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) on this motion, and the addition that flowed from the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time today, the Opposition has some concern about the extent of the application of parliamentary privilege in the form of this motion. It would seem to us that the very nature of this report, albeit in an expurgated version, as it is described in the motion, is such that perhaps if individuals should be named, and whatever that final report might be, they should not be denied the opportunity of full and proper debate on those names. After all, we have been subjected to considerable prior publicity on some aspects of the alleged report, if the National Times is to be believed, and, judging by the action taken by Royal Commissioner Costigan, one must accept that that is so. Indeed, the remarks made by Mr Kerry Packer, who identified himself as the Goanna in those published reports, further suggests that the matter has already had fairly wide notoriety. Therefore, I believe there are a number of requirements that members of this place would seek in accepting the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The first is that parliamentary privilege should be beyond question, so that if any member of this House refers in any way to any person named in that report the form by which that privilege is apparently to be applied is the parliamentary privilege attaching to an ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and the application of privilege in the parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria. But I am concerned that that may well not be sufficient. I am not too sure in whose hands it lies but I understand that advice has been received from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the form of action that is now being taken. I ask that you, Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House table that advice for the information of honourable members. Secondly, I ask that the Government accept that you, Mr Speaker, insofar as you are responsible for the release of the document, and all members of this place be indemnified against any action that might follow were it to be that the High Court of Australia or any other court decided that privilege did not run. Obviously the nature of this report will be of some considerable moment as we are running into an election. It is, I think, essential that members of this place who believe parliamentary privilege lies with this document should enjoy the protection of that parliamentary privilege. Indeed, the whole purpose of this motion is to give that right to members. I ask no more than that the publication of information, the report having been given that privilege, should be accorded to anybody who takes advantage of that use of parliamentary privilege. Mr Speaker, I believe it necessary that you enjoy that indemnity. I believe that any other member using the report in the course of the guarantees that are part of this motion should also be given that same sort of undertaking. With those observations the Opposition supports the motion but asks the Leader of the House to table the advice from the Attorney- General so the matter can be put beyond doubt. Mr SPEAKER —It seems to me, with respect to the Leader of the House (Mr Young), that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has raised a number of issues which require me to respond. I have been conscious of the matter of privilege so inquiries were made and advice has been received. I have been advised by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that, if I act in accordance with the motion concerning the dissemination of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, he thinks there is a reasonable prospect that in the event of legal proceedings being instituted against me a court would hold that the communication of the report, in accordance with the terms of the resolution, would attract qualified privilege. Honourable members should be aware that copies of the report to be provided to them in accordance with the proposed resolution would not attract the absolute privilege that applies to papers tabled in the House and duly authorised for publication. I suggest that honourable members should keep this fact well in mind when dealing with the report. The Leader of the National Party next raised the question of indemnity that may be available to honourable members. I think that the Leader of the National Party would understand that the question of any indemnity is one for the Government and not for the Speaker. In responding to the next portion of his request I will reveal that I have received an assurance of indemnity if the motion is carried and if I act in accordance with it. The Leader of the National Party asked for the tabling of the advice from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). That advice was given to me. It was not my intention to table a copy of the advice. However, in view of the request and the matters raised by the Leader of the National Party, I table a copy of that advice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter , Mr James William Roberts, has advised me of his intention to retire from his position on 1 January 1985, shortly after his 59th birthday. He and I are of the same vintage. Mr Roberts was appointed a reporter on the Commonwealth Hansard staff in March 1957. Over the next 20 years as a reporter, senior reporter, supervisor and staff leader on the Hansard staff his duties covered the whole range of Hansard reporting, from the reporting of the Houses to the reporting of committees and conferences, in particular the Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks in Western Samoa in 1977. Following his appointment as Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter in September 1979 he was the Department's representative on a joint management review team which made recommendations on such matters as the recruitment and training of reporters, the further development of the Hansard indexes and the use of computer based equipment in the production of committee transcripts. He was the Department's first member of the steering committee on parliamentary information systems. Mr Roberts was appointed Principal Parliamentary Reporter on 21 February 1981. Since that time he has led a relatively young and inexperienced reporting staff with distinction. He has been a major contributor to the maintenance of the high standards set and achieved by our Hansard staff. He has attended the annual meetings of the Australasian Hansard Association, which comprises the heads of the Hansard staffs of all the parliaments of Australia and the South Pacific region. Also, in July this year he visited London where he was attached to the Hansard staff of the House of Commons and attended the first meeting of heads of the Hansard staffs of the member parliaments of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Before coming to Canberra in 1957 Mr Roberts was a New South Welshman. He was born in Parramatta and spent much of the first 30 years of his life in the northern beaches area of Sydney. He was a member of the New South Wales police force from 1942 to 1950 and a reporter in the New South Wales Court Reporting Branch of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice from 1950 to 1957. Mr Roberts and his wife, Pat, have a son and two daughters, one of whom is following in her father's footsteps and currently is a reporter on the same court reporting staff on which her father began his reporting career. In his early years in Canberra Mr Roberts was active in the coaching of schoolboy rowers and rugby union teams. From time to time he has gone fishing and made use of the skills he learned in the years he spent in the northern beaches area of Sydney before coming to Canberra. His other interests include gardening and stamp collecting. Over his many years of service to the Parliament Mr Roberts has had the support, encouragement and understanding of his wife, Pat . I am happy to say that Mrs Roberts is sitting in the gallery this evening, and she will appreciate that our warm remarks go to her also. I am a relatively new Speaker in terms of service but I have appreciated Mr Roberts as one of the heads of the parliamentary departments. He is extremely easy to work with. When he gives advice it is concise, clear and right to the point. I am sure I speak on behalf of all honourable members when I express to Mr Roberts appreciation of his dedicated and faithful service to the Parliament and, Jim, I wish you and your wife a long, healthy and enjoyable retirement. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I wish to add a few words in endorsing what you have said about Mr Roberts. I also welcome his wife to the chamber. I sought this task because I often look at Hansard to see what I have said and I always read much better than I sound. Many members of this Parliament owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of the Hansard staff for their understanding of the English language. From notes I have been given today, I know that we have something like 100,000 visitors to this chamber throughout the year. They must be a little perplexed and bewildered when watching the Hansard staff trying to take down all the things that are being said in the chamber. The staff members do not have such a good place in which to sit, as honourable members would probably know, being in the middle of the firing line from time to time. One wonders how they maintain their composure and concentrate on the job of taking down the words of more than one member at a time. On occasions in the Parliament 30 or 40 members can be talking. As you have said, Mr Speaker, Mr Roberts has contributed to Hansard since 1957, not just by doing his job but through his interest in recruiting and training people for the job and in the introduction of a computer-based system which has now been adopted. Perhaps that will make life a little easier for those who follow him in the job. On behalf of honourable members on this side of the House , I wish Mr Roberts well in his retirement. I thank him for the contribution he has made to an institution which, irrespective of what we may say during the heat of argument, most of us love and think has a great role to play in the conduct of the affairs of this country. I thank Mr Roberts for the part he has played in it. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I would like to associate the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia with the remarks you made. There is no doubt that the task of trying to make sense of some of the comments that are made in the parliamentary forum by members of the Parliament is extraordinarily onerous. To the person who is responsible for presiding over those who interpret those remarks-fortunately they are interpreted into relatively better English than many of us use-a great deal of thanks is due. Mr Roberts has been a very notable innovator in the parliamentary reporting field. I know he has worked particularly hard at developing training schemes within Hansard to ensure that his young staff is able to meet the requirements of recording speeches in this place. That so much has been achieved too in involving computers and modern technology in the transfer of the spoken word so quickly into the printed form is again largely due to the enthusiasm and ability that he has shown in the exercise of his responsibilities. As you have said, Mr Speaker, he has been involved in the Australasian Hansard Association and with Hansard reporters from all State Houses in Australia. It is very necessary that the standards of parliamentary reporting be maintained. Unless there is a person of high repute and considerable ability as Principal Parliamentary Reporter, that cannot possibly be achieved. There is on the part of those of us who have worked in this place a particular recognition of the extraordinary strain involved in working under the fairly tight conditions that often operate in this place through the extremely long periods of parliamentary sittings. I think we need to recognise that sitting through meal breaks as we have, for example, today and as we have on each sitting Thursday since the sitting hours were changed has added further to the pressure placed on all those who work in Hansard. I would like to extend our thanks to you, Jim, for your contribution to the Parliament and for the innovation you have introduced into the Hansard staff. I wish you and Mrs Roberts all the best for a long and happy retirement. I think a few of us in this place will often envy the thought of you fishing, wherever you might be, and enjoying those other pursuits that no doubt you wish to follow in your retirement. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) spoke on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, but I have a particular bond with Hansard reporters and Principal Parliamentary Reporters that no other member has, having married the daughter of one. Therefore, I would like to say to Jim, having heard the sorts of stories that are told after Principal Parliamentary Reporters retire, that I would welcome having a chat with him in years ahead during his retirement. If those stories match Ken Ingram's they would make for a succession of very successful dinners. I want to add more particularly, that because of my association now with Ken Ingram who retired, of course, some years ago, I appreciate, beyond the accuracy , the dedication and the service, the sheer weight of responsibility of a Principal Parliamentary Reporter which perhaps for too long has not always been recognised. You have carried, Jim, an enormous responsibility. I simply want to add to the words of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia my gratitude and my Party's gratitude. That goes, of course, to Mrs Roberts as well. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, or in the event of Mr Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees, which time of meeting shall be notified to each member by telegram or letter. I take this opportunity to record my appreciation of the contributions made by so many on both sides of this House to the notable achievements that have distinguished the Thirty-third Parliament. I recall that when I made some remarks at the rising of the Parliament last year I was able to congratulate the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) on her achievement in making history by delivering the goods in a unique way. This year I can report that as a member of a very productive government she is about to do it again. We wish her well. There have been some other significant developments in the parliamentary system during the last two years which will, I am sure, guarantee it a notable place in the history of this legislature. For example, there was the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which undertook the most comprehensive review of the Commonwealth's electoral system for several decades. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —There seems to be a fairly wide degree of satisfaction with its work, Mr Speaker. Mr Howard —I'll reserve judgment. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Bennelong reserves judgment. The Joint Select Committee on Members' Interests renewed some of the recommendations made earlier both by the Riordan Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament of 1975 and the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest of 1979. The establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and the creation of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority to monitor and review the Authority's performance are also significant developments. Among the major reports produced by parliamentary committees I would single out the work of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which provides a firm basis for consideration of possible reforms in this area. With the rising of this Parliament, Mr Speaker, we will see some of our number retiring. We shall miss them all. Ken Fry, currently in New York as parliamentary representative to the United Nations General Assembly, has been the member for Fraser since 1974. He is Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Reflecting his own involvement with the South East Asian region dating back as far as World War II, he has taken a keen interest in Australia's relations with countries of that region. Doug Everingham, the member for Capricornia since 1967, has had a distinguished career in this Parliament. He was Minister for Health in the Whitlam Government and has served on a variety of parliamentary committees, including the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the Standing Orders Committee, the Standing Committee on Road Safety and the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Ray Groom has been the member for Braddon since 1975 and served as Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development between 1977 and 1978 and as Minister for Housing and Construction from 1978 to 1980. He is currently a member of the Standing Orders Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Kevin Newman has been the member for Bass since 1975. In the period December 1975 to March 1983 he held a variety of ministerial appointments, including Minister for Repatriation, Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Minister for National Development, Minister for Productivity and Minister for Administrative Services. Frank O'Keefe, the honourable member for Paterson, has been a member since 1969 , having served for eight years before that as a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. He is currently a member of the House Committee, the Library Committee and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. To all these members, each of whom has made a considerable and greatly appreciated contribution to the work of this House, we all extend our best wishes. As I said last year, I strongly believe that the workings of this Parliament depend upon the services and dedication of very many people who, unlike those of us in the chamber, are not exposed to the public glare. In this regard I think it was most appropriate that this Parliament should have seen the first appointment of a woman to a senior position in the Department of the House of Representatives. I refer, of course, to the appointment of Mrs Lyn Simons as Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, now Acting Serjeant-at-Arms. This appointment follows the appointment in the Department of the Senate of Miss Anne Lynch as Clerk Assistant (Procedure). There are many people who have contributed to the smooth working of this House. I wish to thank you, particularly, Mr Speaker, for the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings of the House-which, if I may observe parenthetically, has not always been the easiest of tasks-together with your Deputy and Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), whose appointment we were delighted to see as another breakthrough for women in the life of this Parliament. I congratulate you both on the very high standards of impartiality and judgment that have been set for the smooth and efficient running of this House. Indeed, the work of the Chairman of Committees and the deputies has been, as you acknowledge, Mr Speaker, quite vital to the successful legislative record of this Parliament. But it has been the unheralded contribution of people such as the Clerk of the House, the Deputy Clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms, the parliamentary officers, the Table Office and the attendants which has also been quite crucial to the smooth and effective exercise of our responsibilities in this House. We thank all of them most sincerely. We also owe our thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel and to the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and the Hansard staff, each of whom has made a notable high quality contribution. You, Mr Speaker, referred earlier to, and others have also spoken of, the retirement later this year of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Jim Roberts. We wish him well. We also owe a debt to the Parliamentary Librarian and his staff for their invaluable service to all honourable members. The manner in which they have been able to respond to our onerous and not always, apparently, reasonable requests has not only been impressive; it has been something many of us have come to depend upon. I cannot conclude my list of thanks without looking heavenwards-at least not quite to heaven; half way there, which may be purgatory, perhaps-and referring to the members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery. I suppose our assessment of their contribution varies from day to day as we put our interpretations upon their contributions. The fact that my office is going to inflict a massive defeat upon the Press next Sunday in our annual cricket match is not to be taken as any adverse assessment of their work. We thank the Press for their invaluable contribution. If they were not there no one would know just how good we are. When I say 'how good we are', I mean that in a bipartisan sense across the House. While on the area of communication, we also extend our thanks to the broadcasting team of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Finally, I express our appreciation for the work of the Secretary of the Joint House Department and his staff, including all those involved in catering, transport and other crucial services on which we all depend on a day to day basis. I think it goes without saying that the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide, Mr Young, and those who have acted on his behalf, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, and the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, have also in their usual way succeeded in carrying forward the business of the House speedily and effectively. Without doubt they have been assisted in that task by the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Leigh Powell. I say quite directly that they have benefited also from the co-operation of the Manager of the Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England, Mr Sinclair. Of course, the Whips, their deputies and their staffs have played a crucial role in keeping the numbers together and in directing the debates. To all of them, and indeed to everyone who has made this both a happy and successful Parliament, our thanks are extended. Because of the sudden and unexpected manner in which Parliaments have often been dissolved and elections called in this country over the last ten years, there have been very few occasions on which members have had an opportunity to make valedictory remarks at the rising of the Parliament. If I may be excused, in that regard I recall in particular with some satisfaction the events of February 1983. As we embark on an election campaign I wish all honourable members well-again I hope honourable members will excuse me if I say particularly those on my side. I look forward to assembling here with members of my Government-I will not go into the question of numbers-next year. Putting aside all partisan considerations, as we will not be meeting again in this Parliament before the Christmas and New Year period, I take this opportunity, not only personally but also I believe on behalf of the Government, of extending to all honourable members and their families best wishes for the Christmas period of 1984 and for the new year 1985. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —As this House rises very shortly and honourable members will be dispersed across the nation in an election campaign, this probably will be the only occasion on which there will be the expression of not only genuine but also warm wishes in a bipartisan manner to so many people who play a role in this very great symbol and, beyond that symbol, function of democracy. I wish to associate myself fully with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), perhaps with the singular exception of the slight references to the success of those honourable members on the other side in the election. He will excuse me for doing that. I think the Prime Minister traversed the field extraordinarily well in mentioning all those who have contributed, during the life of the Thirty-third Parliament, to allowing this great institution to function, and function well. He properly drew attention to those members who we are aware will not be returning, who have taken the decision to retire. Ken Fry is overseas. I wish him well. I know all members of the Opposition wish him well. I developed a very great respect for him during my period as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He frequently disagreed with me and with Government policies. He let us know in firm and unequivocal terms but with a sincerity that knew very great depths. I wish him well in his retirement. So, too, Doug Everingham, who has been in this Parliament for a lengthy period. I recall Doug as a Minister; I recall his seeking to change to phonetic spelling of the English language. I always regret that I never wrote to him thanking him for his contribution in terms of 'Dear Dug'-spelt D-u-g. Doug is a very sincere man who holds views very different from mine on many issues-and not just those that came before the Parliament. He is a man for whom we developed a great deal of affection and I join everyone in the House in wishing him and his family well . I refer now to retiring Opposition members. Frank O'Keefe served in State Parliament and, like a number of members of both sides of the House who have come from State Houses, he has continued the sort of contribution that we knew of him in the New South Wales Parliament. I am sure that the Manager of Opposition Business and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) would wish to speak at greater length about Frank. He is a warm and generous- hearted man, and we will miss him greatly. I am sorry, as I glance to my left, that that glance will not be balanced after the next election by glancing to my right and seeing you there, Frank. Kevin Newman, the honourable member for Bass, like Ken Fry, is on a trip overseas. We have spoken before of the contribution Kevin made with his election success in the by-election of 1975. Kevin led a battalion in Vietnam. He showed great courage there and throughout his period in the Parliament he showed very great courage indeed. I think of particular debates that former members of the Cabinet will recall when it would have been much easier for him to have remained silent but he gave himself a very difficult time in relation to matters concerning not only his portfolio but also his State. All of us will miss Kevin. He has not been well and I trust that on his visit overseas he is recovering to a greater extent than was evident in the months before his decision to retire. To Ray Groom, who carried Barrassi's No. 31 at the club of Melbourne in the Victorian Football League, I say that we on this side of the House will miss him as a straightforward, driving, admirable colleague. Ray is a fellow who says it as he sees it, as he played with the Melbourne Football Club. In my view Ray was a very good Minister and I was sorry to see him left out of the Ministry following his period of service there. It did not dent his faith in parliamentary service and he stayed on for two parliaments following that period . I wish him and Gill a very happy retirement. They have an extraordinarily large family, which is growing regularly, and I trust that he will involve himself in more than simply developing his family. I wish him every success in his ventures, perhaps through the law, on his retirement. We will miss all those honourable members very much and we wish them all very well. At the outset of my remarks, I joined in the sentiments so properly and effectively expressed by the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those people who utilise a wide range of skills and talents to contribute to our contributions in the Parliament, some of them over very lengthy periods, and to make the House and the Senate function smoothly and efficiently. I have mentioned separately the contribution that Jim Roberts has made but I would like again to mention it just briefly in this valedictory speech. After 27 years of service with Hansard he has risen to the pinnacle of his career as Principal Parliamentary Reporter. I endorse in these remarks the expressions of gratitude that I mentioned before. I wish both him and Mrs Roberts well in his retirement. The Prime Minister properly drew attention to the role of the Clerk and all those who serve under him. They are absolutely indispensable, and unbiased and generous in the advice that they tender to all members of the Parliament. I recall coming into the Parliament in a by-election in the mid-1960s and being advised by the then Clerk, Mr Turner, that I could not be escorted into the Parliament by a member of the Ministry. I rang my then father-in-law who was a member of a Victorian Ministry and said: 'The Clerk tells me that I cannot have a Minister escort me into this Parliament'. He said: 'You had better learn soon, son, that they are second only to JC, and do as you are told'. Since then, Doug, I have developed a capacity to respond responsibly to advice you may tender. I think generally we accept the overwhelming amount of advice that you give to us. We could not operate in the effective way that all members of the Parliament do from time to time without your advice. I pay tribute to the staff of the Parliamentary Library, to our personal staff, and to the media. The Prime Minister mentioned the Parliamentary Press Gallery. It is very easy to talk of separating the wheat from the chaff and printing only the chaff, but the fact is that although this has the appearance of being an incestuous relationship with some in this place, we could not inform the people adequately without the work of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The Prime Minister correctly drew attention to the work constantly done and the long hours worked by the police, the attendants, the Joint House staff, the dining room staff, the transport officials-all of whom play an essential role in the functioning of the Parliament. I have not had to utilise the transport staff for a while. I am told that they are carrying on with great effect the traditions set by Gordon Pike by which so many members were looked after. I know I speak on behalf of others who are constantly in touch with the Transport Office when I say that the arrangements are still the same. If one wants to get on the Trans-Siberian railway next week, within a flash one is told: 'You cannot have a seat by the window, but you have a seat'. It is done and the matter is attended to without delay. They are extraordinary people who have to tolerate the misgivings and the temperaments of so many people in this Parliament. They do their job very well and we thank them all. That includes the Parliamentary Counsel and the Public Service who lend invaluable support to honourable members. The Prime Minister paid a tribute to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). I see a great deal more of the Manager of Opposition Business than I do of the Leader of the House. He has been of enormous help to us but so, too, has the Leader of the House. He gags us, he abuses us, he is on occasion intolerant, but he is always tolerant in explaining and he has never broken his word to me on the matter of parliamentary business. It is of the utmost importance that the parties have people managing the business of this Parliament to whom they can talk with confidence and give undertakings for their parties. We may criticise the Leader of the House on other factors, and I do so trenchantly-I singularly except that element upon which I have touched-but we could not function unless we had people who are good at the game of running this Parliament. Certainly the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business do that. Ian Sinclair has been described by Mick Young as probably the finest Leader of the House since Federation. Mr Young —He knows a few tricks. Mr PEACOCK —Well, he will be back in that job very soon. I hope that the rapport in the relationship between the two of you as you swap roles will be as good as it has ever been. In concluding my remarks, Mr Speaker, I wish to recognise not only the role played by your office but that which you yourself have played. You know that we cannot agree with you on every point, nor should we, but we respect your judgments, often made in very difficult circumstances. We respect you and we respect your office. I am pleased to reflect on the occasion how you were elected without opposition from us. I trust that you will ensure the same is done for our nominee when we return to government next time. We have respected the times through the difficult periods where sometimes we have been in the short term trenchant in our criticism, I trust privately, of certain decisions. Indeed, on one occasion I moved dissent from your ruling. You have a job, the difficulty of which is not always appreciated outside the realms of this Parliament. We have spoken about others without whom the Parliament could not function successfully. Order and, therefore, the proper functioning of this Parliament could not occur without you. You have performed your task as well as any in that role and I thank you, not only for myself, but also on behalf of members on this side of the House. I thank also the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) although we opposed her election. The Prime Minister rightly drew attention to the significance of her election to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees when the Labor Party nominated her. We applaud you, Joan, for the work you have done. You are the least co-operative person at election time so far as I am concerned. I respect that, but I also respect the great degree of co-operation you have given us from the Chair. I stop short of wishing you well, but I thank you for what you have done. Mrs Simons and Miss Anne Lynch were mentioned by the Prime Minister. I would think that their appointments have owed a little to the focusing on your role in this Parliament. We are all the better for that. We face another election campaign. As we wind down, I would like to recall the words of the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he spoke in the valedictory debate on 18 September 1980. He said: Frequent elections create all sorts of side issues and they certainly create instability. I support those sentiments of the Deputy Prime Minister, expressed some four years ago. They are as relevant today as they were in 1980. It is as well for us to remember that parliaments and governments are elected to serve the people of this nation and not vice versa. There have been occasions on which the Opposition has felt that the Government has strayed from that view. This is not the occasion to develop that. The Prime Minister was good enough to extend his greetings to all members of the Parliament, Government and Opposition, and to their families for the period beyond the election, the festive season. I warmly reciprocate, but there will be occasions over the next few weeks when remarks will be very blunt and to the point. Some will be regretted by some of us; some will be adhered to. We are participants in a very great body and I was very moved by the Prime Minister's wishes to all of us. I feel that it is no reflection on the system to say that whilst we leave the Parliament and the tempo of remarks increases as we seek to disagree with one another, it is necessarily a strength in our society. There are all too few nations in which even the sort of discussion we are having today would ever take place, in which those of us who have fundamentally different views nevertheless join with each other to express good wishes beyond an election for a festive season and, indeed, good wishes for the election campaign-that it be fought in a fair and forthright way. I trust that when it is over this nation will be the better for it. