Friday, 22 February 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Connolly,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Sharp. 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 N. A. Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Mildren,Mr Scholes,Mr Shipton,Dr Theophanous,Mr White and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Sinclair,Mr Blunt,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Cohen,Mr Free,Mr Hunt,Mr Allan Morris,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Sharp and Mr Snow. 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 Commissions 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 Carlton,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hunt,Mr Ruddock,Mr Snow and Mr Spender. 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 Keating,Mrs Kelly,Mr Punch,Mr Scholes 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, employed by Miles Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd, situated in the Electorate of Bruce, in the State of Victoria, 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 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 Aldred,Mr Carlton,Mr Howard and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of Miles Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd located in the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products developed by research-based companies. Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research-based companies which are product originators. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. 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 Dr Blewett,Mr Jacobi,Mr Wilson and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We 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 to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of 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 Cadman,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We applaud 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 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 this inquiry. We 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 Shipton. 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 wifes of Parliamentarians and the ABC 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 And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Lloyd and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That, with exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned wish the present Australian Flag to be retained for all time as the Flag of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will retain the National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Snow. 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 Hodges and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scholes and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: We are concerned that- (a) the Report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission fails to recognise the important role and contribution of Workers' Health Centres in providing occupational health and safety services and information and (b) fails to include those organisations in its proposed national strategy. Your petitioners therefore pray that in considering the recommendations of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Commonwealth Government commit itself to a strategy which includes the continuation of, and support for, existing Workers' Health Centres in recognition of their critical role in occupational health and safety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren and Mr Willis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in ''outer metropolitan'' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted osteopathic legislation. That osteopaths provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising osteopathic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that osteopathic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. 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 C.I.P. increases, increases the price of petrol perpetuates 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 spent on roads. Your petitioners urge the Government to give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those laws that automatically increase the price of petrol 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer increases the price of beer eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase, perpetuates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. Your petitioners therefore urge the Government to immediately repeal those laws which 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 petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Motor Vessel KRAIT remain as a Dedicated Operational War Memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia. And that: your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the 'Krait' for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. And that: current proposal to remove KRAIT from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra, ACT would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon the aforesaid moneys were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, N.S.W., respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned having great concern because of the adoption of the Pro-Abortion Policy by the A.L.P. which represents an insult to the many Australians who are concerned at the slaughter of 60,000 unborn babies every year call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide greater assistance to families and pregnant women in need. 2. To provide legislation to protect our most vulnerable of all citizens, the unborn child. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our unborn children and our pregnant women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens from the Central Coast area of New South Wales, respectfully showeth that they are concerned that the Veterans Act 1984 which is to be introduced into Parliament may contain provisions that will make it more difficult to have disabilities accepted as war caused or service related to the disadvantage of veterans and their dependants. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that these views be considered at the draft stage of the new legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned wish to express our dissatisfaction at the closure of the Dandenong Young Women's Centre, due to the unlikelihood of refunding through the Community Employment Program. The Centre has provided services which have previously not been available for young women. A service such as this should not be subjected to ad hoc funding. We urge the government to commit adequate and secure funds to all valuable women's services in an effort to enhance the status of women in general. We request that the government give urgent consideration to the plight of the Young Women's Resource Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Recent X rated violent pornography allowed legal distribution, particularly with regard to distribution through sale and hire of video cassette recordings through commercial and retail outlets, is detrimental to the community at large because it gives wide circulation to concepts or human exploitation and victimisation, sexual assault-namely rape. Your petitioners humbly pray that: Censors be asked to give due regard to the social effect of the release of violent pornography and that a weighting factor for this be included in the rating of films. Producers, distributors, and the owners of cinemas concerned with the production, distribution, and showing of violent pornography be required to register with the Federal government, and give full disclosure of their financial interests to the government with the proviso that such disclosures will be open to the public. The Federal government pursue ways of achieving the best effect for the community as a whole-that is, the abolition of violent pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Australia in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Handicapped Child's Allowance now available to parents of disabled children is inadequate, out of date and its application grossly inconsistent and request that the following measures be taken: All aspects of the Handicapped Child's Allowance be reviewed. In particular: (a) That Legislation covering Handicapped Child's Allowance be re-written to be consistent with other Federal policies for integration and normalisation of disabled people. (b) The categories of Handicapped Child's Allowance be abolished. (c) That the Allowance be increased to reasonably cover extra expenses incurred by a parent/guardian of a disabled child. (d) That eligibility criteria be clear and consistent. (e) That emphasis for eligibility be balanced between social, educational and medical implications rather than the current domination of the medical report. (f) That H.C.A. be widely advertised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Because video cassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and Believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic video cassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, We the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as 'relished descriptions of violence' and 'publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana' (Category 1), and 'sado-masochism', 'extreme fetishism' (e.g. necrophilia), 'anal intercourse with consent' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as 'hardcore' paperbacks containing 'relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student', and 'extreme sexual torture' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. 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 because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations- (a) Have been widely condemned for its support of un-Australian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side) (b) Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence. (c) Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ''a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment'', which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the 'family'''. Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray. That the Australian Parliament will: (a) Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations, (b) Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia's support for the Year of the Child. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the legislation and regulations associated with Medicare are repugnant to natural justice and humane medical practice, and more appropriate to a police state than to Australia; That the said legislation and regulations are being administered so as to oppress and demoralise the medical profession, and without regard to the interests of the sick; That altogether disproportionate penalties are being imposed, through administrative action, on medical practitioners for minor infringements of the Medicare rules; and That, unless reforms are instituted, the quality of Australia's health care system will decline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government legislate to make possible in Australia a health care system in which efficiency and innovation are not repressed, and humane medical practice is again possible without harassment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the penalties of a fine and three years suspension from Medicare imposed on Dr Rex Hood of Pingelly are out of all proportion to his offences; That neither Medicare nor Dr Hood's patients were put to increased expense by his unlawful acts; That the court action, administrative action and Medical Board inquiry in respect of the same acts constitute a form of triple jeopardy repugnant to the traditions of our legal system; and That the interests of the people of Pingelly were not considered. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Health rescind the suspension of Dr Hood. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-representing 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. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 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. We 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned, does respectfully show dissatisfaction with the present qualifications for age pension. The Social Security Act 1947, states that men must attain the age of 65 years, and women 60 years, before they are eligible for age pension. In contrast, the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, states that there should be no discrimination against persons on the ground of sex in such areas as work, facilities and services, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. Considering that men are being encouraged to accept early retirement and must face economic hardship before becoming eligible for age pension, we feel that equal entitlements are a necessity as well as a right. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that men having attained the age of 60 years be given the same entitlements to social services as those given to women who have attained the age of 60 years. We live in the hope that this will be done. by Mr West. 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 Conquest,Mr Gayler,Mr Katter and Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria shows: That persons with chronic conditions are entitled to all necessary medications, dietary supplements and appliances without added financial burden. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take such action as it may authorise to rectify this problem. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully request that: Heroin be made available for the relief of pain for terminally ill patients. 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 of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are concerned that the Amendments to the Repatriation Act 1921, which are to be introduced during the present Parliament will have a profound and marked effect on the lives of Ex-Servicepersons and Dependants. We therefore respectfully request that before these Amendments go to the second reading stage in the Parliament that Ex-Service Groups and individual Ex-Servicepersons be given ample time to consider and suggest modifications to the proposed Amendments. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that these views be considered at the draft stage of the new legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: (a) That opposition exists to the closure of Hackett Service Station, as this will severely limit the facilities available to northside residents, and the community in general, and (b) That the closure of this facility will reduce the economic viability of the retail shopping outlets in that area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Territories and Local Government move to disallow any application for a change in the lease purpose clause of the Hackett Service Station site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that, consequent upon the retirement of Mr James William Roberts, Mr John Martin Campbell was appointed Principal Parliamentary Reporter as from 2 January 1985 and Mr Robert Thomas Martin has been appointed Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Mr SPEAKER —The resolution of the House of 9 October 1984 relating to the registration and declaration of members' interests requires the Speaker, at the commencement of each Parliament and at other times as necessary, to appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members' Interests. I have appointed Mr L. M. Barlin, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, as Registrar of Members' Interests. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) censures the Government and condemns the Prime Minister for (a) undermining ANZUS and the defence relationship between Australia and the United States, (b) breaking a firm commitment to our United States ally to provide limited logistical support for monitoring MX missile tests, (c) refusing to respond constructively to the ANZUS crisis, (d) pursuit of contradictory policies, setting back international security and disarmament, and (e) making vital decisions affecting national security not on the basis of the national interest, but according to the dictates of the ALP's factions, and (2) reaffirms the obligations and principles of ANZUS, and the alliance with the United States, as the cornerstone of our defence and a fundamental basis of Australia's positive contribution to peace and disarmament. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Government of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG —I inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) as a motion of censure of the Government for the purpose of standing order 110. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.11) —I move: That this House- (1) censures the Government and condemns the Prime Minister for (a) undermining ANZUS and the defence relationship between Australia and the United States, (b) breaking a firm commitment to our United States ally to provide limited logistical support for monitoring MX missile tests, (c) refusing to respond constructively to the ANZUS crisis, (d) pursuit of contradictory policies, setting back international security and disarmament, and (e) making vital decisions affecting national security not on the basis of the national interest, but according to the dictates of the ALP's factions, and (2) reaffirms the obligations and principles of ANZUS, and the alliance with the United States, as the cornerstone of our defence and a fundamental basis of Australia's positive contribution to peace and disarmament. A government's greatest responsibility is the nation's security. The people of Australia, in matters of defence and foreign policy, above all expect their Prime Minister to put the national interests beyond the reach of party factions. I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has come into the chamber. He goes down in history as the first man in the history of the arms race to be torpedoed by an MX missile. I mentioned at the outset that the people of Australia, in matters of defence and foreign policy, above all else expect their Prime Minister to put the national interest beyond the reach of party factions. When this Prime Minister left for overseas, he left with the goodwill of most Australians who want to see him pursue the national interest. No one criticises a Prime Minister going away to pursue the national interest. But this Prime Minister, on this most recent of visits, failed to do just that. He failed not because he misunderstood what the national interest required and not because he misunderstood that factional demands were contrary to the nation's interests. This is what makes the Prime Minister's failure deplorable. With