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would just like to endorse the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I do not intend to repeat exhaustively the names of all those who have made a contribution to this place. I think we all regard it sometimes with some measure of affection, quite often with a measure of cynicism. I think all of us, nonetheless, believe in the institution. To all those who have made this place what it is, on behalf of the members of the National Party I too extend my thanks. There are a number of people whose names have not been mentioned. Rather than go through all of those who have been , I will comment just a little on them. Before I do, I would like to say to the honourable member for Paterson, Frank O 'Keefe, how much we in our Party will miss him. Frank and I entered State Parliament in the same year. We have crossed a few dry gullies together, but one of the peculiar distinctions of Frank-he has many-is that throughout his parliamentary career he has also been a member of local government. He has retained his association with the Gunnedah Council. Throughout its various names and phases, Frank, having been a mayor for a significant period, has remained an alderman. Uniquely in this institution he has therefore bridged the lowest and perhaps the highest tier, if that is the way we see it, of government. Frank also is an outstanding sport. Perhaps I could suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that if he really is looking for somebody who might add strength to that team of his he might turn to the honourable member for Paterson who, I am sure, at least in his heyday would have been equal to any on the cricket field. There are others, too, whose names have been mentioned by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, each of whom I have had a particular association with, one way or another. Kevin Newman, as the Leader of the Opposition commented, was elected on the retirement of the then Deputy Prime Minister. It was a momentous time. To Kevin I express not sadness but envy in one sense for he is going out to enjoy yet another career. As a soldier he certainly served this nation well. As a parliamentarian he served his Party, his State and his nation well. To Ray Groom, who, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, was a very distinguished footballer and a very significant member of this Parliament, I also wish a long and happy retirement. I heard some unkind remarks on the front bench suggesting that he might be retiring to stud. I do not know whether that is so but he certainly has a very large family and I am sure he and his wife will enjoy their time together. Doug Everingham and Ken Fry of the Australian Labor Party are also leaving this place voluntarily and to them I extend, on behalf of the National Party, our best wishes for their future . I mentioned that there were a few names that had not been mentioned. I make particular comment about one group, our wives and children. A great deal has been said about the families of parliamentarians. Mrs Darling —What about their husbands? Mr SINCLAIR —And their husbands; how right the honourable member is. It is true that the spouses of us all, and our families-our children and, for some, other members of our families-play an enormously important part in our lives. On behalf of all honourable members I thank our respective spouses and our children for the support they have given us. I would only wish that they on occasions were not exposed, as unfortunately their lives tend to be. I think that for many of them the pressures of some of those things that happen to us in the course of our profession is taken a little harder, and they do not have the same opportunities to respond. There are so many, Mr Speaker, in your own Department, in the Parliament and around this place, whose names have been mentioned. On behalf of the National Party I thank them for the role they have played in making our lives a little more pleasant. There are so many outside this place, too, who help us as we travel around this nation. They have all been important to us. Above all, to those who are our electors, who are, after all, the people for whom we speak and act in this place, we also owe our thanks. I also reciprocate the good wishes of the Prime Minister to all members of this place for the period after the election. No doubt it will be fun and games from now until 1 December. While I do not wish quite the same good luck to those on the other side of the House, I certainly wish it to the candidates for both the National Party and the Liberal Party in the next election. May the best men and women win. I commend all those who have made this place what it has been. I join the Prime Minister in wishing, after the election period, the best of all seasonal greetings to all members of this place and those who have contributed to make the Parliament what it is. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(7.59) —I support the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and spoken to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) . I do not have much to say. I have had a very uneventful couple of years in the House so I will not keep the House very long. First of all, I certainly join with all those who have spoken in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the tolerance you have shown. I have not taken a count of how many honourable members have lost their wicket in the last couple of years but it has not been many. Mr SPEAKER —You saved most of them. Mr YOUNG —I have saved a couple behind the stumps but a couple went through. There is one in Hobart now probably listening. I certainly thank you, Mr Speaker . I also thank the Clerk and the Hansard people. I certainly thank the Clerks for the advice they give. It is a big jump, as we have all learnt on this side, coming from the opposition benches to government, taking on new responsibilities and finding out that we are working perhaps twice as many hours as we were in opposition. We thank them enormously for the advice they have been able to give us in seeing that the Parliament was conducted properly. As I said earlier, I thank the Hansard staff for the work they have done. There are many other unsung heroes to whom I would like to refer, particulary because of my job as Leader of the House. I refer to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys)-'Uncle Ben, the bushman's friend', the Government Whip. He is an outstanding person. I do not know whether he is so good at his job because he used to sell whips, but he has certainly been a source of great strength in the conduct of the business of the House and the relationship he has been able to develop with the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) in seeing that business has been conducted properly and being able to keep the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) under control occasionally. It has not been easy . Nevertheless we place on record out thanks to him and to Joan in the office, who has assisted in the conduct of the business. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sent someone over to do the dreadful job of Parliamentary Liaison Officer. Leigh Powell drew the short straw for the first two years of our Government. Some people do not even notice his presence. He is an integral part of the proper conduct of business in the Parliament, and in making sure that members are present. Some of our Ministers have yet to learn about House duty, presentation of papers and so forth. They are a bit lax in the way that they turn up. It has fallen upon his shoulders and on Anne-Marie, who works in his office. I thank them both. Leigh will return now to see whether his career has been enhanced by being here with us for a couple of years. Let us hope that it has not been damaged. A number of statistics about the Parliament have been extracted by the Clerks. It may interest honourable members to know that the most speakers we had on any one Bill in this Parliament was on the sex discrimination legislation. We seemed to take a very great interest in sex discrimination. There were 34 speakers. I noticed that the right honourable member for New England said: 'May the best men and women win at the next election'. Of course, he would have noticed that there are women on only one side of the House-that is, this side. With due respect to Senator Bjelke-Petersen, the parties opposite have yet to learn that they have to put women forward to run for the House of Representatives. Mr Donald Cameron —What about Kathy Martin, Margaret Guilfoyle and others? Mr YOUNG —We are talking about members of this House. Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —The Opposition seems to be very sensitive about this matter. Mr Peacock —What about Kay Brownbill from Kingston? Mr YOUNG —Years ago? Mr Peacock —A few years ago. Mr YOUNG —Actually Kay Brownbill came in with Andrew Jones for a term. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which gives the figures for the Parliament. Leave granted. The table read as follows- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SITTINGS 1983-84 position as at the adjournment of the House on 9 October 1984 BILLS Initiated in House 323 Received from Senate 37 Passed both Houses 235 Amended by House 40 Passed House and amended by Senate 19 Amendment requested by Senate, (made by House) 3 Second reading amendments moved 43 Declared urgent (under guillotine) 2 Number of pages (as introduced in House) 5 372 OTHER Sittings 99 Total hours of sitting 1061 Sittings after midnight 13 Days on which ''Grievance'' debate called on 13 Days on which general business debated 12 Days on which matters of public importance discussed 80 Divisions 233 Closures agreed to 72 Closures of Members agreed to 15 General business notices of motion given 1001 Petitions presented 4099 Questions placed on Notice Paper 1897 Questions without notice 1165 Visitors to the House of Representatives Public Galleries during sittings 97 647 NO. OF SPEAKERS ON: Title No. Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 (1983) 34 Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983 27 Health Legislation Bill 1983 (cognate with allied Bills) 17 World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 16 Mr YOUNG —I also place on record the thanks of the Parliament to John May and the officers of the Transport Office. I say to people who may be listening that Parliament is a very funny place when one listens to speeches such as this. Fred Daly was another person who took a great interest in the fact that if one party has a majority in the House the Standing Orders can change dramatically. He told me the other night a story about a ballot that was held in the Labor Caucus between Frank Crean and the late Danny Minogue. The prize was a trip to the United States. Frank told everybody in the Labor Caucus how important it was for him to go to the United States because he had to talk to authoritative figures on finance and the running of the Treasury in the United States, and how enhanced his reputation would be when he returned to Australia if he won this ballot to visit the United States. People asked Danny Minogue why he wanted to go. He said: 'I want to go because I have a sister who is a nun in Boston'. Danny won the ballot easily. So the Parliament does operate in strange ways. I say to the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) that whilst he is leaving the Parliament, and we wish him well, I know that we will see him at the Sydney Cricket Ground in the not too distant future. I do not know that we will be able to carry out Rod Marsh's theories against the West Indies. We wish him well. Ken Fry, who, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, is in the United Nations, and Doug Everingham are people who have been rather significant figures in the Labor movement and who have had very strong views on the issues in which they have become involved. We wish them well. It has been mentioned that Ray Groom is getting out at a very early age. Footballers are very popular politicians in Tasmania. It would not surprise me if he turned up in the local political scene in Tasmania. Kevin Newman is retiring to start another career. As the person who followed him into ministerial responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, I can say that Kevin was held in very high regard in that area. We also wish him well in his retirement. In conclusion, because of my experiences over the last couple of years, I say a very sincere thank you to all my colleagues. Mr SPEAKER —A Speaker gets very few chances to address the House, so I am sure that honourable members will allow me a few minutes to join in these valedictory remarks before putting the question. The honourable members who are not nominating for a further term have already been mentioned, but I feel I should mention them further. I am sorry that Doug Everingham is not here. Doug is one of the most compassionate men that I have met. That will be the way in which I will remember him. Ken Fry was fiercely loyal to the Australian Capital Territory and he was immensely interested in the problems that minorities suffered in a number of countries. I will remember him for that. I listened last night to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) speaking about Ray Groom. The Leader of the House made the point that it is rather a shame when one sees younger politicians voluntarily retiring from this place at a time when they have so much time ahead of them to serve as their experience is lost to this place. I was around at the time of Kevin Newman's historic entrance into this Parliament and the things that flowed from it. I regret that he has had to leave due to ill health. I will remember him as the first honourable member I named, doing so in circumstances in which he was sticking up for his home State, and, of course, he was the first honourable member that the Leader of the House saved from the results of that naming. We wish him well. I do not know whether honourable members realise that Frank O'Keefe entered the New South Wales Parliament in 1961 and I entered the Victorian Parliament in 1961. We both retired from our respective State parliaments to join the select few in 1969, so we have very similar histories. As a matter of fact, our first efforts were to get State parliamentary service recognised for parliamentary superannuation purposes in the Federal sphere. Frank and I always thought it was most unfair that our State parliamentary service was not recognised for the purposes of a life gold pass. But we made it, Frank. I wish Frank well in his retirement. The Parliament, in the sense of the Speaker's duties, has been rather an interesting one. There have been a number of occasions when questions of privilege have arisen and I have had to make decisions and be represented in various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies that are around. We had the tabling of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which I believe was a very important advance in recent years for us to consider. I must say that the Joint Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, which was dealing with the question of televising Parliament and what changes should happen with broadcasting, has performed quite a task which should enable a report to be made on that matter early in the next Parliament. I believe that honourable members were interested in the televising of the last Budget Speech. I was not necessarily popular with some of my colleagues and with some of the media because I asked for some restrictions to be put on the shots that were taken. I believe that it was proper to start softly, softly, so that we could develop what was necessary. We have had now the issue of the declaration of members' private interests. The Standing Orders Committee was always difficult to get together, but on that issue it was most co-operative in examining the problems put before it. In regard to the hours and days of sitting we have had the interesting experience of four-day weeks. We have had two weeks on and two weeks off. It suits me, but I will be interested to see what the future holds. The Parliament has been very active with the normal overseas delegations and interparliamentary organisations. I believe we have been able to play an important role in the Australasian and Pacific area. We have given assistance to some of the organisations which are trying to develop in some of the new countries. In the future we will have the problem of 23 new members having to be looked after in the next parliament. We have had to erect an annexe on the House of Representatives side. I am happy to say that the work is running to timetable and the building should be ready for occupancy when the new parliament meets. I am alarmed to think about the seating arrangements during the next parliament. I feel the seats in the Speakers Gallery will be fewer than at present. The new Parliament House is progressing well enough to be occupied by 1988. We have reached a stage where decisions have to be made in fine detail and one thinks at times that the method of management of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House makes those decisions a bit difficult to carry. I hope, Prime Minister, that we will soon get a decision on the use of the provisional Parliament House. That is not only a passing interest but utilitarian aspects must also be considered. We have had much discussion on information systems development for members. There is a gradual plan for implementation. In some way I regret that the transfer of Executive functions did not allow the parliamentary departments to look after that aspect entirely. One of my other regrets is that I hoped that during this parliament we would be able to review parliamentary procedures. Many require a review, and I hope that some will refer back to the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System and see the recommendation for a standing committee on procedures with wide terms of reference which would continually review those procedures. I congratulate our Acting Serjeant-At-Arms. I was the foundation chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I think one of her early jobs was with that Committee. I know that she has had some time on secondment to my old home, the Victorian Parliament. We are glad to have her with us. My first thanks must go to the other Presiding Officer, the President of the Senate. In running joint parliamentary departments it is important to have understanding between the two Presiding Officers, and Doug McClelland and I have been able to co-operate very well. I thank the Chairman of Committees, Joan Child, for her support and the way she has assisted in the running of the House, and Elaine Darling, Peter Drummond, Len Keogh, John Mildren, Clarrie Millar, John Mountford and Allan Rocher for their help also as Deputy Chairman. Doug Blake and the House of Representatives staff have already been thanked by others , as have Mr MacLean and the Library staff, Jim Jorgensen and the Joint House Department staff, along with Ted Howell, and the security people. We have already referred to the reporting staff and our transport men, John May, Paul and Brian. At the end of last year after the valedictory speeches had been made I spent a day going around all the parliamentary departments conveying to all members of the staff the gratitude of members of this place for the work they had done for us during that year. I will ensure that that is done once more before the end of this year. I have tried to keep an open door to the Speaker's office. I hope that members have felt, if they wanted advice, that they could come to me and get that advice in confidence. I hope they feel that that has worked. I would like to thank my personal staff-Kerry Clancy, Morrie Adamson, who took the late John Ferguson's place, Janice McDonnell, Marie Donnelly and Mary Capobianco. I think members have reason to be grateful to them for the service they have given in looking after seating and generally giving advice. They have been a great back-up to my electorate staff-Sue Wilkes, Beth Gleeson and Henry Shapiro. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) mentioned families. I would like to join him in that. I think families suffer a great deal of deprivation with members being up here and I am grateful for the support I have always received from mine. I would like to thank the Press Gallery. In my parliamentary career I have not been one to go much on media releases or to try to get publicity in the Press. Since becoming Speaker, however, I have had quite a lot to do with the Press because of the problems the Press Gallery has with accommodation, the increasing demand from other sections of the media for accommodation, the request to free up the filming of the House for background material to put in news service segments on television, and other filming. I have found members of the Gallery co-operative and honourable. The greater opportunity we have given them has been used sensibly and I think has been of assistance to the Parliament. I turn to the Leaders of the House. I thank Mick Young for his co-operation. He was absent for a while and John Dawkins filled in. I thank them both. I thank Ian Sinclair. We snap at one another occasionally but I think we both have an understanding of the procedures of the House. To the Party Whips for their co- operation and to all members, Ministers and officers I give my thanks. It has been in many senses a turbulent Parliament. It has not been an easy Parliament. However, I think the test must be this: Have members and Ministers had a chance to have their say? Has the business of the House gone on unimpeded so that it can be finished in reasonable time? I believe that has occurred. I think that is so important. I have heard leaders on both sides talking about electoral prospects. I have had a look at what the psephologists have said. Malcolm Mackerras places my seat as the second safest seat in Australia. But the refinements used by the Parliamentary Library's research service allege that it is the safest seat in Australia. So I can be quite impartial and say that at least I expect to be back in the Parliament! Having said that, I offer season's greetings to all members and their families for when the hurly-burly of the election is over. I trust that after the fray of the election campaign they will have some time for some rest and recreation and perhaps for thinking about what they will do in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. House adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until a date and hour to be fixed, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Cadman to move- That this House calls on the Prime Minister to adopt in Government the same attitude as he had in opposition to public debate between Leaders during the election campaign. Mr Ruddock to move- That the Agents (Amendment) Ordinance 1984 (No. 49 of 1984), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 October 1984: Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 50-Recreation Leave, Leave for Members Under Training and Recreation Leave Bonus. No. 51-Operation Algum Allowance. No. 52-Separation Allowance and other Allowances. No. 53-Recreation Leave. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1646) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, 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 Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no unoccupied houses held in the Australian Capital Territory by my Department or any agency or statutory authority within my portfolio. (2) There are no unused premises in the Australian Capital Territory, controlled by my Department, which could be occupied for residential purposes. (Question No. 1734) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Public Service Board memorandum of 1 June 1984 was brought to the attention of all staff in the Department's Central Office including the Office of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation on 10 August 1984. The memorandum was distributed to all State administrations for similar action on 18 July 1984. (3) (a) At a recent national consultative committee meetings with the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association (ACOA) and the Australian Public Service Association (APSA), the associations were invited by the Department to join with it in a sub-committee to examine and make recommendations to management on ways to encourage union membership. A similar invitation has been extended to the Professional Officers' Association (POA). Other Unions which cover employees of the Department will be consulted in due course. (b) Furthermore, over the years the Department has adopted a number of practices to encourage union membership. Some examples are: Union delegates are invited to speak at induction courses for new appointees to the Department; A list of new appointees to the Department is provided to union branches on a regular basis; In some States the list of new appointees is published in staff information newsletters. Reference is made to union membership in the Department's National Probationer Handbook which is given to all new appointees. (Question No. 1774) Mr Peacock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What are the reasons for the discrepancies between Budget Paper No. 1, 1984 -85, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics' publication Customs and Excise Revenue, Australia, June 1984, Catalogue No. 5425.0, relating to customs and excise revenues in 1983-84 in respect of (a) excise duty on crude oil and LPG ($ 23m), (b) 'All other' excise duty ($170m) and (c) customs duty on imports ($30m) . (2) Will these discrepancies alter the forecasts of revenue from excise duty and customs duty for 1984-85 made in Budget Paper No. 1. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information provided in the Budget Papers on total receipts from customs duties, crude oil and LPG and 'Other' excises in 1983-84 is derived from the Department of Finance's central ledger and are the net amounts that were actually received by the Commonwealth in that year. Discrepancies between these data and those published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) essentially derive from two sources. First, as outlined in explanatory note 4 of ABS Catalogue No. 5425.0 of June 1984, the statistical month for the statistics in that publication is the month in which the source documents are passed by the Australian Customs Service for processing by the ABS. For customs duty this may not be the month of arrival in Australia of the imported goods or the month in which duty is actually paid. Similarly, for excise duty this may not be the month in which the goods were manufactured or the month in which the duty was actually paid. Explanatory note 5 to that publication draws attention to the fact that delays in the receipt of customs documents for petroleum products can have a significant effect on recorded monthly excise revenue. Second, the ABS data on excise receipts do not fully comprehend the extent of refunds or rebates of duties paid during the course of the year. In particular, these data do not include rebates of diesel excise under the diesel fuel rebate scheme. Such rebates amounted to about $164m in 1983-84 and are netted out against 'gross' collections from petroleum products in the Budget figuring. The ABS date, moreover, does not include refunds to excise-exempt government authorities and diplomatic missions of duty paid on certain petroleum products. (2) No. Such discrepancies have always existed and, while they complicate the estimating process, there is no reason to expect them to be any more significant in 1984-85 than in most years in the past. (Question No. 1823) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July, and August 1984. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) Nil. (a) (ii) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) engaged 19 males during June 1984, 12 males during July 1984 and 15 males during August 1984. (b) (i) Nil. (b) (ii) Nil. (Question No. 590) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Brisbane Sun of 30 June 1977 that a fluoridation plant operator and his family at Dalby, Queensland, were almost killed by an accidental fluoride overdose. (2) If so (a) what investigation has been made of the circumstances of the accident, (b) what were the results, and (c) what follow-up monitoring of the patients has been done or is planned. (3) Is he able to say whether there have been claims for damages of $300m before American courts as a result of fluoridation accidents, including a death, hundreds of poisonings in Annapolis and damage to soft drinks produced by the Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola companies. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While I am aware of the fluoridation incident at Dalby, Queensland, I am advised that this matter was not reported in the Brisbane Sun on 30 June 1977. However there was a report on 30 January 1977. There is nothing in the medical record to suggest that the operator at the Dalby water treatment plant and his family were 'almost killed' as a result of the incident. (2)- (a) The matter was investigated by the Queensland authorities. (b) The investigation showed that the operator of the Dalby treatment plant and his family received an overdose of fluoride in 1976 due to the fact that the water pipe configuration permitted the backflow of high fluoride water to their home at the works when a poppet valve jammed. Both the operator and his wife suffered from gastro-intestinal symptoms and were hospitalised on two occasions for approximately three days before the problem was discovered. The excretion of fluoride from their bodies was monitored. (c) The family was kept under observation by the local medical practitioner, to whom assistance was provided in the monitoring of urinary fluoride levels. Recovery was uneventful and the family has now left the Dalby area. (3) There have been substantial claims for damages following a malfunction in the fluoridation equipment at Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. in 1979. I understand that these claims have been settled out of court. The accident was caused by the failure of a technician to fully close a valve at the water treatment plant. Eight chronic renal dialysis patients were affected, one of whom died. There were not hundreds of poisonings as referred to by the honourable member. Following corrective action fluoridation was resumed in March 1980. (Question No. 1350) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the purchase of the TA Field Meatworks in Rockhampton and Ipswich, Qld, and Orange, NSW, by Metro Meats, an Adelaide Steamship subsidiary, and the sacking of over 1200 staff; if so, can he say whether (a) TA Field in recent months closed the Rockhampton works because of an industrial dispute which was solved along lines suggested by the meatworkers' union and (b) Metro is planning a tougher agreement with the union. (2) Will the Government intervene to increase industrial democracy in the meat industry. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the closure of TA Field's meatworks at Fitzroy River ( Rockhampton) and Dinmore (Ipswich), following the company's withdrawal from the meat abattoir industry. Subsequently the abattoirs and associated equipment were purchased by Metro Meats Ltd with a view to engaging a workforce and re-opening both meatworks. However, negotiations with the Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union over the terms of a new award became deadlocked, and I met with the parties in an attempt to bring about a recommencement of talks. I am pleased to have been advised that work resumed at Dinmore on 12 September 1984 following the ratification of an award in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I understand that work will not be resumed this year at the Fitzroy River plant due to seasonal factors. (2) The Government is addressing the question of industrial democracy generally through a range of initiatives including the tripartite National Labour Consultative Council working party which has developed guidelines for voluntary information-sharing, the cost subsidisation scheme to assist industry work programs aimed at greater industrial democracy and the establishment of a Research Fund. Furthermore, at a seminar on industrial democracy on 17 August 1984, the Prime Minister and I indicated that industry would be encouraged to participate voluntarily in industrial democracy programs. In the light of the above, it would seem appropriate for the parties in the meat industry to consider any action they may wish to take on industrial democracy and, if appropriate, approach the Government for assistance under the various cost subsidisation and research programs. (Question No. 1563) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Is the Government currently funding any surveys of potential World Heritage sites; if so, what are the areas. (2) When are the surveys due to be completed. (3) Will the Government make the findings public. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In consideration of potential World Heritage sites the Government is following the procedures agreed at the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. Under these procedures: The Commonwealth Government has invited the State and Territory Governments to submit suggestions, with supporting information, for places to be examined with a view to possible future nomination to the World Heritage List. The Commonwealth Government will arrange for the appropriate authorities to examine the places against the stringent criteria for World Heritage Listing. Any consideration by the Commonwealth Government of the issues will involve full consultation with the State and Territory Governments. Any suggestions for World Heritage Listing brought forward by other than a State or Territory Government will be referred, with supporting information, to the relevant State or Territory Government for comment prior to examination by the Commonwealth. The most careful consideration will be given to any proposed world heritage nomination by Australia to the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the extremely high standards involved in this matter are maintained. A number of authorities may be involved in the assessment process-for example the Australian Heritage Commission, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Flora and Fauna, CSIRO, particular State authorities and other experts in Australia and possibly overseas. The Australian Heritage Commission has an ongoing program of studies of the national estate, including studies of some specific areas with a view to evaluating their heritage significance. Any possible nominations for world heritage listing that might be suggested by such studies will be dealt with in accordance with the above procedures, including consideration by the other appropriate authorities. I am advised that the Australian Heritage Commission's present program of surveys and the proposed times of commencement or completion are- The Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland-completed and presented September 1984. Geological sites, Australia-wide-to be completed early in 1985. Shark Bay, W.A.-to commence in 1985-86. Nullarbor Caves, S.A. and W.A.-to commence in 1985-86. Naracoorte Caves, S.A.-to commence in 1985-86. The report on Wet Tropical Rainforests was tabled in the House of representatives on 12 September 1984 and consideration will be given to making further reports public upon their receipt. (Question No. 1596) Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Is the construction of accommodation for scholarship athletes at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) contrary to the policy established in 1981 that access to public buildings be appropriate for disabled persons. (2) Did he categorically advise disabled organisations on 17 April 1984, that 68 beds, or 25 per cent of the new residential beds, would be accessible to disabled scholarship athletes. (3) Is it a fact that all other facilities at the AIS and the National Sports Centre, including temporary accommodation for the national training scheme, are accessible to people with disabilities; if so, why is this access not available in the residential accommodation for scholarship athletes. (4) Will he rectify this apparent anomaly, as originally promised, if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The building is being constructed specifically for use by Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) resident athletes and there will be limited public access to the accommodation. Nevertheless, in accordance with Clause 3.1 (b) of Technical Directive AE TD 117, Access for Disabled People in Commonwealth Buildings, issued by the Department of Housing and Construction in August 1981, provision for (wheelchair) disabled people exists within the ground floor flats of the accommodation provided for resident AIS athletes and also in the accommodation provided for visiting athletes using the National Training Centre. (2) I advised the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled in writing on 3 May 1984 that approximately thirty (30) wheelchair disabled could be housed in the National Training Centre accommodation and a further thirty-eight (38) could be housed in the ground floor flats of the AIS resident athlete accommodation when it was completed. This represents approximately 20 per cent of the total accommodation being accessible for the wheelchair disabled. (3) Yes. There are currently no disabled athletes participating in the AIS resident program. However, in the event that there may be at some future time, provision has been made for them to be accommodated in the AIS student accommodation. (4) The honourable member may wish to refer to my letter to him of 9 July 1984 where I informed him that: 'At present there are no disabled athletes participating in the AIS resident sport program. The accommodation being constructed has been designed for resident athletes in the eight sports currently based in Canberra. However, you can be assured that should any wheelchair athletes receive an AIS scholarship in the near future that they can and will have access to the AIS resident athlete component of the residential buildings.' (Question No. 1614) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 21 August 1984: (1) Has his attention and that of his Department and the ACT Electricity Authority been drawn to reported studies on alternative methods of producing electricity in the ACT outlined in the 1983 annual report of the Australian National University's Research School of Physical Sciences. (2) If so, what is the power output that could be generated if the outlined project was developed. (3) Are there any shortcomings in the analysis which would suggest that the project could not be successfully pursued. (4) Are there any other significant factors which should be considered in relation to this proposal. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) I am informed that the present summer consumption of water could be used to produce 50 mega watts of electric power for four hours per day by utilising the full height difference between the top water levels of the two dams and that the water could be pumped to the city reservoirs using 30 mega watts for eight hours during the off-peak period. Economically, however, the scheme is unattractive. U.S. Department of Energy estimates indicate that 50 mega watts of hydrogenerated and 30 mega watts of pumps on existing dams and pipelines would cost $A224m at present day prices. Subtransmission and additional incidental expenditure would be expected to bring the overall capital cost to around $A240m. If the scheme were to operate at full capacity for four months in each year, annual savings of some $A1.8m could be achieved on current bulk supply costs. However, it is estimated that the annual interest cost would be not less that $ A29m per annum. There could also be major environmental objection to such a project. 17 kilometres of subtransmission line and a generating plant would need to be constructed within the Cotter catchment area. The report also proposes the use of wind power to augment the output of the scheme. Figures show that 50 mega watts of wind turbines (to match the subtransmission capacity installed for the hydro scheme) could cost between $ A150m and $A250m. Whilst there is no reliable wind data for the Brindabella Range area, the ACTEA would not expect this source to provide more than $A1.5m worth of electricity per annum. With maintenance costs higher than for hydrogenerators, the scheme would be less attractive than the pumped storage proposal. Better wind regime data expected to come from the Australian National University studies will enable more accurate assessment to be made. The environmental impact of wind generation would be high. 17 3-mega watt wind generators mounted 120 metres above the ground and spaced along some 15 kilometres of the Brindabella Range, together with their associated transmission , would be visible from many parts of Canberra. Additionally noise levels near the generators could be objectionable. (Question No. 1623) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: () How many contracts have been let for the supply of Mark 48 torpedoes to the Defence Force. (2) On what dates (a) were the contracts let and (b) were announcements made of each contract. (3) Has his attention been drawn to reports from a USA firm, DMS Incorporated, which state that Australia received 44 Mark 48s after an order in 1979 and that there was a Letter of Offer for 27 more in June 1980; if so, are these reports correct. (4) If these reports are not correct, where is the inaccuracy and what is the correct position. (5) How many Mark 48 torpedoes are normally carried in a RAN Oberon Class submarine. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Three contracts have been placed with the United States Department of Defense for the procurement of Mark 48 torpedoes for the Royal Australian Navy. (2)- (a) The contracts were let on 17 October 1977, 14 November 1978 and 2 June 1980 respectively, (b) No specific announcements were made at the time contracts were let though there were more general announcements on 26 October 1977, 24 October 1978 and 25 March 1980 at the various stages of project approval. (3) and (4) I am unaware of any reports originating from DMS Incorporated but the numbers of weapons referred to and the dates specified generally accord with terms negotiated for the purchase of the Mark 48 torpedoes. (5) It is standard practice not to reveal the numbers of weapons carried by Australian warships. (Question No. 1640) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None (2) No. (Question No. 1660) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) What (a) are the functions and roles, (b) is the annual cost and (c) is the basis of funding of (i) the International Training Institute (ITI) and (ii) the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB). (2) What is the relationship between (a) ITI and (b) ADAB and (i) the Department of Defence and (ii) the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) ITI provides special courses for middle level personnel from Papua New Guinea, the South Pacific and other selected developing countries in the fields of its special competence, namely, management, education and social welfare. (ii) ADAB administers Australia's overseas development assistance and advises the Minister on aid related matters. (b) (i) the annual cost of ITI during the 1983-84 financial year was $1,884,102 . (ii) the administrative cost of ADAB during the 1983-84 financial year was $15, 245,000. (Official Development Assistance (ODA) for the same period totalled $ 931,835,000). (c) (i) funding for ITI is provided by parliamentary appropriation within the bilateral training component of the overseas development assistance program. (ii) funding for ADAB is provided by parliamentary appropriation within the overseas development assistance program. (2) (a) (i) ITI and the Department of Defence share the same area of Commonwealth land at Middle Head in Sydney. Apart from this the relationship between ITI and the Department of Defence is minimal and does not extend beyond both being part of the Commonwealth Public Service. (ii) ITI is an integral part of ADAB and therefore also a part of the Department of Foreign Affairs. (b) (i) the main focus of the relationship between ADAB and the Department of Defence concerns ADAB's engagement of Defence to undertake on its behalf a small number of development assistance activities, principally in the field of disaster relief. While some 20 per cent of the Department of Defence's defence co-operation program is recorded as ODA, as it meets the criteria set for ODA by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the administration of the Defence Program is by the Department of Defence and is quite separate to that of other ODA programs. (ii) ADAB currently makes up two divisions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and is thus an integral part of that Department. (Question No. 1680) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: What amounts were allocated to (a) Indonesia and (b) Papua New Guinea in the (i ) 1983-84 and (ii) 1984-85 Budgets and for what purposes and projects were these amounts allocated. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1983-84 1984-85 (a) Indonesia Budget Actual Budget $'000 $'000 $'000 Project Aid and Technical Assistance 36,600 41,328 (1) 40,000 Development Import Finance Facility 5,000 706 (2) 9,100 Co-Financing Facility 2,000 496 (3) 1,851 Food Aid 6,808 6,397 510 Head-of-Mission Discretionary Aid Fund 20 19 60 Training Assistance 3,646 2,893 3,490 54,074 51,839 55,011 (1) Nineteen major ongoing projects involving, inter alia, animal husbandry research, geological mapping, technical manpower development, prefabricated steel bridging, irrigation and water supply and language training. (2) Funds provided for the supply of vocational training equipment, railway track fasteners and prefabricated steel bridging. It should be noted that Budget allocations to development import finance facility are dependent upon subsequent contract formalisation. (3) Consultant services to help strengthen the administration of the department responsible for water supply sector development. 1983-84 1984-85 (b) Papua New Guinea Budget Actual Budget $'000 $'000 $'000 Grant-in-Aid 288,110 288,110 299,007 Australian Staffing Assistance Group 12,317 11,597 (1) 12,132 PNG-Australia Technical Co-operation Program 2,801 2,371 (2) 2,967 Head of Mission Discretionary Aid Fund 25 25 50 Private Overseas Students Visa-related charges 25 42 43 Payments through other departments and instrumentalities 2,221 3,486 2,630 305,499 305,631 316,829 Less: Receipts from loans -3,350 -3,351 -240 302,149 302,280 316,589 (1) Includes termination payments and retirement benefits for overseas officers of former administration. (2) The provision of training in a wide variety of fields as well as export services and related equipment to increase technical capability. It should be noted that each country also receives assistance through programs whose Budget allocations are not country specific. For instance during 1983-84 Papua New Guinea received $558,000 in assistance for disaster relief following the Lae floods. Also during the same period Indonesia and Papua New Guinea received $536,881 and $287,112 respectively through the non-government Organisations Project Subsidy Scheme. Other avenues of assistance through which Indonesia and Papua New Guinea can benefit include the Australian universities international development program and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Indonesia also receives assistance through the ASEAN-Australia Economic Co-operation Program. The budgets for the above programs are not allocable by country. In addition the development assistance programs of a large number of multilateral and regional organisations to which Australia contributes benefit Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. (Question No. 1682) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine that (a) Iraq will soon have a completely operational chemical weapons plant which will be capable of producing significant quantities of deadly nerve gas 'tabun' and mustard gas and (b) in December 1983 the Iraqi Government purchased a pesticide plant from a subsidiary of the West German based scientific and technical supply firm, Karl Kolb, and that the plant has been built with the assistance of West German technicians despite diplomatic pressure by the United States and Israel. (2) Is it a fact that the findings of a team of investigators appointed under the auspices of the United Nations into the use of chemical weapons in the Iran- Iraq conflict confirmed the use of such weapons, which is contrary to obligations under the Geneva Protocol of 1925. (3) Is he able to say whether this acceleration of the use of these weapons creates a real danger that other Middle East countries, in particular Iran, may also seek to establish identical chemical weapons plants. (4) Will he immediately call upon the United Nations to reconstitute the former investigatory team to request the team to inquire into the report upon these allegations and to seek the support of the governments involved in the conflict in allowing access to enable verification as to whether stocks of these gases exist or not. (5) Will he further call upon the governments of Iran and Iraq and those that can be affected by the conflict seeking their assurances that they will not use chemical weapons and seek assurances that all existing stocks of chemical weapons will be destroyed and that they will comply with the obligations under the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b). Yes (2) Yes. Australia in fact contributed the services of an expert, Dr Peter Dunn of the Defence Department, to the UN investigating team. (3) The Government has made clear on a number of occasions its abhorrence at the use of chemical weapons. It is particularly concerned that the use of these weapons in a politically volatile region could lead to their wider acquisition with potentially horrendous consequences. The Government has, however, seen no indication that Iran is moving to acquire a chemical weapons plant (see also 5 below). The Government is committed to doing all it can to facilitate the early conclusion of a comprehensive chemical weapons convention which would ban the production, storage and use of all chemical weapons as well as providing for the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons and of existing chemical weapons production facilities. The Government has also introduced controls over the export of chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war. (4) The United Nations team of specialists, which included an Australian scientist, concluded that mustard gas and the nerve agent 'Tabun' had been used in Iran. The team's mandate did not extend to examining the existence of stocks of chemical weapons, nor did the team visit Iraq. Under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, The 1925 Geneva Protocol, to which both Iraq and Iran are parties, the production or stockpiling of chemical weapons is not prohibited. It would be difficult for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to authorise an investigation into an activity which is not prohibited by international law. There is also the question of whether the country concerned would agree to a United Nations investigation under such circumstances . As a general principle, however, the suggestion has much to commend it. The Government is firmly of the view that on-site inspection of 'non-production' will be a fundamental component of the verification measures to be established under the comprehensive chemical weapons convention and has made this view known in relevant quarters. (5) The Government has made it clear to the Government of Iraq its total opposition to the use of chemical weapons. The Government also strongly supported a declaration by the President of the Security Council on 30 March 1984 which condemned the use of chemical weapons as reported by the UN team of specialists, reaffirmed the need to abide by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, urged both parties to observe the generally recognised principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts and called urgently for a ceasefire. On 29 June 1984 the Secretary-General of the United Nations sought from the governments of Iran and Iraq a solemn commitment not to use chemical weapons of any kind for any reason. Iran has provided such an assurance . (Question No. 1685) Mr Blanchard asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs' detention centre at Perth Airport, although it has a dormitory for females, does not have available to it female Federal police officers who can undertake supervision and custodial care of female immigration offenders; if so, has his attention been drawn to the fact that, at present, female immigration offenders are sent to Bandyup Women's Prison for indefinite periods of time. (2) Can he assure that at least one female Federal police officer will be located at the Perth Airport detention centre. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Australian Federal Police, AFP, that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has responsibility for the Perth Airport detention centre but that the supervisory and custodial duties are being provided by the Protective Services Component of the AFP. This component does not have a female officer in Western Australia and therefore it has been necessary for female immigration offenders to be housed at the Bandyup Women's Prison. (2) As from 20 October 1984, the custodial duties at the Perth Airport detention centre will be the responsibility of the new Australian Protective Services within the Department of Administrative Services. I understand that my colleagues, the Ministers for Administrative Services and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, are proposing that additional staff be made available for duties at the detention centre and that females will be included among that staff. (Question No. 1690) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian National University and the Materials Research Laboratories in Melbourne are undertaking weapons research into hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns under a bilateral agreement with the United States and that these guns have a potential appliction in the United States 'Star Wars' anti-missile system project. (2) If so, is this bilateral agreement currently being re-negotiated for a further period and will the full terms of the agreement be made public. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I draw the attention of the honourable member to the answers to House of Representatives Questions on Notice Nos 1486, 1488 and 1492 published in Hansard of 4 September 1984, pages 554-557, and to Senate Questions on Notice Nos 910 and 911 published in Hansard of 22 August 1984, pages 210-211. (2) This bilateral arrangement has been renegotiated for a further period on essentially the same terms as the previous arrangement, most of which has been made public. I will provide the honourable member with a copy of this material. United States and Australian authorities are negotiating the public release aspects of the new arrangement and I will advise the honourable member further when these negotiations have been completed. (Question No. 1692) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) How often have the ABC National and State Advisory Councils met in 1983-84, and at what cost. (2) What was the budgeted cost of the councils in 1983-84. (3) Were the councils consulted over the proposals to alter the ABC-FM radio network. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) The ABC's National Advisory Council met three times during 1983-84. Each State and Territory Advisory Council met three times during 1983-84, with the exception of the NSW and Queensland Councils, which met twice. The total cost of the Council meetings and associated costs, including sitting fees approved for the National Advisory Council by the Remuneration Tribunal, travelling allowances and accommodation expenses was $53,910. (2) The budgeted cost of the councils for the full year 1983-84 was $60,960. The reason for the shortfall was the delay in forming the councils, which did not in fact operate for the full year. (3) The proposals to alter the output of ABC-FM were misreported in the Press. They arose from an ABC Radio staff seminar. The Advisory Councils were not formally consulted about the future of ABC-FM, although a number of members of the Councils did provide advice individually to the ABC on any possible changes to the FM service. (Question No. 1721) Mr Robert Brown asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: What was the (a) number of taxpayers, (b) wages and salaries, in assessable income, (c) total assessable income, (d) net income, (e) taxable income and (f) net tax, for (i) taxable and (ii) non-taxable individuals, by grade of total assessable income, for each of the years 1974-75 to 1981-82. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The attached tables, Attachments 1-3, set out available statistics of (a) number of taxpayers, (b) salaries and wages in assessable income, (c) total assessable income, (d) net income, (e) taxable income, and (f) net tax classified by grade of taxable income, for the income years 1974-75 to 1981-82. The statistics are not available classified by grade of total assessable income. Attachment1 GRADE OF TAXABLE INCOME Income Under 6,000- 9,000- 12,000- 15,000- 20,000- 30,000 Total Non year 6,000 8,999 11,999 14,999 19,999 29,999 and over taxable taxable (a) Number of Taxpayers 1974-75 2,682,159 1,748,086 699,777 229,258 117,121 53,140 21,781 5,551,322 . . 1975-76 1,688,781 1,869,277 960,884 361,922 190,400 78,137 29,958 5,179,359 . . 1976-77 1,517,984 1,765,140 1,235,085 544,672 308,182 114,631 41,615 5,527,309 1,219,092 (b) Wages and Salaries in Assessable Income ($'000) 1974-75 8,368,794 11,510,491 6,237,238 2,430,301 1,299,459 563,914 256,515 30, 666,711 . . 1975-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,615,732 . . 1976-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,838,322 . . (c) Total Assessable Income ($'000) 1974-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,653,329 . . 1975-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,499,176 . . 1976-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,066,470 . . (d) Net Income ($'000) 1974-75 10,209,183 12,841,602 7,157,566 3,034,277 1,985,132 1,259,321 936,458 37,423,540 . . 1975-76 7,266,101 13,904,852 5,863,709 4,802,402 3,222,000 1,844 ,034 1,341,441 42,244,541 . . 1976-77 6,665,681 13,316,431 12,742,639 7,227,267 5,216,715 2,692,214 1,840,593 49,701,538 . . (e) Taxable Income ($'000) 1974-75 9,244,975 10,878,035 5,944,184 2,552,711 1,717,202 1,128,078 871,209 32 ,338,395 . . 1975-76 7,162,769 7,162,769 13,612,687 9,612,159 4,689,723 3,142, 192 1,792,356 1,311,532 41,323,419 . . 1976-77 6,582,381 13,093,372 12,463,868 7 064,585 5,087,562 2,610,833 1,795,155 48,697,757 . . (f) Net Tax ($'000) 1974-75 915,806 1,905,524 1,432,305 758,849 598,090 486,237 473,954 6,570,765 . . 1975-76 738,268 2,339,536 1,989,136 1,170,524 933,659 677,071 656,848 8,505, 042 . . 1976-77 640,321 2,330,696 2,685,613 1,778,992 1,487,535 945,532 881,431 10,750,124 . . Attachment 2 GRADE OF TAXABLE INCOME Income Under 6,000- 9,000- 12,000- 15,000- 20,000- 32,000 Total Non year 6,000 8,999 11,999 14,999 19,999 31,999 and over taxable taxable (a) Number of Taxpayers 1977-78 1,344,556 1,619,405 1,366,822 660,645 391,813 147,681 37,376 5,568,298 n.a. (b) Wages and Salaries, in Assessable Income ($'000) 1977-78 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 45,065,064 n.a. (c) Total Assessable Income ($'000) 1977-78 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 54,769,366 n.a. (d) Net Income ($'000) 1977-78 6,185,264 12,533,371 14,437,387 8,966,182 6,775,948 3,608,698 1,838,595 54,345,848 n.a. (e) Taxable Income ($'000) 1977-78 6,070,505 12,292,573 14,133,794 8,786,031 6,633,041 3,521,388 1,807,398 53,244,731 . . (f) Net Tax ($'000) 1977-78 490,356 1,999,026 2,847,537 2,013,249 1,753,783 1,166,036 842,877 11, 112,862 . . Attachment 3 GRADE OF TAXABLE INCOME Income Under 6,000- 9,000- 12,000- 16,000- 22,000- 32,000 Total Non year 6,000 8,999 11,999 15,999 21,999 31,999 and over taxable taxable (a) Number of Taxpayers 1978-79(a) 898,019 1,379,987 1,422,017 945,323 418,603 111,091 33,080 5,208,120 1,279,322 1979-80 892,466 1,216,176 1,446,599 1,188,465 648,444 199,977 70,290 5,662,417 1,310,309 1980-81 816,530 1,082,321 1,314,400 1,399,794 941,317 336, 382 107,630 5,998,374 1,332,342 1981-82 702,266 991,457 1,052,246 1,473,606 1, 267,307 569,302 168,689 6,224,873 1,328,623 (b) Wages and Salaries, in Assessable Income ($'000) 1978-79(a) 3,216,810 8,892,478 13,602,384 11,834,385 6,605,161 2,106,449 657, 826 46,915,493 2,203,961 1979-80 3,160,929 7,434,802 13,735,207 14,938,862 10, 378,157 3,843,062 1,467,190 54,958,207 2,204,297 1980-81 2,840,240 6,296,112 12 ,387,896 17,834,731 15,652,690 7,110,866 2,520,677 64,643,211 2,192,896 1981-82 2,498,667 5,590,620 9,566,430 18,939,627 21,756,646 13,032,317 4,707,615 76,091, 920 2,528,459 (c) Total Assessable Income ($'000) 1978-79(a) 4,508,587 10,743,081 15,122,179 13,283,448 7,839,477 2,924,471 1,428 ,029 55,849,272 3,246,821 1979-80 4,488,341 9,427,432 15,499,394 16,816,080 12, 224,315 5,292,130 3,336,901 67,084,613 3,121,791 1980-81 4,132,370 8,368,106 14, 258,848 19,917,984 17,902,507 8,929,648 5,053,560 78,563,021 3,040,269 1981-82 3,635,550 7,687,404 11,494,218 21,149,167 24,339,248 15,147,457 7,663,501 91,116 ,547 3,239,811 (d) Net Income ($'000) 1978-79(a) 4,464,359 10,677,735 15,050,588 13,201,734 7,770,265 2,890,431 1,409 ,574 55,464,686 3,186,504 1979-80 4,434,185 9,351,698 15,413,613 16,705,818 12, 111,146 5,220,958 3,277,780 66,515,217 3,025,916 1980-81 4,075,423 8,283,020 14, 159,083 19,778,054 17,488,729 8,806,720 4,950,507 77,784,263 2,916,870 1981-82 3,579,402 7,590,392 11,385,608 20,986,580 24,105,604 14,946,456 7,502,824 90,100 ,867 3,085,056 (e) Taxable Income ($'000) 1978-79(a) 4,396,984 10,500,864 14,769,160 12,946,516 7,613,196 2,827,337 1,385 ,448 54,439,505 . . 1979-80 4,358,904 9,182,669 15,124,583 16,364,914 11,857, 041 5,100,153 3,209,977 65,198,241 . . 1980-81 4,002,681 8,116,135 13,869,875 19,326,249 17,317,345 8,581,686 4,830,931 76,044,902 . . 1981-82 3,508,643 7,416 ,266 18,536,377 20,485,373 23,504,790 4,552,401 7,303,546 87,891,130 . . (f) Net Tax ($'000) 1978-79(a) 295,615 1,617,201 2,884,038 2,881,709 1,958,625 888,208 553,087 11, 078,483 . . 1979-80 284,969 1,377,124 2,944,212 3,627,012 3,032,990 1,580,215 1 ,319,790 14,166,311 . . 1980-81 240,781 1,113,690 2,563,018 4,061,456 4,185,278 2,536,773 1,913,962 16,614,957 . . 