both the ANZUS crisis and the MX decision, he began to move in the right direction. On both occasions, he ultimately betrayed those interests to the demands of the factions. In the MX case, he abandoned a firm commitment to our American ally. It was a commitment made by the previous Government, reaffirmed by his own Government and endorsed as late as 29 January this year by the Cabinet's National Intelligence and Security Committee. He thereby damaged Australia's credibility as a reliable ally. He undermined our security and corroded our ability to contribute to the cause of peace and disarmament. Beyond that, he humiliated Australia. This was a failure of leadership on an issue that goes to the heart of the nation, to its security. Let us be clear about what the Government had decided to do. It had agreed, as the previous Government had agreed, to provide limited logistical support for the testing of two unarmed MX missiles as part of our contribution to the United States alliance. This involved allowing a few American Air Force observation planes to refuel in Australia. That is a minimal degree of assistance to an ally who has after all been flying B52 bombers in and out of Darwin for some years. I pause and pose the question: If the Left seizes upon this, for how much longer will those aircraft be able to come and go refuelling in Darwin? The issue exploded through a Press leak. The day before the Prime Minister left on his overseas tour, the Left, on learning of the commitment, was, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, enraged. The rage spread across the antagonistic factions which make up this Labor Government. However, the decision was strongly defended by the responsible Ministers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), displaying his customary loyalty, made a statement on the Willesee show that was unexceptionable and that we would endorse. Among the statements made on that program the Foreign Minister, in defending the Government's position, stated: We are not neutral, we are not unaligned, we are not pacifists. We agree with the Minister. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), fighting the cause of the Government's decision, quite correctly stated: The Government takes the view that to deny US aircraft the facility to refuel in Australia . . . would not be the act of an ally. The Prime Minister was elsewhere and had embarked on the night of the long telephone calls. He was consulting, but not with the responsible Ministers; he was consulting with the party numbers men scattered across the globe. I wonder how many honourable members opposite got calls from Brussels, from Tokyo or even from Swaziland. What was the advice he was getting from his little mates of the New South Wales Right? I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 February, in which a source says: We told him the party was in turmoil, that the ranks were beginning to break and pretty soon we would have to start shooting deserters. The Prime Minister did not have to shoot any deserters; as captain of the ship of state, he was the first to go over the side. He was not told he would lose; he was told by the numbers men that there would be a lot of blood about, that it would be a pretty tough fight, but that he could win. This was a time for some pretty firm leadership, putting down the viewpoint believed in and supporting the decision as were the Ministers back here. What did the Prime Minister do? He decided to cut and run. He ran away from the fight. It seems to us that this was a time to confront the anti-American and neutralist sentiments in the Australian Labor Party. This Prime Minister chose not to stand with the responsible Ministers, the Minister for Defence and the Foreign Minister, or with the National Intelligence and Security Committee, or with his commitment to our ally. The Prime Minister panicked. He threw principle aside and he threw the national interest aside. He did not fight for Australia; he caved in to the Left. The Ministers who defended the Government's decision were left swinging slowly in the wind. No wonder it is a Labor Party maxim that whenever one stands behind this Prime Minister he steps to one side. Not just the Labor Party had to suffer this humiliation. As Australians we all had to suffer the humiliating sight of the Prime Minister going cap in hand to Washington, having reneged on a commitment to the United States, and then backtracking on a communique endorsing the necessary upgrading of the United States deterrent. It is, in fact, a tribute to the former strength of the United States-Australia relationship built up by successive governments that the Americans did not press the issue and did not hold this Prime Minister to his commitments and to the communique but sought to contain the damage he had done to the relationship in this MX fiasco. The American diplomatic and public statements do not disguise, nor have they silenced, the growing disquiet amongst influential Americans that this Labor Government has let them down. The Prime Minister, claiming to speak for his Government, has said: Australia's commitment to the alliance relationship remains undiminished. This is self-serving nonsense. Let me tell the Prime Minister why. First, let me repeat the words of his own Defence Minister. He said that to deny US aircraft the facilities to refuel in Australia 'would not be the act of an ally'. Second, what is the difference in principle between the Prime Minister's actions and those of the New Zealand Government? Mr Hodgman —None at all. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. In each case America was refused facilities agreed to in the spirit of the ANZUS pact. Let me remind the Prime Minister about Australia's attitude toward New Zealand refusing to allow port facilities and what his own attitude allegedly was. He said: We could not accept as a permanent arrangement that the ANZUS alliance had a different meaning and entailed different obligations for different members. The Prime Minister's MX debacle is a repetition of his weakness over the ANZUS crisis created by New Zealand's refusal to allow American nuclear warships into its ports. We have said it before; we say it again. Australia had a duty as a member of ANZUS to actively involve itself in this dispute and take a mediatory role. Despite the coalition's repeated calls on the Prime Minister to accept this responsibility, he refused to do so because he was afraid of taking on the factions before his early election. He claimed that it was simply a matter between New Zealand and the United States alone. By doing so he treated the Australian people with contempt because what was at stake is at the very heart of Australia's defence interests. It was and is an alliance issue. It affects the general Western alliance. To pretend that it was a matter only between Washington and Wellington was and is a fraud. The Prime Minister knew this. After the election was over the Prime Minister tried to recover the position by writing to Mr Lange. Mr Speaker, I do not want to get personal. I know the Prime Minister is a little sensitive about his height, but honourable members will remember this letter-a letter to Lange from Shorty. The letter told New Zealand that the decision was inconsistent with the ANZUS alliance. This was quite futile because, if one gives in to the Left once, one has to do it again and again. As soon as the Prime Minister's letter leaked, he backed down in the face of the Left's outrage fuelled by-honourable members have heard it before-its violent anti-American and anti-nuclear ideology. The Prime Minister went back to saying: The issue is one between New Zealand and the United States. He tried to gloss over the significance of the letter once it leaked out. There was the fury, the rage and the dissent of the Left again. With all that dissent around, he then said: 'I have done no more than indicate to my good friend, David Lange'-I do not know whether that is reciprocated-'that I was going to the United States'. What happened to ANZUS as a consequence? Among other things, the Sea Eagle exercises have been cancelled, two ANZUS logistical meetings have been cancelled, apparently United States-New Zealand defence co-operation has been suspended, and sharing intelligence has now become an issue. The Prime Minister stood by and did nothing while ANZUS unravelled. The record shows that the weakness of the Prime Minister and his refusal to confront the factions has given impetus to the anti-American Left within the Government. Through his weakness, the Left has acquired new vigor and greater boldness. His weakness has allowed it to use each victory as a springboard to the next. Whilst this motion deals with matters that go to the heart of the nation-namely, national security-the importance of this caving in to the Left and the straddling of the factions will dwell on Australians through this Government for months and years to come. There has been a caving in to the Left, an inability to exert authority, and a preparedness to be drawn away from stated commitments simply to do deals. There is no question about the aims of members of the Left in this Labor Party. Their aims are, and they are oft-quoted, the destruction of ANZUS and of the Australian-American relationship. Fair enough, they have the democratic right to proffer the view that ANZUS should be destroyed, but they never put forward an alternative and they ignore the consequences. Who would benefit from this fracturing and probable destruction of ANZUS and the Australian-American relationship? Let me quote from a Mr Paul Dibb, who was engaged by the Government to review our nation's defence: The prospect of a breakup of the ANZUS treaty would be of enormous benefit to the USSR's world-wide interests. He went on to say: Nothing would be more welcome in Moscow than the dissolution of ANZUS, involving as it does such close allies of the United States. They are not my words, they are the words of the Government's own defence adviser. The ANZUS alliance has been a source of stability to the nations of the South Pacific. Governments from the Pacific, the Association of South East Asian Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Japan are seriously concerned about the potential damage that developments in ANZUS could have. As recently as this morning we heard elements of that concern from the British Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher. The confusion, the disunity and the Labor Government's lack of leadership can give little confidence that this Government can salvage a tripartite treaty which it-the Government-said in 1983, following a comprehensive review, was 'vitally important to the shared security concerns and security interests of the three partner governments'. Moreover, the Australian people and our allies cannot be confident that the Government can safeguard the wider Australian-United States relationship in the face of this concerted attack from the Left. We have seen consequences domestically. Evaluations of the dollar take this into account. We will go on to the effects of this concerted attack from the Left on the broader relationship another day. A further consequence of the Government's confusion and the Prime Minister's lack of authority has been the shaking of our reliability as a partner and a party involved in disarmament negotiations. At the root of proper disarmament proposals, unless one is a unilateralist, is the meshing together of disarmament and deterrence. Deterrence, in which the MX missile is part of the necessary technology upgrading, goes hand in hand with disarmament. This coalition accepts as vital that notion and has advocated it for years-the complementarity of disarmament and deterrence. It is through our assisting the United States in maintaining its deterrent posture that we can maintain credibility and, indeed, influence in disarmament negotiations and with the United States. We have said it time and again and it moved me to support the Prime Minister when I first heard that he was giving assistance to the United States. It was right, it was proper and the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister were right in the arguments they produced. They were not the only ones. In speaking of the notion of the pursuit of disarmament through effective deterrence and the element of assistance with limited logistical support to the monitoring of MX testing that originally was being granted by the Government, let me quote our own Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler. He recently