1981-82 180,020 928,954 1,969,601 4,192,841 5,506,723 4,180,730 2,790,559 19,749,428 . . (a) Excludes details of 330,013 taxable and 193,684 non taxable assessments. (Question No. 1731) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The Public Service Board's request was brought to the attention of all staff of my Department in the Department's Personnel Bulletin of 10 August 1984. Other action taken by my Department includes (a) publication in the Department's telephone directory of the names and contact numbers of the staff associations' representatives (b) notification in the Personnel Bulletin of the names of staff commencing duty with the Department thereby giving staff associations access to information on potential new members (c) agreement with staff associations that they have the opportunity of addressing new entrants at Departmental induction courses (d) agreement to staff association representatives conducting some association business in normal working hours. The Public Service Board brought the information to the attention of its staff by means of a notice in the weekly Staff Bulletin of 13 July 1984. On 31 August 1984, workplace delegates were informed officially that they might carry on union business during normal business hours, provided that this did not extend beyond what is reasonable and did not interfere unduly with the progess of work, either by way of the absence of a workplace delegate from his/her workplace, or by way of the union activity being carried on. The Australian Science and Technology Council brought the Public Service Board' s memorandum to the attention of all ASTEC staff and discussed it at a staff meeting on 7 June 1984. No further action has been taken at this stage. At the Australian Audit Office the memorandum was brought to the attention of staff through their supervisors on 7 June 1984. It was also referred to areas of the Office responsible for recruitment and induction of new employees. Additional action on the question of encouragement of union membership is being looked at in the context of developing industrial democracy initiatives within the Australian Audit Office. At the Office of National Assessments the memorandum was posted on office noticeboards during June 1984. New recruits are advised about union membership during the induction process and are provided with information about how to obtain membership. At the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office the thrust of the Public Service Board's memorandum was conveyed to all staff by staff circular on 3 August along with details of the availability of workplace delegates. (Question No. 1742) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) Upon receipt of the memorandum, staff of my Department took steps to prepare a draft industrial instruction setting out the policy and a series of measures designed to give effect to it. In addition, a draft brochure was prepared for issue to all employees. The proposed drafts were given to unions for comment at the inaugural meeting of the Defence Consultative Council held on 9 August 1984. Further discussions on the draft are scheduled for the Council's next meeting on 25 October, which will, I expect, result in mutually acceptable arrangements. The Defence Industrial Instruction will be issued once these consultations are complete and details of implementation finalised. Measures to be taken within the Department of Defence to encourage membership of unions include: (a) production of the brochure outlining the Department's policy on union membership; (b) involvement of unions in the development of material for induction courses; (c) recognition of employees elected as workplace delegates in accordance with union rules; (d) the issue of instructions detailing the role and rights of delegates as well as the names and work addresses of delegates; (e) the introduction of all new employees to appropriate workplace delegates; and (f) provision of staff lists to unions. (Question No. 1744) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While I was not informed personally of this matter I was aware of it through my Department's staff newsletter. The memorandum was considered by my Department a matter of administrative arrangement between it and its employees. (2) Yes. All staff were informed via the July 1984 issue of the Department's staff newsletter Primind News. Copies of the Public Service Board memorandum were circulated by my Department to all statutory authorities reporting to me in June 1984. (3) The following additional action has been taken: (a) In my Department a separate memorandum on this matter was issued to all Division or Branch Heads and all state Regional Directors on 22 June 1984 from 22 June 1984, all new employees inducted by Departmental personnel sections have been advised of names and phone numbers of their relevant union representative. Staff association pamphlets and application forms are provided when available on request, staff associations have been provided with staff lists of relevant employees for their recruiting drives my Department has a long standing arrangement where a section on Staff Associations is included in formal induction courses conducted for new staff soon after commencement further advice as foreshadowed in the Board's memorandum will be issued, when it becomes available, in the staff newsletter. (b) Statutory authorities reporting to me: the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are now formally advising new appointees of relevant staff association details. other statutory authorities have taken no additional formal action pending further direction from the Public Service Board, other than the already existing policy of encouragement of union membership. (Question No. 1752) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) and (3)- The Department Shortly after its receipt the Public Service Board's memorandum was circulated to all Divisions and Regional Offices for independent action. The question of union membership and a Departmental policy on ways to facilitate this was discussed at the Department of Science and Technology Consultative Council meeting on 4 July 1984. Subsequently a Departmental policy was circulated to all staff on 29 August 1984. Independent action taken across the Department includes advice to staff through the circulation of staff notices and/or the PSB Bulletin No. 52 of June 1984, circulation of the PSB memorandum or its placement on notice boards and distribution of the Departmental policy on encouragement of union membership. In many areas of the Department existing practices encourage and facilitate union membership with provision for union participation in induction courses, advice to new recruits of union coverage, information in telephone directories of a union nature, access by unions to Departmental notice boards and provision of staff lists to union delegates. The Departmental policy circulated on 29 August confirms these practices and requires all areas of the Department to facilitate union membership in these ways. The Department will sympathetically consider any reasonable requests from staff or unions for further action. Statutory Authorities (i) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation The CSIRO has withheld circulation of the Public Service Board memorandum pending consideration by the CSIRO Consultative Council, a joint management/union advisory body, of the question of encouragement of union membership at its 9-10 October 1984 meeting. Following consideration by the Council of this matter a recommendation will be made to the CSIRO Executive. All staff in the organisation will be advised by a Consultative Council information release in late October of the Council's consideration of this matter. The organisation currently includes information on staff associations and unions in induction folders provided to new recruits. (ii) National Standards Commission (NSC) The memorandum was endorsed by management and circulated to all staff on receipt. A copy was placed on the notice board. The memorandum is being further publicised through the NSC staffing committee representatives. (iii) Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (AATB) Copies of the memorandum were displayed on the AATB's notice board on 13 June 1984. The matter was considered at the AATB's meeting on 20-22 September 1984 and it was decided that no further action be taken at this time. (iv) Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Copies of the memorandum were displayed on AIMS notice boards on receipt. No further action is proposed but union membership is not discouraged and union representatives are allowed on site with prior advice of an impending visit. (Question No. 1755) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken with the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2)The memorandum was brought to the attention of staff in my Department by staff notice on 10 July 1984. Statutory authorities within my portfolio do not employ staff under the Public Service Act and have, therefore, not had the memorandum brought to their notice. (3) Directly none. It is proposed to set up a Department/joint consultative council between staff associations and management which is expected to be in operation later this year. It is anticipated that this initiative will stimulate increased membership of staff associations. (Question No. 1757) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of Government policy on the encouragement of union membership in the Australian Public Service. (2) Action is in hand to bring the memorandum to the attention of all staff through the staff bulletin which has Department-wide distribution and through Departmental noticeboards. See answer to point (3). (3) Encouragement of union membership is being pursued through the induction process and segments of training courses. I understand that the Public Service Board and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are presently negotiating appropriate guidelines for facilitating the encouragement of union membership. Firm departmental instructions will be issued when these guidelines are received . (Question No. 1776) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: What administrative, technical and logistic economies are expected to result from the relocation of the AHQ Survey Unit at Bendigo to Bonegilla, Vic. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1777) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What units comprise the Royal Australian Survey Corps and where are each of these units currently located. (2) Apart from units already located at Bonegilla, Vic., (a) which other units are proposed for transfer to Bonegilla and (b) when are these transfers proposed to occur. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1778) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: In respect of the proposed relocation of the Army Survey Regiment Unit from Fortuna in Bendigo to Bonegilla, Vic., (a) what items of plant facilities and equipment are to be transferred to Bonegilla and (b) what is the estimated cost of removal expenses for these items. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1779) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What (a) new buildings and (b) extensions and improvements have been constructed for defence purposes at (i) Fortuna and (ii) in the Bendigo area, since 1950 and what has been the cost. (2) Does a master building plan exist for Fortuna; if so, when was it drawn up. (3) If a master building plan does, or did exist, are there any buildings, extensions or modifications to buildings, or other works included in the master plan which have not been constructed; if so, what are they, and why have they not been constructed. (4) What consideration has the Army given to expanding the facilities or accommodation presently existing at Fortuna. (5) Have these considerations included an assessment of the need for additional space and/or land at Fortuna. (6) Apart from cursory examination, has any detailed study been undertaken in regard to the availability and suitability of additional land in the Bendigo area. (7) What are the (a) major and minor building works currently in progress at Fortuna and (b) details of proposed works to 1989. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1780) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What is (a) the capital cost and (b) the estimated market value of land and buildings at Fortuna in Bendigo. (2) What is the annual cost of maintenance of the land and buildings. (3) What National Trust classifications apply to buildings at Fortuna. (4) Do these classifications impose any restrictions on building additions or alterations at Fortuna. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1781) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What is the estimated number of tourists who have visited Fortuna in Bendigo each year since 1970. (2) What is the estimated revenue from these tourists who have visited Fortuna since 1970. (3) Which Government Ministers for Defence and Chiefs of General Staff have visited Fortuna since 1970, and what were the dates and purposes of these visits . Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1782) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) When was the decision to relocate the Army Survey Regiment Unit from Bendigo to Bonegilla, Victoria, first taken, and who was the Minister at that time. (2) Why has the relocation not yet occurred. (3) When is the proposed relocation now intended to occur. (4) Which Ministers for Defence since 1966 have supported the proposed relocation. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1783) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What is the present military staffing establishment for each unit of the Royal Australian Survey Corps (RASC). (2) What is the predicted (a) military and (b) civilian staffing establishment for each unit of the RASC, in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995. (3) What was the (a) military and (b) civilian staffing establishment for each unit of the RASC, in (a) 1950, (b) 1960, (c) 1970 and (d) 1980. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1784) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What is the current annual technical manpower requirement of the Royal Australian Survey Corps for (a) topo surveyors, (b) topo draftsmen, (c) photographers, (d) litho draughtsmen, (e) helio workers and (f) litho printers. (2) How do the current requirements compare with (a) requirements in 1970 and ( b) predicted requirements for 1990. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1785) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) How many houses are rented from the Victorian Ministry of Housing by (a) military and (b) civilian personnel deployed at the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo. (2) How many (a) military and (b) civilian personnel attached to the Army Survey Regiment Unit (i) own or are purchasing homes in the Bendigo area, (ii) occupy permanent married quarters at the Survey Unit in Bendigo and (iii) are housed in barracks (A) at Fortuna and (B) in the Bendigo area. (3) What is the current cost to the Government of the existing accommodation provided (a) at Fortuna and (b) in the Bendigo area for Regiment personnel. (4) What surplus accommodation in barracks, Ministry of Housing homes, permanent married quarters and other accommodation is currently available at Bonegilla, Vic. (5) What are the estimated requirements for (a) barracks, (b) Ministry of Housing homes, (c) permanent married quarters and (d) other accommodation necessary to house adequately personnel of the AHQ Survey Regiment Unit if transferred to Bonegilla and what is the estimated cost, in 1984 prices, of providing the accommodation. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1775 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, page 1982). (Question No. 1791) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) Why has the sales tax rate on imported alcoholic cider been reduced to 10 per cent by the 1984-85 Budget while the tax on imported non-alcoholic cider remained unchanged at 20 per cent. (2) Does the rationale for the change to sales tax on cider also apply to coffee, tea and cocoa; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer the honourable member's question is as follows (1) Prior to the 1984-85 Budget, a 20 per cent sales tax applies to imported alcoholic cider, while domestic alcoholic cider was exempt from sales tax. Under the 'grandfather' provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT ), such discrimination against imports may be maintained provided that the legislative provisions pre-date Australia's accession to the GATT and the basic character of the arrangements has not subsequently been changed. These ' grandfather' arrangements were, however, disturbed by the introduction, in this year's Budget, of a 10 per cent sales tax on alcoholic cider; in these circumstances our GATT obligations required that imported alcoholic cider no longer be taxed at a higher rate than domestic alcoholic cider. As a result, the sales tax on imported alcoholic cider was lowered to 10 per cent (the rate which applies to domestic alcoholic cider). Because cider is not subject to a GATT binding on the level of Customs duty, it was possible for the pre-existing discriminatory 20 per cent sales tax on imported alcoholic cider to be replaced by an additional ad valorem Customs duty of 23 per cent which is equivalent, in protective effect, to the pre-existing discriminatory sales tax. As a result, the level of protection afforded the domestic alcoholic cider industry is unchanged by the measures announced in the 1984-85 Budget. (2) Changes in the sales tax apply only to alcoholic cider. Domestic non- alcoholic cider remains exempt from sales tax (and, to maintain the existing protective margin, imported non-alcoholic cider remains taxable at the general rate of sales tax). The Government considers that the costs to society associated with the consumption of alcohol justify the differential tax treatment of alcoholic cider (and alcoholic wine) vis-a-vis non-alcoholic cider, non-alcoholic wine and other non-alcoholic beverages such as coffee, tea and cocoa (all of which are exempt from sales tax). (Question No. 1806) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 13 September 1984: When may I expect an answer to question No. 1150 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 5 March 1984. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A response to question No. 1150 appears in the Hansard of Monday, 8 October 1984 (page 1885). (Question No. 1807) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 13 September 1984: When may I expect an answer to question No. 1402 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 4 May 1984. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A response to question No. 1402 appears in the Hansard of Wednesday, 3 October 1984 (pages 1569-1570). (Question No. 1808) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 1984. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The numbers of staff who commenced temporary employment under the Community Employment Program in my Department and in the Public Service Board in each of the months shown are set out below. All of those employed were females. Public Service Month Department Board June 1984 1 1 July 1984 1 Nil August 1984 2 1 Other statutory authorities within my portfolio did not engage staff under the Community Employment Program during the months of June to August 1984. (Question No. 1814) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 1984. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were no people employed by my Department, or any statutory authority reporting to me, under the Community Employment Program for the months of June, July and August 1984. (Question No. 1832) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 1984. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the Department of Aboriginal Affairs the number of persons temporarily employed under the Community Employment Program were: June-43 (females) July-44 (females) August-47 (females). Of the statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies temporarily employed, under the Community Employment Program: June-2 females July-2 females August-2 females. (Question No. 1834) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 13 September 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 June, July and August 1984. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Territories and Local Government (a) Males (b) Females June 134 38 July 155 37 August 167 43 (ii) Statutory Authorities-National Capital Development Commission (a) Males (b) Females June 6 1 July 3 1 August 3 Nil No other statutory authorities within my portfolio engaged temporary employees under the Community Employment Program during the months in question. (Question No. 1839) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) Was Customs surveillance on Sydney identity Lennie MacPherson downgraded in 1975, or at any other time; if so, did the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, have any involvement in the matter. (2) If so, what was the nature of that involvement. (3) Will he ascertain whether representations were made on the matter to the then Senator, on Mr MacPherson's behalf, by a Sydney solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan, or any other person; if so, what was the nature of those representations. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the right honourable member's question: (1) and (2) An inquiry conducted by my Department has found no documents or evidence which suggest that any Customs surveillance that may have been appropriate to Mr MacPherson was downgraded. (3) No records or evidence were found in my Department in respect of any representations made to the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, on Mr MacPherson's behalf, by a Sydney solicitor Mr Morgan Ryan, or any other person. If the honourable member has more specific information in relation to the matter raised in his question I would be prepared to make further inquiries. (Question No. 1864) Mr Milton asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) How many employees were (a) employed in the Minister's Department during (i ) 1981-82, (ii) 1982-83 and (iii) 1983-84 and (b) additions to the total number of staff employed in each of these years. (2) What are the estimated numbers for 1984-85. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The average operative staffing levels in my Department were: Full-time Part-time 1981-82 435 13 1982-83 428 12 1983-84 429 13 (2) The staff years allocation for my Department for 1984-85 is 426. This allocation covers full and part time staff. (Question No. 1886) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1984: (1) What aid was given by the Government to Sri Lanka in 1983-84. (2) What amount of aid does Australia intend to give Sri Lanka in 1984-85. (3) Does Australia give any military aid to Sri Lanka; if so, in what form. (4) Have there been any arms channelled through Australia to Sri Lanka from (a) Israel and (b) the United States. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1983-84 Australia provided $5.55m in assistance to Sri Lanka. (2) In 1984-85 it is estimated that Australia will provide $6.50m in assistance to Sri Lanka. (3) and (4) These matters are more properly the concern of my colleague the Minister for Defence. (Question No. 1903) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 October 1984: (1) How many people receive (a) social security benefits in postcode area (i) 2480, (ii) 2481 and (iii) 2482 as at 10 October 1984 and (b) both unemployment benefits and supporting parents benefits in each of the postcode areas. (2) What is the percentage of people on (a) social security benefits and (b) on unemployment and supporting parents benefits of the population in each of these postcode areas. (3) Is the Minister able to provide (a) a comparison of these percentages with the national average percentages and (b) an explanation of any variations between the percentages. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following table shows the number of Social Security pensioners, by type , and recipients of family allowances in postcodes 2480, 2481, 2482 at the end of June 1984. Also shown are the number of unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients as at 25 May 1984 (the latest date for which this information is available). The distribution of pensioners, beneficiaries and recipients of family allowances by postcode for 10 October 1984 is not available. (2) and (3) The distribution of population by postcode areas is available only at the census time. Recipients of Pensions, Benefits and Family Allowances in Postcode Areas 2480- 2482-June 1984 PensionBenefits*Family Allowances Wives Postcode Age Invalid +SC Widows A Widows B SUPP P U/B S/B SP/B Fams Children 2480 3,524 687 242 244 165 688 2,635 174 43 5,726 11,658 2481 639 123 46 40 35 104 696 36 6 750 1,416 2482 515 101 42 32 17 110 505 38 7 722 1,442 Note: SC=Recipients of spouse carer's pension SUPP P=Supporting parent beneficiaries U/B=Unemployment benefit recipients S/B=Sickness benefit recipients SP/B=Special benefit recipients * 25 May 1984 (Question No. 1176) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Is his Department unable to spend almost $4 million out of $12 million allocated in the current budget for Telecom to design and build national TV and radio services; if so, which projects will not be either commenced or completed as planned. (2) Has his Department also been unable to spend $330,000 to employ consultants for planning the RUCS service, $70,000 for the second ABC regional radio network , and $250,000 to clear the broadcast planning backlog. (3) Could Telecom have provided at least some of the expertise to overcome this planning backlog. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. It has not been possible to spend $3.46m of the money allocated to my Department for the design and construction of National Broadcasting and Television services. This situation has occurred mainly because: (a) technical matters relating to earth station standards were not resolved in time to allow expenditure on the satellite conversion program this financial year. (b) planning associated with the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme, the second Regional Radio Network and clearing the Broadcasting planning backlog has been delayed pending arrangements for the engagement of consultants. 2. I can confirm that the Department of Communications has been unable to spend $650,000 to employ consultants for planning the RUCS service, the second ABC regional radio network and clearing the broadcasting planning backlog. This was due partly to delays associated with establishing the required positions to manage the projects and difficulties in the recruitment of engineers, particularly in Melbourne. I can advise, however, that arrangements are in hand for planning to proceed on these projects in 1984-85. 3. Telecom do have the expertise to clear part of the planning backlog but have indicated that this could not be done without the provision of additional resources. (Question No. 1366) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) When did the Leightonfield mail sorting centre in Sydney open and what disputes resulting in loss of work have occurred since. (2) Is this loss of work above average for mail centres. (3) Is it a fact that mail deliveries within the Sydney area using this centre regularly take up to 7 days and overseas mail 3 weeks. (4) Is it also a fact that the morning shift works satisfactorily but the other 2 shifts are dispute prone. (5) What action is Australia Post taking to make the centre work more efficiently. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) The Leightonfield Mail Centre commenced operations on 30 October 1983. There were some minor disruptions in December 1983 through industrial action over a safety issue at the Centre. Major disruptions to service resulted from a number of disputes during April and May 1984. These disputes arose over issues such as safety, work conditions and demarcation claims. Further disputes over staffing issues occurred in September 1984. (2) Yes. (3) At the time the honourable member asked this question, there was a high incidence of delivery delayed mail at the Leightonfield Mail Centre as a result of industrial disputation within the Centre. In fact, mail processed at the Centre during April and May was delayed up to 12 days. Consequently, some mail may well have taken longer than seven days to be delivered. Overseas mail may also have been similarly delayed. (4) Matters of dispute are discussed by all shifts which generally observe any resulting bans or limitations. (5) Australia Post has devoted considerable management and staff resources to resolution of the difficulties at Leightonfield Mail Centre. It has: advanced its recruiting program; sought more effective liaison with staff; established local workplace consultative forums; and developed a formal dispute settling procedure. (Question No. 1368) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 737 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 133-4) and Telecom's announced charges for private leased security lines, will the 50% increase limit for existing customers apply in 1984-85; if not, what will be the percentage increase. (2) Will the new services charge be the same as 1983-84, that is, a 300% increase over 1982-83; if not, what will be the charge. (3) What action is being taken to answer the criticism of the security industry which has been affected by these increases, and to allay their fears over possible further increased charges. 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 proposed leased line charges for 1984-85 are under examination by Telecom but a decision has yet to be made as to when the charges will be varied and to what extent. (3) Telecom has responded to all representations from the security industry and has explained the circumstances which have necessitated increases in leased line charges. Telecom has also been involved in a series of consultations with various industry sectors which represent major users of leased lines, including the security industry representative body, ASIAL. (Question No. 1412) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: Does the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have any members with expertise in commercial viability and business on its Board; if so, who are the members and what are their areas of expertise; if not, will he consider appointing members with this expertise. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The present membership of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) collectively possesses a considerable amount of expertise in the broad field which he has designated as ''commercial viability and business''. Bearing in mind the nature of the statutory functions undertaken by the ABT, the Government has recognised the need for the Tribunal's membership to represent a balance of experience and expertise relevant to the social and economic environment in which licensed radio and television services operate. The range of expertise of the present membership of the ABT is as follows: Mr D. A. T. Jones (Chairman)-Former partner in a firm of solicitors specialising in commercial and communications law. Mr Jones has also held two professional legal offices-Chairman of the Law Institute of Victoria and Chairman of the Victorian Legal Aid Commission. Mr K. A. Archer-Expertise in commercial radio and television management having held positions of General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Company and Director of Darling Downs TV Limited. Mr M. C. Armstrong-Expertise in commercial and communications law. Mr Armstrong is a barrister and noted author and lecturer in these areas of law. Ms C. F. Weigall-Barrister practising in common law and equity jurisdictions. Expertise in legal research and former consultant to a large international publishing company. Mr R. N. Watterson-Expertise in commercial, administrative and communications law. Mr Watterson is a barrister, author in these areas of law and a former legal consultant to various commercial radio and television interests. Ms J. J. Bailey-Expertise in the creative, production and management aspects of television and film production and station operations. In addition Ms Bailey holds tertiary qualifications in economics and has a distinguished career in media research. Mr R. J. Perry-Expertise in corporate and public policy development as well as commercial television administration and management. Mr Perry also has a background in television journalism gained during his employment with a television station in Perth. (Question No. 1556) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: What are the allocations in 1983-84 to each school in South Australia under the provisions of the computer education program by (a) the Commonwealth Government and (b) the S.A. Government. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Computer Education Program was introduced in 1984 and is funded on the basis of each calendar year for the triennium 1984-1986. The Commonwealth Government allocation for South Australia for each year of the program is $592,000, of which $485,000 is for government schools and $107,000 is for non-government schools. These amounts may be increased from time to time in accordance with the Schools Price Index, which monitors movements in costs. The Computer Education Program is broadly based and will provide funds for professional development, curriculum development, software and courseware, hardware, support services and evaluation. It will not be implemented on the basis of a per capita grant to each school. In South Australia, recommendations to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs concerning the allocation of the available funds are the responsibility of the South Australian Joint Government/Non-Government Computer Education Co- ordinating Committee. The Minister expects to receive program proposals from the Committee in the near future. Members of Parliament are notified by letter of details of grants in respect of schools in their State as soon as the program, or part of a program, is approved. Funds provided by the Commonwealth Government under the Computer Education Program are separate from and in addition to those contributed by the States for computer education. State government and non-government school authorities had already begun their own initiatives before the national program, and will maintain their effort in this area. Details of grants to schools by the South Australian Government are not available. (Question No. 1572) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Can he explain why after two months of repeated complaints from the Sydney manufacturing firm, Speedy Wheels, about undue delays in mail deliveries, some of their mail is still taking up to 12 days to be delivered 13 kilometres across the city. (2) Is it a fact that these delays are of very serious proportions; if so, will he ensure immediate remedial action is taken. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) During March to May 1984, there was an abnormally high level of industrial bans and staffing difficulties at a number of mail sorting facilities in New South Wales and some mail processed at those facilities would have been delayed to the extent referred to in this Question. Some of the delays complained of by Speedy Wheels since March 1984 would have been caused by those problems. (2) Yes. The delays to mails at that time were of very serious proportions. Australia Post is aware of the poor performance in New South Wales and is continuing to make every effort to improve the situation in that State. (Question No. 1606) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 21 August 1984: (1) What has been the cost of Commonwealth employment projects approved for each Federal Electoral Division in Australia for each of the past 3 years. (2) What were the percentage levels of unemployment in each Division. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The projects referred to are those funded under the Wage Pause Program and the Community Employment Program. Wage Pause Program estimates by Federal electorates cannot be provided since financial data for the Program were not collected on this basis. Community Employment Program data can be provided for each Federal electorate. However, the projects concerned may not be limited to a particular electorate because project activity cannot be contained within electorate boundaries. Hence financial and employment data for one electorate may also be included in the data for other electorates. Discrete data for each Federal electorate are not available, and for this reason data pertaining to several electorates cannot be added. The Community Employment Program was not in operation prior to 1983-84. Estimates of amounts of Commonwealth funds approved for CEP projects in 1983-84 by Federal electorates are as follows. The honourable member should note that in most electorates a proportion of these funds would be expended in the 1984-85 financial year. FEDERAL ELECTORATES CEP approvals Electorate 1983-84 $m New South Wales Banks 2.480 Barton 2.232 Bennelong 1.563 Berowra 2.822 Blaxland 1.282 Bradfield 0.908 Calare 5.925 Chifley 4.122 Cook 2.171 Cowper 7.420 Cunningham 10.446 Dundas 2.514 Eden-Monaro 7.490 Farrer 3.499 Grayndler 4. 031 Gwydir 6.035 Hughes 4.020 Hume 3.627 Hunter 2.500 Kingsford-Smith 2.176 Lowe 2.042 Lyne 4.329 Macarthur 7.816 Mackellar 3.561 Macquarie 8.311 Mitchell 3.131 Newcastle 5.393 New England 6.805 North Sydney 1.680 Parramatta 4.910 Paterson 3.946 Phillip 1.511 Prospect 4.433 Reid 3.804 Richmond 8.922 Riverina 7.640 Robertson 6.691 Shortland 1.654 St George 1. 911 Sydney 13.917 Warringah 1.663 Wentworth 6.714 Werriwa 9.271 Victoria Balaclava 1.340 Ballarat 4.147 Batman 3.355 Bendigo 3.303 Bruce 1.096 Burke 3.309 Casey 2.656 Chisholm 0.951 Corangamite 3.205 Corio 2.549 Deakin 0. 538 Diamond Valley 2.817 Flinders 1.889 Gellibrand 7.247 Gippsland 3.245 Henty 1.317 Higgins 2.006 Holt 1.837 Hotham 0.860 Indi 3.078 Isaacs 1.105 Kooyong 1.776 Lalor 2.414 La Trobe 0.654 Mallee 3.456 Maribyrnong 3.038 McMillan 3.145 Melbourne 29.339 Melbourne Ports 4.331 Murray 3.542 Scullin 2.375 Wannon 3.599 Wills 3.172 Queensland Bowman 1.945 Brisbane 0.683 Capricornia 4.576 Darling Downs 3.414 Dawson 3. 005 Fadden 3.603 Fisher 6.710 Griffith 11.004 Herbert 3.891 Kennedy 5.777 Leichhardt 7.179 Lilley 3.019 Maranoa 4.742 McPherson 5.128 Moreton 0.466 Oxley 2.155 Petrie 1.583 Ryan 1.137 Wide Bay 2.880 Western Australia Canning 1.226 Curtin 2.037 Forrest 4.607 Fremantle 4.661 Kalgoorlie 4.907 Moore 2.077 O'Connor 4.781 Perth 10.470 Stirling 0.987 Swan 1.742 Tangney 2 .693 South Australia Adelaide 9.713 Barker 8.831 Bonython 3.792 Boothby 4.396 Grey 7.540 Hawker 0.897 Hindmarsh 2.154 Kingston 2.230 Port Adelaide 3.553 Sturt 3.100 Wakefield 5.618 Tasmania Bass 1.582 Braddon 2.439 Denison 2.572 Franklin 1.481 Wilmot 3.036 Northern Territory Northern Territory 4.857 Australian Capital Territory Canberra 1.699 Fraser 6.325 (2) Apart from data collected from population censuses on a five yearly basis, employment and unemployment estimates for small geographic areas, such as Federal Electoral Divisions, are not available. I have arranged for a copy of my Department's publication 'Estimates of Unemployment Rates by Commonwealth Electorate', which includes 1981 Census unemployment rates and Departmental estimates of unemployment rates as at March 1983 for all Federal Electoral Divisions, to be provided to the honourable member. (Question No. 1607) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 21 August 1984: (1) What has been the amount spent on Community Employment Program projects approved for each Federal Electoral Division since the Program's commencement. (2) What was the percentage level of unemployment in each Division, at 30 June 1984. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Community Employment Program data can be provided for each Federal electorate. However, the projects concerned may not be limited to a particular electorate because project activity cannot be contained within electorate boundaries. Hence financial and employment data for one electorate may be also included in data for other electorates. Discrete data for each Federal electorate are not available and for this reason data pertaining to several electorates cannot be added. The Community Employment Program was not in operation prior to 1983/84. Estimates of amounts of Commonwealth funds approved for Community Employment Program projects in 1983/84 by Federal electorate are as provided in my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1606 of 21 August 1984. The honourable member should note that in most electorates a proportion of these funds would be expended in the 1984/85 financial year. (2) The percentage level of unemployment for each Federal Electoral Division, at 30 June 1984, is not available. Unemployment rates at this level of disaggregation are available only from the five-yearly Census of Population and Housing (last conducted in June 1981), although my Department has prepared estimates relating to March 1983. The finest disaggregation available for the period sought is at Capital City and Rest of State (non-metropolitan area) level for June 1984, and these data are as follows: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY STATE, CAPITAL CITIES AND NON-METROPOLITAN AREAS, JUNE 1984 Non- Metro- State Capital politan NSW 9.5 8.9 10.5 Vic. 7.6 7.5 8.0 Qld 9.2 9.0 9.4 SA 9.1 9.6 7.9 WA 9.8 10. 6 7.8 Tas. 10.4 9.5 11.1 NT 8.0 * * ACT 5.0 * * * Data not disaggregated at this level Source: ABS, The Labour Force, Australia, Catalogue 6203.0 (Question No. 1613) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Further to Senate question No. 297, (Senate Hansard, 1 November 1983, pages 2033-2035), and in respect of the last full year for which comparative data are available, what were (a) the Australian dollar equivalents and (b) the proportions of their total official development assistance, in bilateral aid to each of the developing countries listed in the Senate question from (i) Australia, (ii) Austria, (iii) Britain, (iv) Canada, (v) Denmark, (vi) France, ( vii) Holland, (viii) Italy, (ix) Japan, (x) New Zealand, (xi) Norway, (xii) Portugal, (xiii) Spain, (xiv) Sweden, (xv) Switzerland and (xvi) the USA. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The last full year for which comparative data are available is the year ended 31 December 1982. Table 1 shows the bilateral aid from DAC donor countries in Australian dollar equivalents. The exchange rate used was $1US=$0.9830 Australian. Table 2 shows the same data as the proportion of each donor's bilateral ODA expressed in percentages. It should be noted that from the list of countries included in the question Portugal and Spain are omitted from this answer as they are now aid recipient countries, and did not provide any aid in 1982. It should also be noted that the list of recipient countries comprises only those countries to which Australia provides aid. ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO COUNTRIES WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 A $ Million Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan lands Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. Total Europe- Cyprus 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 10.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . 13.8 Malta (a) 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 Turkey 0.0 4.3 0.1 6.1 0.0 -0.2 21.3 78.2 20.2 26.8 1.3 . . . . . . -0.3 6.0 337.2 501.1 Africa- North Sahara- Algeria 0.0 183.7 2.9 2.9 -1.0 . . 43.9 39.2 6.2 0.2 1.3 . . . . 0.1 0.3 0.0 - 1.0 244.4 Egypt 1.7 15.5 0.2 33.2 5.6 5.5 46.7 121.4 8.0 60.6 17.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 2.1 11.5 885.7 1215.8 Tunisia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147.5 South of Sahara- Botswana 0.5 . . . . 2.9 1.1 0.0 1.0 23.8 . . 0.8 2.7 0.0 7.3 13.0 0.0 11.9 16 .7 81.8 Ethiopia 6.4 0.3 0.2 8.1 0.6 0.7 2.7 11.5 10.6 0.2 3.1 . . 1.9 17.5 1. 4 9.5 1.1 75.6 Gambia 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 7.1 . . 3.7 1.0 . . . . 0.2 0.0 3.7 5.9 23.2 Ghana 0.5 0.1 0.2 8.3 -0.3 0.1 2.3 27.6 -1.3 5.1 1.9 . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 8.7 10.8 64.4 Kenya 5.3 0.9 1.3 38.9 20.8 5.2 14.5 29.1 0.9 19.0 53.9 . . 23.3 14.5 3.4 45.7 51.1 327.7 Lesotho 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.9 0.1 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.2 2.0 . . 0.4 2.1 0.9 6.4 24.6 52.5 Madagascar 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.8 0.1 . . 92.6 8.7 0.4 26.0 1.1 . . 2.2 . . 6.7 1.0 14.7 156.5 Malawi 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 3.2 0.2 0.6 21.3 0.1 5.6 2.5 0.0 . . . . . . 20.1 3.9 64.1 Mauritius 2.1 3.4 0.2 0.2 0 .0 0.0 15.5 0.4 . . 0.4 0.2 . . . . . . 0.0 1.0 6.9 30.3 Mozambique 0.8 1.7 0.4 6.1 5.0 4.3 5.0 2.6 26.9 7.6 29.0 . . 16.2 45.5 1.7 3.3 2.0 157.9 Nigeria 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.3 -0.1 0.1 3.9 1.8 1.3 3.6 1.0 . . 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.9 -2.0 16.3 Senegal (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.8 Seychelles 0.9 . . 0.2 0.1 . . 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 . . . . 0.0 0.0 5.9 2.0 14.5 Sierra Leone 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.0 1.9 14.5 10.8 9.9 1.4 . . 0.6 0.2 0. 0 5.3 7.9 54.8 Somalia 5.5 0.3 0.4 7.6 0.9 1.4 3.9 23.5 48.1 3.7 2.1 . . 2.9 2 .3 1.0 4.3 31.5 139.2 Sudan 4.9 0.7 2.1 9.7 0.6 2.1 13.8 55.5 13.5 9.7 25.9 . . 11.5 2.5 3.9 66.2 128.8 351.2 Swaziland 0.1 . . 0.1 1.0 0.2 . . 0.1 2.8 0.1 1 .0 0.9 . . . . 1.2 0.1 4.2 6.9 18.4 Tanzania 9.4 2.3 1.5 34.6 39.1 14.5 6.1 57 .8 13.4 49.2 55.3 0.1 51.0 72.5 5.1 39.9 23.6 475.5 Uganda 4.5 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.3 0.6 3.2 7.6 1.0 1.0 2.1 . . 6.9 0.4 0.5 15.8 2.0 51.9 Zaire 2.9 0.0 101.8 20.4 0.0 . . 24.3 31.4 3.0 42.1 2.1 . . 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 15.7 246.5 Zambia 3.4 0.4 1 .4 16.7 3.3 8.5 1.0 28.3 0.4 23.3 15.0 0.0 13.6 27.0 0.2 21.1 21.6 185.3 Zimbabwe 1.9 0.6 0.3 11.9 5.6 2.4 8.3 22.6 1.6 6.3 14.1 0.1 8.6 9.9 2.2 36.7 6. 9 139.5 ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO COUNTRIES WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 $A million Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan lands Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. Total America- North & Central- Bahamas 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0. 1 Belize 0.0 . . 0.1 0.7 . . . . . . 0.0 . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . 4.7 1.0 6 .7 Cayman Is. (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 Dominican Rep (a) 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 . . . . 0.4 6.0 0.1 4.3 2.0 . . . . 1.8 0.0 0.2 75.7 91.9 Dominica (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Grenada (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Jamaica 0.2 0.0 0.2 10.9 . . 0.2 2.1 4.9 1.0 3.3 8.3 . . 3.1 1.5 0.0 6.1 108.1 149.9 Mexico 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.2 17. 0 36.0 1.4 10.7 2.6 . . 0.2 0.2 0.1 59.1 10.8 139.7 Nicaragua 0.0 8.6 0.6 2.3 0 .3 2.5 8.4 8.4 2.5 0.3 23.5 . . 20.6 9.1 1.4 0.1 5.9 75.6 St. Lucia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 St. Vincent ( a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 South- Argentina 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 . . 1.3 16.3 1.4 3.4 1.7 . . . . 0.3 0.0 . . -2. 0 23.4 Brazil 0.0 0.4 0.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 73.0 43.2 2.4 49.6 4.4 . . . . 0.5 0.4 16.3 -35.4 159.3 Chile 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 8.4 0.3 4.3 4.1 . . . . 0.3 0.4 1.1 -26.5 -3.9 Guyana 0.0 . . 0.0 2.7 . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0.3 1.8 0.0 . . . . . . 2.8 5.9 13.5 Peru 0.0 1.4 1.5 5.3 0.0 1.6 13.9 32.3 2.9 12.7 18.1 . . 1.8 0.2 3.2 0.6 46.2 141.6 Asia- Middle East- Iran 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 . . 1.1 4.4 0.4 -8.6 . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 -0.5 . . 2.4 Jordan 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 -0.3 . . 2.8 14.5 0.8 11.6 0.4 . . . . 0.0 0.2 3.1 29.5 64.3 Lebanon 0.7 0.5 0.8 3.0 4.1 1.5 6.9 6.0 6.5 1.1 2.1 . . 6.4 4.6 4.6 2.8 12.8 64.4 Qatar (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 Saudia Arabia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.4 Syria 0.1 0.3 0.2 . . . . . . 6.1 28.1 0.4 1.5 0.7 . . . . . . 0.3 0.8 25.6 63.8 South- Bangladesh 36.5 0.1 5.3 86.7 24.2 0.2 16.4 81.3 0.1 212.1 71.0 0.1 28.3 21.5 4 .3 38.1 181.9 808.0 Bhutan (a) 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Burma 16.9 0.0 . . 1.9 0.9 1.1 4.1 58.7 3.5 102.1 1.4 . . 2.0 . . 0.1 5.9 5.9 204.5 India 2.2 0.2 -0.5 33.1 22.2 0.2 28.9 112.4 -2.0 40.4 60.1 0.1 20.6 56.6 18.2 33.0 38.3 463.2 Maldives (a) 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 Nepal 2.0 0.1 0.1 6.7 0.3 0.1 3.1 7.9 0.0 34.6 5.4 0.1 2.5 0.2 11.6 16.3 18.7 109.5 Pakistan 4.5 0.1 -0.2 47.7 1.5 0.3 23.5 30.0 -2.4 93.7 34.1 0.0 13.1 9.1 3.3 25.2 110.1 393.6 Sri Lanka 11.3 0.1 0.3 32.8 0.7 3.3 2.0 24.0 -0.3 60.6 21.1 0.0 14.5 24.8 2.5 54.6 40.2 300.2 ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 A$ Million Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan lands Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. Total East- China, Peoples Rep. 3.0 0.2 6.8 4.4 8.4 0.0 2.3 59.2 2.7 362.5 . . . . 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3 . . 450.7 Hong Kong 0.1 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . 0.6 1.5 . . 1.4 0.2 . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 . . 3.6 Indonesia 45.1 0.2 12.7 26.3 0.1 0.4 26.6 137.7 -1.3 289 .6 103.5 4.8 4.0 . . 3.3 15.3 70.8 739.1 Kampuchea 3.3 0.1 0.3 . . 0.9 0.2 . . 2.2 . . 0.4 2.2 . . 1.0 3.5 0.2 . . . . 14.3 Korea, Rep. 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.0 2.5 18.4 0.3 3.7 0.6 0.0 . . . . 0.0 0.1 -11.8 15.1 Laos 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . -0.6 . . 3.0 6.2 . . . . 10.5 0.1 . . . . 20.9 Malaysia 8.3 0.0 1.1 0 .5 0.2 0.0 1.6 9.0 0.5 74.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 . . 0.1 4.6 1.0 102.0 Philippines 15.3 19.2 7.4 3.2 -0.4 0.4 2.3 19.7 0.3 134.1 5.1 1.1 5.4 0.2 0.0 1.6 57.0 271.6 Singapore 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 . . 0.0 2.3 6.9 . . 7.5 0.1 0.1 . . . . . . -2.0 . . 17.5 Thailand 13.0 0.1 3.5 8.0 3.1 0.1 6.5 25.1 2.2 167.4 4.2 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.5 6.3 22.6 266.9 Oceana- Cook Is. (a) 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Fiji 15.3 . . 0.1 0.1 . . 0.0 0.3 1.9 . . 3.1 0.7 2.9 . . . . . . 3.0 2. 0 29.5 Kiribati 2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1.9 . . 0.4 . . . . . . 9.1 . . . . 14.2 Nauru (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 New Caledonia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.5 Niue Is. (a) 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Pacific Is. (US) (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.7 Papua New Guinea 259.0 0.3 . . 0.1 . . 0.0 0.3 4.7 . . 3.6 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 . . 271.6 Solomon Is (a) 7.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 Tokelau Is. ( a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Tonga (a) 5.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Tuvalu (a) 0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Vanuatu 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 0.0 . . 0.9 . . 0.9 . . . . . . 7.5 . . 22.9 Western Samoa 5.6 0.0 0.1 . . 0.0 0.1 . . 1.2 . . 3.4 0.5 3.1 . . . . . . 0.0 1.0 15.1 (a) Separate figures for each donor country are not available (apart from Australia). Note: 0.0 indicates less than 0.05 million dollars. Exchange rate used $US = $ Aus 0.9830 Prepared by Research and Statistical Reporting Section A.D.A.B. ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO COUNTRIES WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 Percentages (Aid disbursed by donor countries) Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan land Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. Europe- Cyprus 0.0 0.1 . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . Malta (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.7 3.5 6.7 1.2 0.1 . . . . . . -0.2 0.6 7.1 Africa- North of Sahara- Algeria 0.0 65.9 1.0 0.4 -0.0 . . 1.3 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.1 . . . . 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Egypt 0.3 5.6 0.1 4.1 2.7 6.5 1.4 5.5 2.6 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.2 18.5 Tunisia 0.0 0.1 1.9 1.5 -0.3 . . 1.6 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 . . . . 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 South of Sahara- Botswana 0.1 . . . . 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 . . 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 1.3 0.3 Ethiopia 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5 3.5 0.0 0.3 . . 0.6 3.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 Gambia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 . . 0.2 0.1 . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 Ghana 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 -0.4 0.2 0.2 . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 Kenya 1.0 0.3 0.4 4.8 9.9 6.2 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.8 5.1 . . 7.3 2.5 1.9 4.9 1.1 Lesotho 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 . . 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 Madagascar 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 . . 2.8 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 . . 0.7 . . 3.7 0.1 0.3 Malawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 . . . . . . 2.2 0.1 Mauritius 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 . . 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.1 Mozambique 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 2.4 5.1 0.2 0.1 8.9 0.3 2.8 . . 5.1 7.9 0.9 0.4 0.0 Nigeria 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 Senegal (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seychelles 0.2 . . 0.1 0.0 . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Sierra Leone 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.6 3.6 0.4 0.1 . . 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0. 2 Somalia 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 1.6 0.1 1.1 15.8 0.2 0.2 . . 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 Sudan 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.3 2.4 0.4 2.5 4.4 0.4 2.5 . . 3.6 0.4 2.2 7.1 2.7 Swaziland 0.0 . . 0.0 0.1 0.1 . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 Tanzania 1.7 0.8 0.5 4.3 18.5 17.2 0.2 2.6 4.4 2.1 5.3 0.2 15.9 12.6 2.8 4.3 0. 5 Uganda 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 . . 2.1 0.1 0.3 1.7 0.0 Zaire 0.5 0.0 35.4 2.5 0.0 . . 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.2 . . 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 Zambia 0.6 0.1 0.5 2.1 1.6 10.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.0 4.2 4.7 0.1 2.3 0.5 Zimbabwe 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.5 2.7 2.8 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.3 1.3 0.2 2.7 1.7 1.2 4.0 0.1 ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO COUNTRIES WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 Percentages Aid disbursed by (donor) countries Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan land Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. America- North & Central- Bahamas 0.0 . . . . 0.0 . . . . . . 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . Belize 0.0 . . 0.0 0.1 . . . . . . 0.0 . . . . 0.0 . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.0 Cayman Is. (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominican Rep. (a) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 . . . . 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 Dominica (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grenada (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamaica 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.8 . . 1.0 0. 3 0.0 0.7 2.3 Mexico 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 . . 0.1 0.0 0 .1 6.4 0.2 Nicaragua 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.2 . . .0.6 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.1 St. Lucia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St Vincent (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South- Argentina 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 . . 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 . . . . 0.1 0.0 . . 0.0 Brazil 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.9 0.8 2.1 0.4 . . . . 0.1 0.2 1.8 -0.7 Chile 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.6 Guyana 0.0 . . 0.0 0.3 . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0.0 0.2 0.0 . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 Peru 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.4 1.5 0.9 0.5 1.7 . . 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.0 Asia- Middle East- Iran 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . 0.0 0.2 0.1 -0.4 . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 -0.1 . . Jordan 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 . . 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.0 . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 Lebanon 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.0 0.2 . . 2.0 0.8 2.6 0.3 0.3 Qatar (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudia Arabia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syria 0.0 0.1 0.1 . . . . . . 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0. 5 South- Bangladesh 6.6 0.0 1.8 10.7 11.4 0.2 0.5 3.7 0.0 9.1 6.8 0.2 8.8 3.7 2.4 4.1 3 .8 Bhutan (a) 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burma 3.0 0.0 . . 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.1 2.6 1.2 4.4 0.1 . . 0.6 . . 0.1 0.6 0.1 India 0.4 0.1 -0.2 4.1 10.5 0.2 0.9 5.0 -0.6 1.7 5.7 0.2 6.4 9.7 10.1 3.6 0.8 Maldives (a) 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nepal 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 6.4 1.8 0.4 Pakistan 0.8 0.0 -0.1 5.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.3 -0.8 4.0 3.3 0.0 4.1 1.6 1.8 2.7 2.3 Sri Lanka 2.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.3 3.9 0.1 1.1 -0.1 2.6 2.0 0.0 4.5 4.3 1.4 5.9 1.0 ODA FLOWS FROM DAC DONOR COUNTRIES TO COUNTRIES WHICH RECEIVED AUSTRALIAN AID YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1982 Percentages (Aid disbursed by donor countries) Recipient Aust- Aus- Bel- Den- Fin- Ger- Nether- New Switzer- country ralia tria gium Canada mark land France many Italy Japan lands Zealand Norway Sweden land U.K. U.S.A. East- China, Peoples Rep. 0.5 0.1 2.4 0.5 4.0 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.9 15.6 . . . . 0.2 0.1 0 .1 0.0 Hong Kong 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 . . 0.1 0.0 . . . . . . 0.0 0 .0 Indonesia 8.1 0.1 4.4 3.2 0.0 0.5 0.8 6.2 -0.4 12.4 9.9 9.9 1.3 . . 1.8 1.7 1.5 Kampuchea 0.6 0.0 0.1 . . 0.4 0.2 . . 0.1 . . 0.0 0.2 . . 0.3 0.6 0.1 . . . . Korea, Republic 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 . . . . 0. 0 0.0 -0.2 Laos 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0.1 0.6 . . . . 1.8 0.1 . . . . Malaysia 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 3.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 . . 0.1 0.5 0.0 Philippines 2.8 6.9 2.6 0.4 -0.2 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 5.8 0.5 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0 .2 1.2 Singapore 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 . . 0.0 0.1 0.3 . . 0.3 0.0 0.2 . . . . . . - 0.2 . . Thailand 2.3 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.7 7.2 0.4 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.8 0 .7 0.5 Oceania- Cook Is. (a) 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiji 2.8 . . 0.0 0.0 . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 . . 0.1 0.1 6.1 . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 Kiribati 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0.1 . . 0.8 . . . . . . 1.0 . . Nauru (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Caledonia (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Niue Is. (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Is. (US) (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papua New Guinea 46.6 0.1 . . 0.0 . . 0.0 0.0 0.2 . . 0.2 0. 0 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 . . Solomon Is. (a) 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokelau Is. (a) 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonga (a) 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuvalu (a) 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vanuatu 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 . . 0.0 . . 1.8 . . . . . . 0.8 . . Western Samoa 1.0 0.0 0.0 . . 0.0 0.1 . . 0.1 . . 0.1 0.0 6.5 . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 (a) Separate figures for each donor country are not available (apart from Australia). Note: '0.0' indicates less than 0.05%. Exchange rate used $US = $Aust. 0.9830. Prepared by the Research and Statistical Reporting Section, A.D.A.B. (Question No. 1619) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: What arrangements does Australia Post have for the receipt and delivery of mail from and to the self-styled sovereign states of Hutt River Province in W.A. and Aeterna Lucina in N.S.W. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: In line with Government Policy, Australia Post does not recognise so called '' sovereign states''. Receipt and delivery of mail from and to ''Hutt River Province'' and ''Aeterna Lucina'' is effected in accordance with normal Australia Post practices. No different treatment is given to mail posted from either ''Hutt River Province'' or ''Aeterna Lucina'' if it is fully paid and otherwise conforms with the Postal Services Regulations and the Postal By-laws. The following arrangements apply for delivery of mail. Hutt River Province Mail addressed to ''Hutt River Province'' is endorsed ''Address unknown''. Australia Post then attempts delivery on a ''try'' basis to what is believed to be the correct address. Aeterna Lucina Mail addressed to ''Aeterna Lucina'' generally bears the correct postal address, with no self-styled titles or reference to Aeterna Lucina as a ''province''. Mail is, therefore, delivered as addressed. (Question No. 1633) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth 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 ACT were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the ACT 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 Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The Australian National University Forty six, of which: (i) 28 were held pending the arrival (before 18 July) of eligible tenants (9 of these houses were still undergoing maintenance); (ii) 14 were undergoing maintenance and would be available for tenants arriving after 18 July; and (iii) 4 were available for letting to eligible tenants arriving at short notice . (b) Bruce College of Technical and Further Education One, the Caretaker's house. (2) Nil (Question No. 1658) Mr Burr asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Did he say, in a press release on 12 October 1983, that the British subject requirement for permanent employment in the Australian Public Service will be replaced with an Australian citizenship requirement. (2) Did he have prepared, as a summary of the reform package affecting the reforming of the Australian Public Service, a paper entitled ''Australian Public Service Reforms, May 1984''. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the section on page 14, under the heading ' 'Merit Principles''. (4) How does he justify the removal of the British subject requirement without infringing the requirements of that section of the paper, with special reference to race, ethnic and social origin. (5) Does the ruling that upholds only one nationality to be employed in the Australian Public Service institute in itself unjustified discrimination against those of different race, colour, ethnic and social origin. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In line with the Government's stated policies and objectives as outlined in that press release, legislation to replace the British subject requirement with one of Australian citizenship will come into effect on 1 November 1984. (2) Yes. (3) A comprehensive statement of merit principles, from which that section was drawn, is included in the Public Service Reform Act 1984. While the Public Service Act already makes it clear that entry to the Public Service is to be by open competition and that promotion is to be on the basis of relative efficiency , these criteria are now made more explicit. The relevant provisions, which came into effect on 1 July 1984, provide that persons who are eligible for appointment are to be given, so far as is practicable, a reasonable opportunity to apply for appointment; the appointment is to be made on the basis of relative suitability having regard to the nature of the duties and applicants' abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes relevant to the performance of the duties; powers under the Act in relation to appointments, transfers and promotions shall be exercised in accordance with procedures that preclude: (a) discrimination on the ground of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, pregnancy, age or physical or mental disability; (b) discrimination that is unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984; and (c) any other unjustified discrimination. (4) The British subject requirement was removed because of the preferrential treatment which it accorded to one migrant group. In my press statement of 12 October 1983, to which the honourable member referred, I specifically stated that, 'The introduction of an Australian citizenship requirement is consistent with the Government's view that migrants should be treated equally irrespective of their country of origin . . .'. The removal of the British subject requirement is therefore seen, not as infringing the requirements of the Merit Principles as outlined in page 14 of Australian Public Service Reforms-An Overview and the Public Service Reform Act 1984, but rather as actively promoting those requirements. (5) An Australian citizenship requirement for appointment to the Australian Public Service (APS) does not represent an instance of discrimination against persons, 'on the grounds of different race, colour, ethnic and social origin'. As indicated earlier, an Australian citizenship requirement for appointment, discriminates against applicants only on the basis of citizenship and not on the basis of country or origin. I also refer the honourable member to the paper I tabled on 11 October 1984 outlining the arrangements for implementation of the new nationality requirement for appointment to the Australian Public Service, including arrangements for the waiver of the citizen requirement in those cases where this would be in the interests of Public Service efficiency. (Question No. 1661) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: What areas of responsibility does the Commonwealth Government supervise in relation to the maintenance of adequate nursing practices, equipment levels, staff/patient ratios and general standards of care given to elderly people in nursing homes. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Most of the cost of operating nursing homes in Australia is met by the Commonwealth Government. It therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these homes provide an adequate standard of care and that the more than a billion dollars that the Commonwealth will expend on nursing home care in 1984-85 is well spent. The supervision of standards of care in nursing homes is a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and State or Territory Governments. Commonwealth medical officers visit nursing homes routinely to monitor standards of care, staff/ patient ratios and other aspects associated with the status of the home, including equipment levels. State and Northern Territory inspectors also visit nursing homes to monitor the care provided. These inspectors are usually nurses, who are well placed to complement the work of the doctors who carry out inspections for the Commonwealth. In the Australian Capital Territory there is no equivalent to the State inspectors, but the Capital Territory Health Commission maintains close consultation with the non-Government nursing homes. Where appropriate the Commonwealth and State inspectors liaise with each other. Where a problem arises with a particular nursing home the Commonwealth and State inspectors arrange a joint inspection where this is considered appropriate. (Question No. 1667) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to raffle books and stamped envelopes posted to people in Victoria by the Handicapped and Disabled Persons' Association; if so, has this organisation breached any postal regulations. (2) If any breach has occurred, what action is being taken. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes, this matter has been brought to my attention. The envelopes referred to bore postage paid imprints and the use of these envelopes by those people returning raffle books to the Association was not in accordance with the Postal By-laws which cover the use of such imprints. (2) The incorrect use of the imprint was detected at an early stage and the matter was discussed with the Association. The misunderstanding relating to the use of its postage paid imprint was clarified and the appropriate postage has been paid. (Question No. 1669) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Why was the 'Tinagroo' Station telephone, Brawboy Exchange, NSW, allowed to remain out of order for several days in August 1984 in spite of daily complaints . (2) When was the service reinstated. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The Brawboy telephone exchange is an unattended exchange, receiving regular routine maintenance visits and attendance on faults as required. All fault reports concerning services in the Brawboy exchange area are initially checked and tested remotely from Scone, which is the nearest staffed centre. However, when the fault with the 'Tinagroo' station telephone was reported on 1 August 1984, the facility to remotely test the customer's service was temporarily unavailable due to the rearrangement of junction cabling between Brawboy and Scone exchanges. In order to determine the nature of the fault affecting the service, a visit to the exchange was made by a technician on the following day. The problem was established to be a cable fault and it was located by the Scone Line Depot staff on 3 August 1984 at Dartbrook Creek. It was then found that as a result of an earlier washout caused by flooding, the cable became exposed and consequently suffered damage. Telecom had already initiated plans to relocate this cable at Dartbrook Creek and, in fact, the poles to support the aerial cable programmed as replacement had been installed in anticipation. In the circumstances, completion of this project, although it involved considerable labour, was the only alternative to provide a reliable service. (2) The service was restored at 11.00 a.m. on Saturday, 4 August 1984. (Question No. 1693) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communi- cations, upon notice, on 5 September: (1) Has the ABC dropped its weekend local radio news service in Darwin; if so, what are the reasons. (2) Does the ABC provide local radio or television news services at weekends in Tasmania. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) The weekend local radio news service in Darwin was dropped earlier this year because of a temporary staff shortage. The service has now been restored. (2) Yes. (Question No. 1694) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: What is (a) the population and (b) the name of the largest community, not able to receive an acceptable quality reception for ABC FM radio, now that the 1984- 85 program has been finalised? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 48,557 (based on the 1981 census). (b) Cairns, Queensland. However, it should be noted that planning of a service for the Cairns area is proceeding, with a nominal establishment date of 1985-86, subject of course to normal budgetary allocations. (Question No. 1695) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: Are there different ownership criteria for commercial radio and television stations in the territories to those in the States; if so, what are the differences. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Television Under section 92 (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, a person may legally hold a prescribed interest in two commercial television station licences in a State, provided that only one licence is for a station which is within a radius of 50 km of the General Post Office in the capital city. In a Territory, a person may hold a prescribed interest in only one licence. Radio Under section 90C (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, a person may legally hold a prescribed interest in four commercial broadcasting station licences in any one State, provided that not more than one station is in the metropolitan area. Under section 90C (2) the Australian Capital Territory is deemed to form part of New South Wales. (Question No. 1697) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Is it a fact that his decision in favour of using the PAL system for satellite television transmission is being reconsidered in favour of a more technically advanced digital system. (2) How many radio channels will (a) the PAL and (b) a digital system be able to carry. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As announced in my press release on 13 September 1984, it has been decided to use the B-MAC (Multiplexed Analogue Component) transmission system to deliver ABC television and radio services via satellite in 1985. Originally it was intended that the Australian PAL system would be used, but this would have limited the potential to expand broadcasting services via the satellite, and forced consumers to pay a significantly higher price for earth stations than was the original planning intention. The decision to adopt B-MAC as the standard followed a review (announced in February) of transmission systems that will be available in time for satellite broadcasting in Australia. (2) (a) The PAL system would have been limited to providing a mono television sound channel together with just two mono radio services. (b) The B-MAC digital system will allow the provision of a range of services including ABC stereo radio, two other mono ABC radio services and ABC television sound (potentially in stereo). There is also a channel for distribution of data, such as for teletext, emergency, educational or other uses. (Question No. 1698) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) For how long has his Department been in receipt of an application for a television translator for Toodjay, W.A. (2) When will this application be finalised. (3) How many applications were outstanding at 5 September 1984 and from whom and when were they lodged. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department received expressions of interest for a commercial television translator to serve Toodjay from three sponsors: Golden West Network Ltd on 18 May 1982; Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters on 16 August 1982. TVW Enterprises Ltd on 6 September 1982. My Department invited each sponsor to submit a planning proposal, however only Swan Television did so (in November 1983). This was returned to the sponsor for additional information on 3 April 1984. A revised proposal was received by my Department on 24 September 1984 and is presently being assessed. (2) If the revised proposal is assessed as being complete, it will be circulated for industry comment, prior to its presentation as a final planning proposal. If appropriate, I may then invite applications for a licence or licences. This process is expected to take 3 to 4 months following receipt of the complete proposal. It should be noted that only one proposal, and subsequent invitation of applications for a licence or licences, is required ahead of a licence inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. All interested parties can apply for a licence, or put submissions to the Tribunal concerning the grant of licences, without being involved with the original proposal. (3) No 'applications' have been invited at this stage. However, as explained previously, one incomplete proposal from Swan Television was on hand as of 5.9. 84, two other proposals were 'outstanding'. (Question No. 1702) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Does the Minister have (a) employees, (b) staff and (c) service people employed in his Department who are subject to the provisions of any of the following Acts and regulations, with particular reference to disclosure of official information provisions under (i) the Crimes Act 1914, (ii) the Atomic Energy Act 1953, (iii) the Public Service Act 1922 and regulations and (iv) Service Acts and regulations (covering Navy, Army, Air Force and other military services); if so, what Acts and regulations apply. (2) What is the procedure whereby (a) employees, (b) staff and (c) service people are covered by these Acts and regulations, and how are they notified of the procedure. (3) Where a procedure involves signing a form or recording of a person's name and particulars (a) does the Minister's Department retain the forms and records, (b) are they retained in a central location, (c) for how long are they retained and (d) for how long are the provisions of the various Acts and regulations valid. (4) Where changes to Acts and regulations occur which affect the disclosure of official information by employees, staff or service people, are they notified of the changes; if not, why not. (5) Are members of a person's family covered by disclosure of official information provisions; if so, (a) how are they notified and (b) are they required to consent to being covered by these provisions. (6) Do (a) employees, (b) staff and (c) service people have access to their file showing they are covered by the disclosure of official information provisions; if so, how is this access achieved. (7) What provisions exist for the relatives or next of kin of these people to have access to such files. (8) Do provisions of the various Acts and regulations still remain effective after the (a) employees, (b) staff and (c) service people have retired; if so, are people so affected notified of any changes to disclosure of official information provisions; 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) I have (a) employees and (b) staff subject to the provisions of (i) the Crimes Act 1914, (ii) the Atomic Energy Act 1953, and (iii) the Public Service Act 1922 and regulations. Sections 70 (1) and (2), 71 (1), 72 and 79 of the Crimes Act, Sections 52 and 53 of the Atomic Energy Act and Public Service Regulations 34 and 35 apply. These employees and staff are employed in the Department of Resources and Energy and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. (2) On engagement, commencement or appointment an employee signs for and receives a document which sets out the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act and the Public Service Regulations or the Crimes Act and Atomic Energy Act as appropriate. (3) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Retained in the Department until the employee either commences with another Department, or in the case of retirement or death, in the Australian Archives until the officer would have attained the age of 71 years. (d) Until the provisions of the previous Acts and regulations are invalidated. (4) Yes. (5) No. (6) Yes, by verbal or written request to the Security Officer, Department of Resources and Energy or the Personnel Section, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, as appropriate. (7) Not without the express consent of the employee or staff member concerned. (8) Sections 70 (2) and 79 of the Crimes Act remain applicable to ex-staff. There is no similar provisions in the Atomic Energy Act or Public Service Act and Regulations. After retirement ex-staff are not notified of any changes to disclosure of offical information provisions; there is no requirement to do so in the legislation and neither is it possible to keep up to date records of addresses after separation. (Question No. 1708) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports of a recent arrest for alleged tuna poaching by a United States vessel, in the Solomon Islands. (2) Was the patrol vessel, which made the arrest, built in Western Australia to a Western Australian Design. (3) Is the approximate cost of the vessel known; if so, what is the sum. (4) Can he say whether it would be economically viable to obtain similar vessels for coastal operations based on ports in the north west and north of Australia. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The P150 surveillance craft, which made the arrest, was built by a Western Australian consortium. The consortium, which comprises of Agnew Clough Ltd, the M. G. Kailis Group and Wigmores Ltd, developed the patrol boat from a successful United States hull design, having identified a possible international surveillance requirement for a vessel of its particular capabilities. (3) Yes. $1.2m. (4) The matters raised in the fourth question are those for which my colleague, the Minister for Defence is responsible. Accordingly, I have passed the question to him, for a response in due course. (Question No. 1714) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Is it a fact that Australia Post purchased vans to the value of $6m from British Ford rather than an Australian manufacturer; if so, what were the reasons. (2) Which companies, capable of manufacturing these vans, also tendered for the vans. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) No. In June 1984, Australia Post let a contract with the Ford Sales Company of Australia Ltd for the supply of 464 Ford Transit vans for use on street posting box clearance duties. No tender was submitted by an Australian manufacturer for a production vehicle. Several design proposals for composite vehicles based on imported chassis were received, but none of these demonstrated that production could be achieved within the appropriate time frame, given the lead time involved in design, development, testing and operational evaluation of prototype vehicles. (Note: The Ford Transit is to be manufactured by Ford in the United Kingdom but will have 30% Australian content in internal and external fittings. In addition, an agreement has been concluded between the Commonwealth and the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd, on behalf of Ford UK, to place offsets work in Australia. This agreed work will be in the automotive industry and is valued at 30% of the imported content of the Ford Transit vans to be purchased under the contract.) (2) Three vehicle manufacturers submitted tenders for imported production vehicles but the only tender which was assessed as being technically and operationally suitable was that submitted by the Ford Sales Company of Australia Ltd for the Ford Transit manufactured by Ford UK. In addition, three tenders were submitted by local automotive body builders proposing composite vehicles based on imported chassis. These proposals were design concepts only. (Question No. 1720) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 6 September 1984: (1) On what dates did he receive requests from J. R. Wood, S. Bulloch and P. Edstein, under section 13 of the Administration Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. (2) Did he reply to these requests within the 28 day period required by the Act ; if not, why not. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My office received requests from Messrs Wood and Bulloch on 9 July 1984 and from Mr Edstein on 25 June 1984. (2) Although section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act does not apply to the requests raised by the writers these letters have now been responded to. I have also met with representatives of the Motorcycle Riders' Association and invited them to join a working group to further consider the question of third party insurance relativities for motor cycles. (Question No. 1727) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: What (a) multilateral and (b) bilateral treaties are subscribed to by both Australia and the United States. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following lists set out dates and titles of the multilateral and bilateral treaties included in the published treaty lists of Australia or of the United States, or which are bilateral treaties concluded since those lists were last published. (a) As at 1 January 1983 the United States of America and Australia subscribed to the following multilateral treaties: 20 May 1875, Paris-International Metric Convention 14 March 1884, Paris-Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables 29 July 1899, The Hague-International Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 29 July 1899, The Hague-International Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War by Land 18 May 1904, Paris-International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic and Protocol of Signature 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention respecting Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Convention relative to certain Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Maritime War 18 October 1907, The Hague-International Declaration prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons 4 May 1910, Paris-International Agreement for the Suppression of Obscene Publications 23 September 1910, Brussels-International Conventions for the Unification of certain Rules of Law respecting: (i) Collisions between Vessels; and (ii) Assistance and Salvage at Sea 23 January 1912, The Hague-International Opium Convention 10 September 1919, Saint-Germain-en-Laye-Convention revising the General Act of Berlin, 26 February 1885, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels 2 July 1890 with regard to Africa 10 September 1919, Saint-Germain-en-Laye-Convention relating to the Liquor Traffic in Africa, and Protocol 9 February 1920, Paris-Treaty regulating the Status of Spitzbergen and conferring the Sovereignty on Norway 6 October 1921, Sevres-International Convention respecting the creation of an International Office of Weights and Measures and the Regulations annexed thereto 6 February 1922, Washington-Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal relating to Principles and Policies to be followed in Matters concerning China 6 February 1922, Washington-Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal relating to the Chinese Customs Tariff 25 January 1924, Paris-International Agreement for the Creation at Paris of an International Office for dealing with Contagious diseases of Animals 25 March 1924, Sofia-Protocol recording the Arrangements for the Recovery of the Cost of the Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria 25 August 1924, Brussels-International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 17 June 1925, Geneva-Protocol for the Prohibition of the use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 25 September 1926, Geneva-International Convention with the object of securing the Abolition of Slavery and the Slave Trade 27 August 1928, Paris-International Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy 12 October 1929, Warsaw-International Convention for the Unification of Rules relating to International Carriage by Air and Protocol 12 April 1930, The Hague-Protocol relating to Military Obligations in certain cases of Double Nationality 22 April 1930, London-International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament 13 July 1931, Geneva-International Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, and Protocol of Signature 15 March 1940, Rome-Statute of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law 1 January 1942, Washington-Declaration by the United Nations 7 December 1944, Chicago-Interim Agreement on Civil Aviation 7 December 1944, Chicago-International Air Services Transit Agreement 26 June 1945, San Francisco-Charter of the United Nations 26 June 1945, San Francisco-Statute of the International Court of Justice 8 August 1945, London-Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal 16 October 1945, Quebec-Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 16 November 1945, London-Constitution of the United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 27 December 1945, Washington-Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund 27 December 1945, Washington-Articles of Agreement of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 13 February 1946, London-Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 22 July 1946, New York-Arrangement establishing an Interim Commission of the World Health Organisation 9 October 1946, Montreal-Instrument for the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation 2 December 1946, Washington-International Whaling Convention 11 December 1946, Lake Success-Protocol amending the Agreements Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs of 23 January 1912, 11 February 1925, 19 February 1925, 13 July 1931, 27 November 1931, and 26 June 1936 6 February 1947, Canberra-Agreement establishing the South Pacific Commission 10 February 1947, Paris-Treaty of Peace-Bulgaria 10 February 1947, Paris-Treaty of Peace-Hungary 10 February 1947, Paris-Treaty of Peace-Italy 10 February 1947, Paris-Treaty of Peace-Rumania 11 October 1947, Washington-Convention of the World Meteorological Organization 30 October 1947, Geneva-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 30 October 1947, Geneva-Protocol of Provisional Application of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 6 March 1948, Geneva-Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 19 June 1948, Geneva-Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft 14 September 1948, Geneva-Protocol for the accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 30 October 1947, of signatories of the Final Act of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment 19 November 1948, Paris-Protocol bringing under International Control Drugs outside the scope of the Convention of 13 July 1931, as amended by the Protocol of 11 December 1946 4 May 1949, New York-Protocol amending the 1910 Agreement for the Suppression of the circulation of Obscene Publications 12 August 1949, Geneva-Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 12 August 1949, Geneva-Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked members of the Armed Forces at Sea 12 August 1949, Geneva-Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field 12 August 1949, Geneva-Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in the Time of War 12 August 1949, London-Agreement to revise the Commonwealth-United States Telecommunications Agreement of 4 December 1945 19 September 1949, Geneva-Convention on Road Traffic 10 October 1949, Annecy-Protocol on Accessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 30 October 1947 15 December 1950, Brussels-Convention establishing a Customs Co-operation Council 21 April 1951, Torquay-Declaration on the Continued Application of the Schedules to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 30 October 1947 1 September 1951, San Francisco-Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America 8 September 1951, San Francisco-Treaty of Peace and Protocol-Japan 31 October 1951, The Hague-Statute of The Hague Conference on Private International Law 6 December 1951, Rome-International Plant Protection Convention 20 May 1952, Geneva-Protocol for the Termination of the Brussels Agreement of 29 November 1906, and 20 August 1929, on Pharmacopoeial Formulas 12 June 1952, Washington-Agreement for the Settlement of Disputes arising under Article 15 (a) of the Peace Treaty of 8 September 1951 6 September 1952, Geneva-Universal Copyright Convention 6 September 1952, Geneva-Protocol annexed to the Universal Copyright Convention of 6 September 1952, concerning the Application of the Convention to the Works of Stateless Persons and Refugees 6 September 1952, Geneva-Protocol annexed to the Universal Copyright Convention of 6 May 1952, concerning the Application of the Convention to the Works of certain International Organisations 6 September 1952, Geneva-Protocol annexed to the Universal Copyright Convention of 6 September 1952, concerning the effective Date of Instruments of Ratification or Acceptance of or Accession to the Convention 7 November 1952, Geneva-International Convention to facilitate the Importation of Commercial Samples and Advertising Material 27 February 1953, London-Agreement on German External Debts 31 March 1953, New York-Convention on the Political Rights of Women 23 June 1953, New York-Protocol for limiting and regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, the Production of, International and Wholesale Trade in, and use of Opium 19 October 1953, Venice-Constitution of the Inter-governmental Committee on European Migration 7 December 1953, New York-Protocol amending the Slavery Convention of 25 September 1926 12 May 1954, London-International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil 4 June 1954, New York-Convention concerning Customs facilities for Touring; and Additional Protocol 4 June 1954, New York-Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles 14 June 1954, Montreal-Protocol amending Article 45 of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944 8 September 1954, Manila-South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty 25 May 1955, Washington-Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation 12 October 1955, Paris-Convention establishing the International Organisation of Legal Metrology 18 May 1956, Geneva-Customs Convention on Containers 7 September 1956, Geneva-Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery and Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery 26 October 1956, New York-Statute of International Atomic Energy Agency 5 November-5 December 1956, New Delhi-Statutes of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property as amended at Rome on 12 April 1973 19 November 1956, Washington-Protocol to the International Whaling Convention of 2 December 1946 29 April 1958, Geneva-Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 29 April 1958, Geneva-Convention on the High Seas 29 April 1958, Geneva-Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas 29 April 1958, Geneva-Convention on the Continental Shelf 10 June 1958, New York-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 12 November 1959, Tokyo-Declaration relating to the provisional Accession of Tunisia to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1 December 1959, Washington-Antarctic Treaty 21 December 1959, Geneva-International Telecommunication Convention, Final Protocol, Additional Protocol and Radio Regulations 26 January 1960, Washington-Articles of Agreement of the International Development Association 17 June 1960, London-International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 19 September 1960, Karachi-Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement 14 December 1960, Paris-Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, with Supplementary Protocols Nos. 1 and 2 of 14 December 1960 30 March 1961, New York-Single Convention on Narcotics 18 April 1961, Vienna-Convention on Diplomatic Relations 18 April 1961, Vienna-Optional Protocol on the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 8 June 1961, Brussels-Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Professional Equipment 6 December 1961, Brussels-Customs Convention on the A.T.A. Carnet for the Temporary Admission of Goods 14 September 1962, Rome-Protocol amending Article 48(a) of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944 24 April 1963, Vienna-Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 5 August 1963, London, Moscow, Washington-Treaty banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water 14 September 1963, Tokyo-Convention on offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 17 December 1963, New York-Resolution for the Amendment of the Charter of the United Nations 6 April 1964, Washington-Indus Basin Development Fund (Supplemental) Agreement 10 July 1964, Vienna-Constitution of the Universal Postal Union and Final Protocol 18 March 1965, Washington-Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States 8 July 1965, New York-Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States 4 December 1965, Manila-Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank 20 December 1965, New York-Amendment to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations 15 April 1966, London-International Convention on Load Lines 26 September 1966, Vienna-Agreement between the Government of Australia and the United States of America, and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards 27 January 1967, London, Moscow, Washington-Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies 31 January 1967, New York-Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 23 May 1967, Geneva-Amendments to Article 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation 3 May 1967, Monaco-Convention on the International Hydrographic Organization 22 May 1967, Geneva-WHO Nomenclature Regulations 14 July 1967, Stockholm-Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation 14 July 1967, Stockholm-Nice Agreement concerning the International classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of Registration of Marks June 15, 1957, as revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967 14 July 1967, Stockholm-Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967 22 April 1968, London, Moscow, Washington-Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and the Return of Astronauts and the Return of objects launched into outer space 1 July 1968, Washington, London, Moscow-Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 24 September 1968, Buenos Aires-Protocol on the Authentic Trilingual Text of Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944) 23 June 1969, London-International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 19 June 1970, Washington-Patent Co-operation Treaty with Regulations 29 November 1969, Brussels-International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 27 September 1970, Mexico City-World Tourism Organisation Statutes 16 December 1970, The Hague-Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 11 February 1971, London, Moscow, Washington-Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea- bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof 20 February 1971, Washington-Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1971 21 February 1971, Vienna-Convention on Psychotropic Substances 24 March 1971, Strasbourg-Strasbourg Agreement concerning the International Patent Classification 7 July 1971, Vienna-Protocol relating to an amendment to Article 56 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 24 July 1971, Paris-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 9 September 1886. As revised from time to time and at Paris on 24 July 1971 24 July 1971, Paris-Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971 and Protocols 1 and 2 annexed thereto 20 August 1971, Washington-Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation 'INTELSAT' 20 August 1971, Washington-Operating Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation 'INTELSAT' 23 September 1971, Montreal-Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation 29 October 1971, Geneva-Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms 20 December 1971, New York-Amendment to Article 61 of the Charter of the United Nations 25 March 1972, Geneva-Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs , 1961 29 March 1972, London, Moscow, Washington-Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 10 April 1972, London, Moscow, Washington-Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction 20 October 1972, London-Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing of Collisions at Sea, 1972 23 November 1972, Paris-Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 30 November 1972, Paris-Protocol to amend the Convention signed at Paris on 22 November, 1928 relating to International Exhibitions 2 December 1972, Geneva-International Convention for Safe Containers. 29 December 1972, London, Mexico City, Moscow, Washington-International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 3 March 1973, Washington-Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 22 May 1973, Geneva-Amendment to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation 25 October 1973, Malaga-Torremolinos-International Telecommunications Convention and Additional Protocols and Optional Protocols on Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 14 December 1973, New York-Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents 20 December 1973, Geneva-Arrangements regarding International Trade in Textiles 5 July 1974, Lausanne-Universal Postal Union. Second Additional Protocol to the Constitution. Postal Parcels Agreement with Final Protocol and Detailed Regulations. Universal Postal Convention with Final Protocol and Detailed Regulations. General Regulations and Final Protocol. 16 October 1974, Montreal-Protocol relating to an amendment to Article 50 (a) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1 November 1974, London-International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 18 November 1974, Paris-Agreement on an International Energy Program as amended 3 December 1975, London-International Coffee Agreement 1976 13 June 1976, Rome-Agreement establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development 3 September 1976, London-Convention and Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT) 10 December 1976, New York-Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques 7 October 1977, Geneva-International Sugar Agreement 1977 17 February 1978, London-Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 12 April 1979, Geneva-Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 12 April 1979, Geneva-Arrangement regarding Bovine Meat 12 April 1979, Geneva-International Dairy Arrangement 12 April 1979, Geneva-Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 12 April 1979, Geneva-Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 12 April 1979, Geneva-Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on tariffs and Trade 6 October 1979, Geneva-International Natural Rubber Agreement, 1979 26 October 1979, Rio de Janiero-General Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol, Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol, Universal Postal Convention 1 November 1979, Geneva-Protocol to the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 6 March 1980, London-Food Aid Convention, 1980 20 May 1980, Canberra-Convention on the Conservation of Antartic Marine Living Resources 24 March 1981, Washington-1981 Protocols for the Sixth Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention, 1971 and the First Extension of the Food Aid Convention, 1980 constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971 (b) As at 19 October 1984 the United States and Australia subscribed to the following bilateral treaties: 3 July 1815, London-Convention of Commerce 2 March 1899, Washington-Convention relative to the Disposal of Real and Personal Property 13 January 1902, Washington-Convention Supplementary to the Convention of 2 March 1899 (above) 24 October 1912-12 February 1913, Melbourne-Washington-Convention for the Exchange of Money Orders between the Postal Administrations of the two countries 27 May 1936, Washington-Convention amending the Convention of 2 March 1889, relative to the Disposal of Real and Personal Property 3 September 1942, Washington-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement relating to the Principles applying to the Provision of Aid in the Prosecution of the Second World War 7 June 1946, Washington-New York-Agreement regarding Settlement for Lend-Lease, Reciprocal Aid, Surplus War Property and Claims 3 December 1946, Washington-Air Transport Agreement 10 March 1947, Canberra-Agreement regarding facilities at Eagle Farm and Amberley Aerodromes 10 February 1950, Canberra-Agreement for the Waiver of Visa Fees 1-20 February 1951, Washington-Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement relating to Mutual Defence Assistance 16 November 1951, Washington-Agreement relating to training and other technical services to be furnished by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority 16-27 May 1952, Melbourne-Washington-Agreement on the Exchange of Parcels Post 9 July-25 August 1952, Canberra-Exchange of Notes modifying Article 3 (b) of the Agreement of 7 June 1946 (above) and Article 11 of the Agreement of 26 November 1949 (above) relating to Lend Lease Settlement Funds 14 May 1953, Washington-Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income 14 May 1953, Washington-Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Gifts 29 July-9, 17, 20 August 1955, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement relating to non-immigrant passport visas 19-31 December 1956, Canberra-Exchange of Notes regarding the Furnishing of Supplies and Services to Naval Vessels 12 July 1957, Washington-Agreement for Co-operation regarding Atomic Information for Mutual Defence Purposes 12 August 1957, Washington-Exchange of Notes amending the Air Transport Agreement of 3 December 1946 24 January 1958, Washington-Agreement to facilitate the Interchange of Patent Rights of Technical Information for Defence Purposes, together with Exchange of Notes 19-25 February 1958, Canberra-Exchange of Notes relating to the establishment of a Weather Station on Nauru Island 13 March-1 June-19 August 1959, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement relating to Non-Immigrant Visa Procedures 23 August 1960, Washington-Mutual Weapons Development Program Agreement 5 June 1961, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for Co- operation in a Transit Navigational Satellite Program 28 March 1963, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for the amendment of the Agreement of 19-31 December 1956, for the Furnishing of Supplies and Services to Naval Vessels 9 May 1963, Canberra-Agreement relating to the establishment of a United States Naval Communication Station in Australia 9 May 1963, Canberra-Agreement concerning the Status of United States Forces in Australia, and Protocol 28 August 1964, Canberra-Agreement for the Financing of Certain Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs 25 June 1965, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement regarding the reciprocal granting of authorisations to permit licensed amateur radio operators of either country to operate their stations in the other country 9 December 1966, Canberra-Agreement relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility 12 May 1967, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for the Amendment of the Agreement of 28 August 1964 for the Financing of Certain Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs 12 July 1968, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for the Amendment of the Agreement of 9 May 1963 relating to the Establishment of a United States Naval Communications Station in Australia 16 October 1968, Canberra-Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co- operation 10 November 1969, Canberra-Agreement relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Communications Station in Australia 9 November 1973, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning the Disposal of United States Government Excess Property in Australia 21 March 1974, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement of 9 May 1963 relating to the Establishment of a United States Naval Communications Station in Australia, as amended on 12 July 1968 14 May 1974, Washington-Extradition Treaty 24 December 1974-11 June 1975, Washington-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement relating to reciprocal acceptance of airworthiness certifications 31 January-26 February 1975, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning the discontinuance of the facility used in measuring the physical effects of disturbances in the atmosphere or in space and the transfer of this facility to the Australian National University 8 June-20 September 1977, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for the Establishment in South Eastern Australia of an OMEGA Navigation Facility 14-27 October 1977, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of a Solar Observatory 19 October 1977, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement extending the Agreement relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility of 9 December 1966 28 February 1978, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement regarding the Management and Operation of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs 10 October 1978, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement further extending the Agreement of 16 October 1968 relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation 5 July 1979, Canberra-Agreement concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy 29 May 1980, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement further amending the Agreement concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communication Facilities of 1970 11 March 1981, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement for the staging of United States B-52 aircraft and associated KC-135 tanker aircraft through Royal Australian Air Force Base Darwin 21 July 1981, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to Amend the Agreement concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communications Facilities 1970 as amended 29 June 1982, Washington-Agreement relating to co-operation on Antitrust Matters 24 November 1982, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement further amending the Agreement of 9 May 1963 relating to the establishment of a United States Naval Communication Station in Australia, as amended 8-19 September 1983, Washington-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement regarding the Importation of Meat into the United States of America during 1983 6 October-14 November 1983, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement further extending the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation of 16 October 1968 17 February 1984, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America regarding Future Management and Operation of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs 10 April-10 May 1984, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning Access to the Repair and Maintenance Facilities of Australian Ports to United States Fishing Vessels 16 April-11 May 1984, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to extend the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United States of America 18 October 1984, Canberra-Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning the use of Balloon Launching Facilities in Australia (Question No. 1735) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In June 1984, the memorandum was circulated in the Department and to the statutory authority reporting to the Minister-the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. (3) There have been discussions between the Department and unions on matters covered by the Board's circular and steps have already been taken to facilitate union membership. For example, the Department has a policy of encouraging union representatives to conduct information sessions at staff induction courses; information on union membership and activities is included in staff induction material; union noticeboards are provided in agreed locations within Departmental premises. These arrangements have been implemented on a progressive basis within the various offices of the Department. I would also add that the Department was amongst the first to establish at the national and State levels consultative bodies with unions having membership within the Department. The Australian Trade Union Training Authority takes similar steps to facilitate union membership. (Question No. 1738) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Department of Resources and Energy circulated copies of the memorandum to each major area of the Department and all regional offices. A precis was included in the staff newsletter 'Resource' of 31 August 1984. The Division of National Mapping and Bureau of Mineral Resources posted copies of the memorandum on notice boards. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission repeated the text of the memorandum in Commission Information Circular 14/1984 of 26 June 1984. The Pipeline Authority issued a staff notice, 1984/22 on 15 June 1984 reflecting the text of the memorandum. The Joint Coal Board has not brought the memorandum to the notice of staff. Although Joint Board officers are eligible to members of the Joint Coal Board Staff Association, a registered trade union, they have not been considered eligible for membership of any registered industrial union, in particular the Public Service unions. To overcome this the Joint Coal Board Staff Association and the Public Service Association are in the final stages of completing amendments of its rules to admit Joint Coal Board officers as members. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority has not brought the memorandum to the notice of staff. The Authority has elected to await further positive guidelines foreshadowed by the Public Service Board. (3) The Department of Resources and Energy provides all new staff with information about staff organisations on commencement. Staff eligible to be members of the Professional Officers Association are provided with membership application forms. This procedure is to be extended to potential members of other unions. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission draws the provisions to the notice of all persons taking up duty with the Commission. The Pipeline Authority maintains liaison with staff organisations which have membership within the Authority. Access to the workplace is provided for legitimate staff organisation business and to investiage terms and conditions of employment. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority has not taken any additional action but proposes to do so when the Public Service Board issues positive guidelines. The Joint Coal Board has not taken additional action because of the current action between the Joint Coal Board Staff Association and the Public Service Association regarding amending its rules to admit Joint Coal Board officers as members. (Question No. 1749) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. A summary of issues raised in the memorandum was included in the Staff Bulletin of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism on 8 and 29 June 1984. Copies of the memorandum were placed on all staff notice boards in the offices of the Australian Tourist Commission. In addition, copies were forwarded to all ATC representatives overseas. (3) The content of the memorandum was given the widest possible circulation to staff upon its receipt. Staff were advised of relevant contact points for further information. (Question No. 1762) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: Will he propose to the United Nations a schedule of international rights along the lines of Australian statutes to protect bereaved relatives and guardians against the improper use of human remains. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I understand the honourable member's reference to the improper use of human remains would be intended to relate to such actions as the removal of organs, for transplant, from cadavers without the consent of the dead person's relatives . Enquiries have shown that, internationally, practice (often for reasons of religious significance) ranges from the complete inviolability of human remains to laws that allow hospital authorities freedom to remove organs for transplant operations. Accordingly the Government does not consider this to be a subject amenable to regulation by international Convention. I therefore do not intend to propose to the United Nations a schedule of rights. (Question No. 1764) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: (1) When is a medical cyclotron to be constructed which will produce the other half of the periodic table of radioisotopes. (2) At which public hospital will the medical cyclotron be built. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There are no immediate plans to construct a national medical cyclotron facility in Australia. However, funds have been allocated in the 1984-85 Budget to the Department of Health for a feasibility study into the technical and economic aspects of siting such a facility in Australia. (2) The location, if any, of the cyclotron facility will be considered in the context of the feasibility study. (Question No. 1773) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 11 September 1984: (1) Have shipping rates for Australian exporters to Asian destinations recently risen by up to 35 per cent. (2) If so, is he able to say whether this increase was caused largely by trade union intimidation preventing open competition. (3) Does this increase have the endorsement of the Government under section 10 of the Trade Practices Act. (4) Will he take action to ensure that fair competition prevails in the future. (5) What steps is the Government taking to prevent a flow-on of these new rates to shipping freight to Japan. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1, 2 and 5) Freight rates for 1984 for cargoes to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Philippines were the subject of commercial negotiations between the Australian Shippers' Council (ASC) and the Australian Northbound Shipping Conference late in 1983. As a result of these negotiations there was no increase in the scheduled freight tariff rates in these trades but some concessional rates were not renewed for 1984. Following negotiations between the ASC and the relevant shipping conferences freight rates to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand rose by 7 per cent from 1 May 1984. (3) Part X of the Trade Practices Act provides a framework for commercial negotiations between the designated shipper body (ASC) and shipowners engaged in the carriage of Australia's outwards cargoes. The Government is not required to endorse the outcome of these commercial negotiations. (4) Since the development of Australia's existing legislative approach for overseas liner shipping in the 1960s there have been major changes in world shipping and over the past 18 months there has been considerable dissatisfaction expressed to me about this legislation. I have therefore decided to initiate a complete review of Australia's overseas liner shipping arrangements commencing with a detailed examination by an industry task force. The Task Force will include representatives of shippers, shipping industry and unions, and the report of the Task Force will be incorporated into a draft policy paper which will be circulated for public comment. The terms of reference for the Task Force are as follows: ''To consider, report, and make recommendations to the Minister for Transport on matters relating to Australian overseas liner shipping, with particular reference to: 1. Whether existing legislation remains appropriate, and if not, the changes required for effective regulation of the commercial aspects of general cargo shipping. 2. Australia's requirement for stable adequate and efficient shipping services in its international commerce. 3. Commercial practices in Australia's liner shipping services, including such matters as loyalty agreements and rebating. 4. The role of national flag shipping in the carriage of Australia's international trade. 5. Relevant international developments influencing the economics and structure of international general cargo shipping services. 6. The UN Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences and other multilateral regulatory developments. 7. Australia's bilateral and regional shipping relationships. 8. Such other matters as may be referred by the Minister for Transport. The Task Force will be chaired by Mr John Rowland, Deputy Secretary of my Department, and will include the following members: Mr David Asimus, Chairman, Australian Wool Corporation Mr Max Blair, President, Australian Shippers' Council Mr John Jenkins, Chairman and Managing Director, Overseas Containers Australia Pty Ltd Mr Max Moore-Wilton, Managing Director, Australian Shipping Commission. A representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and an academic will also be appointed to the Task Force. It is envisaged that the report of the Task Force will be completed in mid-1985 to allow the preparation and release of the draft policy paper before the end of 1985. Any consideration by the Government of changes to the existing arrangements will only take place after full examination of the Task Force Findings and recommendations and any public comments received. (Question No. 1788) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: Has Australia supported the French proposals of 8 June 1984 at a summit of non- communist industrialised nations that (a) developed and developing countries meet for talks on the reform of the international monetary system and (b) a world grain fund be set up; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) While the French authorities have from time to time called for a world conference to consider certain reforms of international monetary arrangements ( as have the previous New Zealand Government and a number of developing countries ), no such proposal was endorsed at the London Summit of the major industrialised nations in June 1984. Rather, the Summit's Economic Declaration invited Finance Ministers of the Summit countries to carry forward their current work on ways to improve the operation of the international monetary system, including exchange rates, surveillance, the creation, control and distribution of international liquidity and the role of the International Monetary Fund, with a view to discussing these issues at an early meeting of the IMF Interim Committee. The Summit countries also attached particular importance to seeking to '' improve the operation and stability of the international financial system, by means of prudent policies among the major countries, by providing an adequate flow of funding to international financial institutions and by improving international access to capital markets in industrialised countries''. Australia fully supports these objectives. The Government remains sceptical that conferences of the kind so far proposed on international monetary reform could achieve agreement on useful and responsible improvements to the current arrangements. This view is widely shared . Australia fully supports the flexibility shown by existing multilateral institutions in responding to recent problems in international financial markets and looks forward to a process of continued adaptation to changing international requirements through negotiations within those institutions. In that context, Australia supported the recent initiative of the IMF Interim Committee in proposing intensified discussions within the Committee of economic issues of concern to member countries. (b) According to the record, no French proposal was made at the London Summit for the establishment of a world grain fund. Two members of the EC Commission, both French but acting in a private capacity, have publicly raised the question of enhanced food security for developing countries. The EC Development Commissioner M. Pisani, in 1982, proposed that the EC give priority to food security as part of a comprehensive package to promote economic development in the Third World. In April 1984, the European Community's Director General of Agriculture, M. Villain, suggested, as part of a three-part proposal to increase world food security, that a mechanism for the improvement of the facilities available to wheat importers be considered. Neither proposal, however, specifically mentioned the establishment of a world grain fund and neither has been endorsed by EC member governments, including France. (Question No. 1789) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the agreement between President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on 29 May 1984 to form a group to study the possible development of a military observation satellite and to increase Western European unity. (2) Is he able to say whether Australia would divert 1% of its defence budget to this project if so requested by the European Parliament. (3) Will Australia meanwhile seek a voice in this first practical step towards effective disarmament surveillance from outer space other than the secret systems of the 2 superpowers. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that at their Summit Meeting at Rambouillet on 28-29 May this year, President Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany agreed on the formation of a study group to examine a French proposal for the joint development and launching of an observation satellite which could be used for military purposes. I understand a committee of French and German officials is now looking at what type of satellite might be produced, its role, cost and what sort of technology might be used. It may report by the end of the year. The project agreed at Rambouillet should not be confused with that mentioned in a separate reference made by President Mitterrand in a speech he made in The Hague in February. On that occasion he referred to the desirability of eventually establishing an independent European military surveillance capacity in space through the development of a manned orbital space station. This second idea is consistent with France's desire to increase cooperation and achieve greater harmonisation among Europeans in the production of military equipment in the context of the Western European Union. (2) & (3) The project agreed at Rambouillet is purely a bilateral initiative and it is not envisaged that financial or any other participation be invited from third countries. The proposal, as far as I am aware, has not been referred to the European Parliament for consideration. The Australian Government strongly supports effective monitoring and verification of arms limitation and disarmament agreements. It is and will remain alert to opportunities for Australia to contribute further to this objective. (Question No. 1794) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) Has he complained to USSR officials over the alleged tampering by Soviet postal authorities with relief parcels sent by Australians for the families of imprisoned Ukrainian dissidents; if so, (a) when, (b) where and (c) to whom has he complained. (2) Has he also complained about the restriction, since 1 July 1984, on parcels being sent to the USSR, on behalf of families and friends, by western parcel companies. (3) Is he able to say whether it is now an offence for a Soviet citizen to receive material assistance from a western welfare agency, punishable by 10 years hard labour and 5 years internal exile. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. If it were established that a systematic pattern of tampering with postal articles existed, such action might need to be considered. (2) No. (3) I believe this part of the question refers to a decree adopted by the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet on 11 January 1984, which introduces amendments and additions to the law of 25 December 1958 entitled 'Criminal Responsibility for Offences Against the State'. Article 7 of this law lays down penalities for 'Agitation or propaganda for the purposes of weakening the Soviet regime or of committing particular, especially dangerous crimes against the State, or the circulation, for the same purpose, of slanderous fabrications which defame the Soviet State and social system . . . ' The decree of last January amends this article to provide for more severe penalties than hitherto, i.e. three to ten years' imprisonment, with or without additional exile for a term of two to five years. The decree states that among the offences to which the more severe penalty is applicable are those quoted above ' . . . committed with the use of financial means or other means of material value obtained from foreign organisations or from persons working for foreign organisations.' It follows that Soviet law does not make it an offence merely to receive 'material assistance' from the West; an offence is only committed if this assistance is used for 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.' (Question No. 1798) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) Has he or Australia Post received any complaints about the late arrival in the United Kingdom of 1983 Christmas surface mail posted in Australia before the 'cut off' date last October; if so, how many complaints have been received. (2) What is the cut off date for this year. (3) What guarantee or assurance is there that mail posted before this date will arrive before Christmas. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. Accurate records of the numbers of such complaints are not available. (2) The latest posting times for surface mails to be delivered in the United Kingdom in time for Christmas 1984 are as follows: City Closing Dates (GPO) (for all categories of surface mail unless otherwise indicated) Sydney 12 October Melbourne 14 October Brisbane 9 October Perth 25 October Adelaide 12 October (Parcels) 16 October (Letters) Hobart 10 October Darwin 9 October (Parcels) 12 October (Letters) (3) The British Post Office has given an assurance that if surface parcels and letters arrive in the United Kingdom by 12 and 14 December respectively, this mail will be delivered before Christmas. Australia Post gives assurances that surface mail posted by the closing dates mentioned in part (2) above will arrive in the United Kingdom by the dates specified by the British Post Office. These assurances of timely delivery are made on the basis that no delays will occur which are outside the control of Australia Post and the British Post Office. (Question No. 1799) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) What is the usual delivery time at Modbury, South Australia, for an airmail parcel posted in Canberra at 9.15 a.m. on a Wednesday. (2) Are there any reasons why such an airmail article posted to an address in Modbury from Woden, Australian Capital Territory, on Wednesday, 29 August 1984, had not arrived by the following Monday. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) One working day, that is, delivery on Thursday. (2) Delays occurred at the Canberra Mail Centre from 29 August 1984 to 3 September 1984 resulting from heavy influxes of mail combined with high levels of absenteeism. On the limited information available, it would appear that the airmail article referred to may have been affected by these problems. (Question No. 1800) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Has Australia Post introduced, or is it considering, different arrangements for non-official post offices; if so, what are the changes and why have they been introduced. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Australia Post is not considering any changes to the services provided through non-official post offices. However, Australia Post is in the final stages of formalising the legal relationship between the Postal Commission and the private business people who provide agency services on a contractual basis through non-official post offices . To reflect the ''principal/agent'' relationship, three changes will be made: (i) The titles ''Non-official Post Office'' and ''Non-official Postmaster'' will be changed to ''Post Office Agency'' and ''Post Office Agent''. The existing titles are outdated, clumsy and ambiguous. The new titles are designed to describe more clearly the role and functions of the facility and service being provided. (ii) The documentation which has been used for engaging Non-official Postmasters has been updated to form an Agreement legally binding on both parties. This agreement will ensure a better understanding of the terms and conditions of engagement and will provide Agents with certainty of tenure. There will be fixed terms of engagement of up to three years and provision for extension for similar periods, after consultation with the Agent. Australia Post will also compensate where an Agreement is terminated prematurely for reasons other than misconduct on the part of the Agent. Under existing arrangements, a non-official post office can be closed or converted to an official post office with only three months notice and there is no provision for compensation. This unsatisfactory situation will be remedied by the new arrangements. (iii) Post Office Agents will not be covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act as Non-official Postmasters were, but Australia Post will reimburse Agents for cost of Personal Disability Insurance. These changes have been developed in collaboration with the Non-official Postmasters' Association over the past two years and written assurance has been given by Australia Post that the proposed arrangements will not erode the payments and other conditions, benefits and entitlements currently for Non- official Postmasters. There will be no change to the manner in which non-official post offices (Post Office Agencies) operate or to the services available to the public. (Question No. 1801) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Is it a fact that the travelling post offices in the west and north-west of New South Wales are no longer operating; if so, are these closures now causing long delays in the distribution of mail between country and metropolitan areas. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: When this question was asked, the two Travelling Post Offices (TPO's) operating between Sydney and Dubbo (TPO West) and Sydney and Moree (TPO North West) were still operating. Since then, the New South Wales State Rail Authority has advised that it intends to introduce revisions to the rail service on the Dubbo line from 29 October 1984. Under the revised arrangements, the train hauling the TPO West will depart from central Rail approximately two hours later than it does now. Because of the consequential adverse effect on mail delivery times throughout the Dubbo Region, Australia Post has decided to cease operations of TPO West from 25 October 1984. Mail now carried on TPO West will be processed through the decentralised mail network and will receive a standard of service comparable with that provided under the previous arrangements. (Question No. 1802) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the Redfern Mail Exchange, New South Wales, is to be replaced by 7 new centres and (b) one of the new centres at Rushcutters Bay is unfit for use due to flooding each time it rains. (2) What is the reason for the new centre at Alexandria not being operational. (3) Where are the other 5 centres to be situated and when will each be operational. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) No. The new mail centre at Rushcutters Bay was affected by flooding on only one occasion, on 12 August 1984, when about 50 mm of rain fell within a period of 30 minutes. Other buildings in the area were similarly affected. (2) The State Mail Centre at Alexandria became fully operational on 2 October 1984. (3) Two of the five remaining mail centres-St Leonards (Northern Suburbs) and Leighton field (South-Western Suburbs)-were occupied in September 1982 and October 1983 respectively. The Turella (Southern Suburbs) Mail Centre is expected to be operational by December 1984, Seven Hills (North Western Suburbs) Mail Centre by June 1985 and Clyde (International) Mail Centre by September 1985. (Question No. 1803) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Is it a fact that when the Redfern Mail Exchange, New South Wales, was fully operational there was one manager and one assistant manager, and that approximately 68 managers are now employed in their place; if so, what are the salaries of these managers. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: No. In 1979, when the mail network in New South Wales was centred on the Redfern Mail Exchange and three country mail centres, the management organisation at the Exchange and the country centres consisted of 7 positions which were designated as Manager and 10 as Assistant Manager. Under the decentralised mail network arrangements, mail centres are situated in 13 different geographical locations throughout New South Wales and the accompanying management organisation consists of 13 positions designated as Manager and 9 as Assistant Manager. In the process of decentralisation, significant changes have occurred in the network which have impacted on the functions and responsibilities of management. The current 22 management positions are not directly comparable with those which existed in 1979. (Question No. 1812) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting the the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Males Females (i) Minister's Department- June 1984 Nil Nil July 1984 Nil Nil August 1984 Nil Nil (ii) Statutory Authorities- June 1984 Nil Nil July 1984 Nil Nil August 1984 Nil Nil (Question No. 1817) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 1984. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: June 1984 July 1984 August 1984 (i) (a) 3 (a) 2 (a) 1 (b) 1 (b) 4 (b) 4 (ii) (a) 1 (a) 2 (a) 1 (b) 7 (b). . (b) 1 (Question No. 1821) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 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. 1826) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 September 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 June, July and August 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 the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism in the months of June and August 1984. One female was employed by the Department during July 1984. (b) (ii) One female has been employed by the Australian Tourism Commission during the months of June and July 1984. (Question No. 1835) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Between June and August 1984, my Department employed the following number of males and females under the Community Employment Program: Males Females Total June 18 40 58 July 3 14 17 August 3 13 16 (ii) There are no statutory authorities reporting to me. (Question No. 1842) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: What grants for capital works have been made to schools within the Electoral Division of Lowe since 1975. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Capital grants offered under the Capital Grants Program administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, to non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Lowe since 1975 are as follows: Date of offer $ Concord, St Mary's School 11.9.79 80,633 Croydon, Presbyterian Ladies College 18.12.79 57,300 Drummoyne, St Mark's Primary School 8.6.82 7,700 Enfield, St Joseph's School 22.5.80 9,206 Flemington, St Dominic's School 8.6.82 13,400 Haberfield, St Joan of Arc School 22.5.80 174,000 Haberfield, St Joan of Arc School 29.6.80 3,970 Strathfield, St Martha's Primary School 25.7.80 8,221 354,430 Grants in respect of government schools are paid by way of block grants to each State. Details of expenditure in respect of individual government schools are tabled each year in the Commonwealth Schools Commission's Report on each States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act. However data is not available by electorate. (Question No. 1843) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) What items are included in the repair and maintenance program of Australia Post within the Electoral Division of Lowe during 1984-85 and what is the estimated cost of each item. (2) Does the program include the repainting of Drummoyne Post Office; if so, when will a contract be let. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) The buildings below, within the Electoral Division of Lowe, are included in Australia Post's Repairs and Maintenance program for 1984-85. The works to be completed and the estimated costs are shown also. $ Drummoyne Post Office-Cyclical Repairs and Maintenance 30,000 Burwood Post Office-Restoration of External Stonework 10,000 Croydon Post Office and Residence-Cyclical Repairs and Maintenance 40,000 Homebush South Post Office- Cyclical Repairs and Maintenance 28,000 Homebush Post Office-Cyclical Repairs and Maintenance 34,000 Croydon Park Post Office-Cyclical Repairs and Maintenance 28,000 (2) Yes. It is expected that a contract for the repainting of the Drummoyne Post Office will be let during February 1985. (Question No. 1847) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 October 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement on page 492 of the The Nation of 13 November 1982, claiming that President Reagan sacked US Attorney William Kennedy for telling newspapers that the Justice Department was blocking indictment of Megiel Hassar Haro, former Director of Federal Security for Mexico, a CIA source on El Salvador and Guatemala rebels and head of a ring stealing US cars for sale in Mexico. (2) Will Australia indicate to the US the unacceptability of an organisation using such police state measures of truth suppression and the need for Australia to investigate thoroughly the nature of intelligence processing between Pine Gap and the US Government; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Please refer to the answer given on 17 October 1984 (Senate Hansard, page 1855) to Senator Mason's question without notice of 16 October 1984 (Senate Hansard, page 1733). (Question No. 1855) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Does the Government support the call of Pope John Paul for tripartite talks among South and North Korean and U.S. authorities to negotiate Korean unification or confederacy. (2) What conditions has Australia laid down for recognition of the Pyongyang regime. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Pope John Paul in his visit to the Republic of Korea from 3 to 6 May 1984 spoke of the tragic division of the Korean people and said that he prayed for reunification ''not through confrontation and hostility, but through dialogue, mutual trust and brotherhood''. He made no reference to tripartite talks. The Australian Government's position is contained in an adddress made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, during his visit to the Republic of Korea in February this year. In his address, Mr Hawke said: ''There have been recent indications of a disposition on the side of the DPRK to consider negotiations once again. Australia has followed these developments with interest. We have done so, not as a country with interests directly engaged in the Korean Peninsula, but as one strongly mindful of the risks posed to regional peace and stability by continued tension and conflict between the protagonists. There are clearly many questions to be resolved, but we would hope that a way could be found by which both the DPRK and the Republic of Korea might be able to commence face to face negotiations. Until this happens we are doubtful there can be any real progress.'' (2) The Australian Government has recognised the Democratic People's Republic of Korea since 1974. It established relations in that year, but these relations were interrupted in 1975. Our position on relations with the DPRK remains as stated on 20 November 1984 and that is that Australia is not prepared to contemplate the restoration of normal relations until we are satisfied that the DPRK is prepared to abide by internationally accepted norms of behaviour and renounce hostile activities against the ROK. (Question No. 1858) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: Is he able to say what the Government will do to foster democratic acceptance of the discernible alternative to the arms race, especially by promotion in Australia of loyalty to human survival before national prerogatives and short- term privileges. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government is doing all it can to halt and reverse the arms race . In my statement to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 3 October 1984 I said that the need for genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament was a crucial issue which had the very highest priority among our policies. I also pointed out that Australia has fully supported moves to draw up a draft convention on chemical weapons. If international efforts can be mobilised to eliminate these two classes of arms we will have made a huge step forward to ensuring the survival of humanity. I feel sure that the Government has the support of all Australians in its efforts in this field. (Question No. 1863) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Has the newly-created position of Principal Advisor, Business/Union Consultations, in his Department been re-advertised; if so, (a) what is the closing date of applications for the position and (b) why was this decision taken. (2) Has Mr Ted Wilshire been required to re-submit his application for this position; if so, has he done so. (3) Was an objection lodged by one of the members of the original interviewing panel to the Chairman of the Public Service Board; if so, was the objection made in writing and on what grounds was the objection lodged. (4) What were the precedents for the variation of the earlier panel which interviewed Mr Wilshire to include representatives of the ACTU and MTIA. (5) If the position has been re-advertised, and if Mr Wilshire is an applicant, will the interviewing panel again be varied in this way. (6) How many other variations of interviewing panels to include a representative of the ACTU have been made since he became Minister for Trade. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) See answer to (1) above. (3) No. However a member of the selection committee (an officer of the Public Service Board, Mr J. Foley) informed the Secretary, Department of Trade that, although he agreed with the other members of the committee that Mr Wilshire was the only applicant who met the selection criteria and that Mr Wilshire could be regarded as suitable for promotion, he considered that the position should be re -advertised and on this occasion be open for appointment or term engagement to persons who are not officers of the Public Service. Mr Foley also passed a copy of this advice to the Chairman of the Public Service Board. (4) Mr Wilshire was interviewed once for this position which was created as a result of the prices and incomes accord. In addition to officers of the Department of Trade and the Public Service Board, the selection committee included representatives of the ACTU and MTIA. Representatives of these organisations were included on the committee because of the importance of the position to the implementation of the accord. Persons from outside the Public Service were represented on the selection committee for the level 3 position of Director, Trade Commissioner Service. This practice has also been followed recently in relation to the filling of some vacancies in the Trade Commissioner Service. I am advised that some other Departments have also used the practice. (5) See answer to (1) above. (6) None. (Question No. 1867) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: Is it a fact that of the $NZ193 million Exclusive Australian Licences available to Australian exporters for the 18 month period to 30 June 1983 under the Closer Economic Relations Agreement, only $NZ138 million was utilised; if so, (a) which licences for which products were significantly under-utilised and (b) which New Zealand companies held those licences. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The first 18 months of the Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement with New Zealand covered the period 1 January 1983 to 30 June 1984. In that period Exclusive Australian Licences valued at some $A158 million were available to New Zealand firms for import only from Australia. Of this amount some $A99.7 million was taken up by New Zealand firms and approximately $A21 million used to import goods from Australia. This represented additional trade for Australia and formed part of the $A75 million increase in exports in 1983/84 for products subject to liberalisation under the Agreement. With respect to part (b) of the question, details of New Zealand companies which obtained exclusive licences have been published in several issues of the New Zealand Government Gazette. There is considerable detail involving some 400 licence categories and over 1,875 individual firms. If the honourable member would like copies of these Gazettes I could have them made available. In relation to part (a), information relating to the use of particular licences issued to New Zealand firms is not made public because it could be used by competitors or others to the disadvantage of the licence holder. However, a summary analysis of available data shows that of the approximately 400 licence categories, in some 250 cases greater than 25% of the value of licences actually issued were used. (Question No. 1868) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1421 (Hansard, 6 June 1984, page 3042 ) what tonnage of each variety of cheese was imported from the EEC in the July- September 1984 quarter. (2) What tonnage of each variety of cheese was imported from non-EEC European countries for (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c) the July-September 1984 quarter. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian Bureau of Statistics cheese import statistics are not yet available for September 1984. However for the period July-August 1984 cheese imports from the EEC are set out in the following table. July-August 1984 (p) (tonnes) Processed Cheese- Cheddar 25.2 Gruyere 0 Emmenthaler 52.2 Pastes, spreads, etc. 113.2 Other 192.2 Natural Cheese- Blue-veined 108.6 Camembert 214.7 Esrom 8.1 Other surface-ripened 93.6 Cheddar 25.2 Other Cheddar type 8.2 Edam 134.0 Gouda 27.9 Other Edam/ Gouda type 1.4 Fetta 172.5 Other white brine pickled type 1.8 Parmesan 19. 4 Other hard rating 48.6 Mozzarella 0.1 Provolone 76.5 Kasseri 57.4 Other stretch curd 62.5 Emmenthaler 16.7 Other Swiss type 0 Havarti 44.1 Soft white unripened type 0.1 Other cheese 200.9 Total 1,705.3 (2) Australian Bureau of Statistics cheese import statistics are not available for September 1984. However for 1982-83, 1983-84 and July-August 1984, cheese imports from non-EEC European Countries are set out in the following table. July- 1982-83 1983-84 August (r) (p) 1984(p) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Processed Cheese- Cheddar 0 0 0 Gruyere 108.8 124.0 0 Emmenthaler 21.7 45.9 0 Pastes, spreads, etc. 0 1.0 0 Other 59.5 82.6 1.8 Natural Cheese- Blue-veined 3.5 10.6 1.2 Camembert 0 0 0 Esrom n/a 0.1 0 Other surface-ripened n/a 128.0 35.7 Cheddar 0.9 1.8 0 Other Cheddar type n/a 1. 2 0 Edam 96.0 308.7 37.6 Gouda 34.3 98.3 1.7 Other Edam/Gouda type n/a 0. 9 0.5 Fetta 749.4 801.2 110.1 Other white brine pickled type n/a 36.2 0 Parmesan 0.1 0 0 Other hard rating n/a 28.0 0 Mozzarella 0 0 0 Provolone 0 0 0 Kasseri 0 0 0 Other stretch curd n/a 0 0 Emmenthaler 468.0 359.1 40.2 Other Swiss type n/a 871.4 79.1 Havarti n/a 0 0 Soft white unripened type n/a 12.1 10.5 Other cheese 1,636.8 1,353.6 265.6 Total 3,179.0 4,264.7 584.0 Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding. (p)-preliminary (r)-revised n/a-not available Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (Question No. 1869) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: What tonnage of lamb and sheepmeat was imported from New Zealand in each of the first 3 quarters of 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Revised import statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS ) show that imports in the first two quarters of 1984 were: Jan.-March April-June Lamb nil nil Mutton 935.3 tonnes 1,579.7 tonnes Import statistics for the third quarter are not yet available in total. For the months of July and August 1984 preliminary import figures were July August Lamb nil nil Mutton 83.6 tonnes 312.9 tonnes (Question No. 1870) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: (1) Further to the answer to Question No. 1201 (Hansard, 29 May 1984, page 2398 ) what quantity of (a) ice cream, (b) ice cream mixes, (c) skim milk powder, (d) whole milk powder and (e) other dairy products (excluding cheese) was imported from New Zealand for each of the first 3 quarters of 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Dairy Products Imported from New Zealand Jan- April- July- March June August 1984 (p) 1984 (p) 1984 (p) Ice cream (tonnes) 188.2 172.1 0 Ice cream mix (tonnes) 0 4.5 30.6 Skim milk powder (tonnes) 287.0 115.9 78.5 Whole milk powder (tonnes) 80.0 130.1 1.0 Whey (tonnes) 31.1 34.2 2.3 Condensed milk (tonnes) 81.5 89.0 34.3 Casein (value* $000) 120.1 86.1 173.0 Note: Australian Bureau of Statistics import figures for September 1984 are not as yet available. (p) preliminary. * tonnage not available. Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Question No. 1875) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: Has an application for a post office or agency for Mount Riverview, NSW, been rejected by Australia Post; if so, why. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Yes. The request was rejected because Australia Post considers that facilities in the area are meeting the reasonable postal needs of Mount Riverview residents . The Blaxland East Non-official Post Office is only 2 km away from the Mount Riverview shopping centre and a newsagency at the shopping centre is licensed to sell postage stamps. In addition, a street posting box is located outside the centre. (Note: Australia Post does not establish post offices in urban areas which are 2 km or less from an existing post office unless special circumstances exist. There are no special circumstances in this case.) (Question No. 1883) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: (1) Was the Governor-General consulted on the removal of the Royal Crown of St Edward from the cover of the Australian passport. (2) Is the crown to be removed from all official documents, including those which contain the Governor-General's signature. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Royal Crown has been removed from the cover of the Australian passport in the light of expert heraldic advice that the Australian coat of arms displayed on the cover should not be depicted below (i.e. in a position inferior to) any other heraldic symbol, and in the absence of proof that formal permission was originally given for the use of the Crown on the Australian passport. The decision was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in accordance with sub-section 7 (2) of the Passports Act 1938 which provides that Australian passports shall be in such forms as are approved by the Minister. (2) I am not aware of any such proposal. (Question No. 1893) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 October 1984: (1) Is it a fact that a letter posted by a company in Northern Sydney on 6 September 1984 addressed to the Shire of East Loddon, Serpentine, Vic, was not delivered until 14 September. (2) What is the standard delivery time for such a letter. (3) As the letter was a tender, and the closing date for tenders was 11 September 1984, what redress do (a) the Shire and (b) the company have. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes, this unregistered standard article was delivered on 14 September 1984. (NOTE: The letter bore a franking machine impression, dated 6 September 1984, made by the franking machine located in the office of the sender. It has been established that mail from the company concerned is collected at 5pm daily by a courier service for subsequent lodgment at the Rushcutters Bay Mail Centre, but the date of posting of the article in question cannot be established conclusively. Australia Post has no reason to believe that the article was not posted on the date it was franked.) (2) A standard article posted at the Rushcutters Bay Mail Centre, New South Wales, before the advertised closing time of 11.30 a.m. should be delivered to an addressee in Serpentine, Victoria, on the next working day after posting; standard articles posted after this time should be delivered on the second working day. (3) (a) and (b) Neither the Shire nor the company has any redress against Australia Post. The Postal By-laws specifically exclude the payment of compensation in respect of any indirect or consequential loss associated with the delay to the contents of an unregistered article. (Question No. 1894) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 October 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a proposal by Mr B. Clayton, Box 152, Blackwater, Qld, that (a) one unpaid holiday per month be taken by workers in an industry with 3% jobless, increasing to a maximum of 7 days per month, with no more overtime than was required in the previous 4 weeks, unless specifically approved and (b) appropriate work tests be implemented for proposed immigrants. (2) What consideration has the Government given to (a) implementing and (b) recommending the proposal. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Representations have not been received from Mr Clayton. (2) (a) and (b) On the basis of the information in the honourable member's question, there would be limited scope to adopt Mr Clayton's first proposal for the following reasons. Beyond the sphere of its own employees and those in the Territories, the Australian Government's powers to control directly the conditions under which employment occurs in Australia are heavily circumscribed. In any event it would not be appropriate for Government intervention, on the scale envisaged by Mr Clayton, to occur in the face of working provisions laid down in awards and agreement over many years. Mr Clayton's proposal for a form of job sharing, involving reductions in monthly pay, would need to win the support of employees and employers to enable award provisions to be varied along the lines proposed. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the effective creation of higher degrees of under-employment would contribute to commensurate increases in people in jobs, not least because of the costs involved in employing additional staff compared with the full utilisation of existing employees. On a more general plane the Government's main aim is the achievement of sustained economic growth at a high level as the prime means of bringing about strong employment growth and a reduction in the unacceptable level of unemployment. Job sharing arrangements may be appropriate in special circumstances if agreement can be reached between the employers and employees concerned, but the Government's first priority must be to raise the growth of jobs in the economy as a whole. Regarding the issue of work tests, the Government's immigration program continues to give priority to social and humanitarian objectives, with family migrants and refugees making up nearly 80 per cent of the current year's intake. In determining the size of the total program, however, specific account is taken of the capacity of the labour market to absorb new migrants. In addition, under the skilled labour component of the program, migrants are admitted only where there is a demonstrated requirement for their skills and where their qualifications and experience are consistent with labour market needs. New arrangements for skilled migration introduced by the Government aim to reduce over time Australia's reliance on overseas skills by means of appropriate increases in domestic education and training effort. A maximum of 7,500 migrants (including dependants) will receive visas under Skilled Labour arrangements in 1984-85, compared with migrant arrivals under the former Occupational Demand Schedule arrangements of 6,332 in 1983-84, 24,041 in 1982-83 and 18,255 in 1981-82. (Question No. 1901) Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to comments made by the produce controller of Woolworths Limited, Mr Arch Matheson, claiming that Australian citrus is inferior in flavour to American fruit. (2) Is there any evidence to justify this assertion. (3) Is it a fact that the Australian citrus products are preferred by the Australian consumer. (4) What action will he take to ensure that the importing of American citrus fruit by Woolworths Limited is restricted to encourage the purchase of the Australian product. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) I understand from sources within the Australian industry that Australian citrus during the main Australian production season is equal in quality to imported citrus from the USA. During the Australian off-season, quality and supply are more variable and imports have occurred in the past, at high prices, to meet consumer demand for high quality fruit the year round. (4) In view of some growing industry concern that future imports may overlap into the Australian season I understand that discussions have been initiated between the Australian and Californian industries with a view to co-operating on rationalising imports. I have indicated in response to individual expressions of concern over the imports that should I receive requests from the Australian industry for Government assistance they will receive due consideration provided that it is demonstrated the imports are causing, or threatening to cause, injury to the local industry. (Question No. 1902) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 October 1984: Is it a fact that increased productivity is the result of the co-operation of a number of factors, including the performance of the workforce, the skill of management, and the investment of capital in more efficient plant and equipment including new technology; if so, what are the reasons for the Government's policy that the so-called benefits of increased productivity should be distributed to labour, and to labour alone, at a productivity wage hearing in 1985. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Productivity growth is the result of a number of factors including those suggested in the question. It is also the key to increased living standards for all Australians. The Government's view is that it is appropriate for the workforce to share in productivity growth when economic circumstances permit. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's Wage Fixation Principles handed down on 23 September 1983 provide that, upon application and not before 1985, the Commission will consider whether an increase in wages and salaries or changes in conditions of employment should be awarded on account of productivity . At the 1983 National Wage Case, which established the current Principles, the Commonwealth argued that it was appropriate for provision to be made for the distribution of national productivity growth under a centralised system of wage fixation. It was made clear, however, that it was the Government's view that there should not be any increase in wages or improvements in conditions of employment based upon productivity considerations until there was a demonstrable improvement in economic conditions, particularly in relation to the labour market. Ultimately, the matter will be one for decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Productivity adjustment through the wage system do not imply that the benefits of productivity growth go to labour alone. If wages were adjusted only for changes in prices through indexation, there would be no opportunity for wage and salary earners to increase their real earnings over time as productivity grows. This would lead to a continual shift in the share of national income away from wages and into profits. Improvements in wages or conditions of employment in line with productivity growth ensure that wage and salary earners share in the productivity-related growth of real national income. (Question No. 1907) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 October 1984: (1) Is it a fact that following the devaluation of the New Zealand dollar the New Zealand Meat Producers Board can air-freight lamb into Australia at $A1.95 a kilo wholesale; if so, is this less than the domestic cost of prime lamb production as estimated by the NSW Department of Agriculture. (2) Can he say whether it is proposed that imports of NZ lamb be regulated; if so, on what price and quantity basis. (3) Can he say whether provision is to be made within the CER arrangement to protect Australian producers against the progressive devaluation of the NZ dollar, in a similar manner to provisions existing within the EEC, in the form of monetary compensation devices. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that it is possible that the New Zealand Meat Producers Board could air-freight lamb into Australia at $1.95 per kilo wholesale. I am not aware of the NSW Department of Agriculture estimates for the domestic cost of prime lamb production to which the honourale member refers. (2) I am not aware of any proposals to regulate imports of NZ lamb, should such imports occur in the future. I would point out that although the CER Trade Agreement provides for the continued duty-free flow of meat between the two countries, the Australian industry has recourse to normal countervailing and anti-dumping procedures if imports entering at subsidised or dumped prices are causing, or threatening to cause, material injury to the Australian industry. (3) The Government does not have under consideration any proposals for the Australia New Zealand CER Trade Agreement to provide monetary compensating mechanisms similar to those used by the EEC.