said: Where would we be in seeking to pursue real means of disarmament with the United States if we refused them the right to land a couple of planes in Australia which they are going to use to monitor the missile shot? Where would we be? He answered that. He said: Now, our credibility would be completely reduced. From the words and the praise that the Government heaps on Mr Butler I assume that he should know. The fundamental dilemma facing the Labor Government is that it is pursuing a disarmament policy which seeks to placate Party factions that are basically anti-American and committed to unilateral disarmament. Quite simply, this cannot be done except at the expense of our national interest. If the Prime Minister does not stand up to the Party's factions they will destroy ANZUS, destroy our involvement with the Western alliance and destroy our influence in disarmament discussions. There is a further element in this whole sorry matter which certainly demands an explanation. The Prime Minister, because of his fear of his own Government's factions, his unwillingness to trust his Cabinet colleagues, has prompted a series of briefings and disclosures to the Press. We would not have known much about this earlier on had there not been put aside the other leaks that were planted. If the reports are true they show that the Prime Minister and at least three other Ministers have made false statements on the MX. Reports in the Australian on 6 February of this year and in the National Times on 8 February 1985 indicate that the Prime Minister agreed in his discussions with the Americans in June 1983 that Australia would proceed with the Fraser Government's commitment on assisting the MX missile tests. Our observers in the gallery have been writing for weeks that in June 1983 Mr Hawke gave a commitment to the Americans to go ahead with what had been a Fraser Government commitment. We understand that the Foreign Minister heard of this in July. Allegedly he was aghast. Around October he wrote a letter on the matter. In November Ministers met and they allegedly moved the splashdown site. But the commitment was given in June 1983 to follow through the Fraser Government's commitment. It is also reported, as I have just mentioned in passing, that it was at the now famous meeting on 16 November that the Prime Minister and Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs, and I quote: Agreed that to minimise the possibility of party backlash, they would ask the Americans to shift the impact zone out of Australian territorial waters. If it is correct that the Prime Minister agreed in June 1983 to continue the Fraser Government's commitment, and only after 16 November 1983 agreed to ask the Americans to change the impact zone, this would involve the splashdown zone being in Australian waters during the intervening period. This would mean that, first, the Prime Minister deceived the Australian people on 30 November 1984, the day before the Federal election, when he said: I think the only thing I wish is to reiterate a statement which I think has been made-or certainly will be made-by the Minister for Defence- he brought in this statement to be issued by the Minister for Defence- and that is to say simply: That my Government has not agreed, and will not agree, to any missile testing on, over or into Australian territory, airspace or territorial waters. Secondly, it would mean that the then Minister for Defence deceived the Australian people when, having consulted with the Prime Minister, he issued on 30 November 1984 this statement, which the Prime Minister had linked into and referred to earlier: The Government had not agreed- past tense- and would not agree to any nuclear missile testing into its territory, its airspace, its territorial waters, its fishing zone or its prospective exclusive economic zone. It does not stop there, because, thirdly, the present Minister for Defence misled the Australian people when he clearly indicated in his statement of 1 February 1985 that agreement on assisting with the MX missile tests was reached only after the Americans agreed to shift the impact zone into international waters. Finally, our loyal friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs misled the Australian public when he stated-here I refer to a report in the Australian of 6 February this year-that the Prime Minister 'has been shocked, when assuming office, to find that the splashdown point was to be 100km from the Tasmanian coast'. He said that 'Mr Hawke immediately had the point moved into international waters'. The Opposition and the Australian people require that the facts be immediately clarified in straightforward, unequivocal terms and not with the evasions for which this Government is now notorious. This requires an affirmation from the Prime Minister that neither he nor any of his Ministers made a commitment to the Americans on the MX before the meeting of 16 November or before the Americans agreed to shift the MX impact site into international waters. What we have here, taken in its totality, is a failure of policy, a failure of leadership and a failure of courage in confronting Labor Party factionalism. The Australian people now know where the Government and the Opposition stand on the American alliance. I can say, on behalf of the coalition, on behalf of the Opposition, that we have a continuing, firm commitment to alliance without subservience, to ANZUS, and to our broader relationship with the United States, and that it is unequivocal. Of course we want the rights of that treaty, but we will meet the obligations that go with it. This is a commitment founded on a knowledge of what Australia's national interests are and what the Australian people stand for. Can the Prime Minister look over his shoulder at his colleagues and say the same thing? There are major issues of national security facing Australia. I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on the words and the actions of a former Labor leader, Mr John Curtin. We have heard in the past, when the rhetoric was there but it did not have to be matched to the substance, the Prime Minister calling up the name of that great Australian leader and that great leader of the Australian Labor Party. At a time of enormous peril for Australia in the Pacific war, John Curtin wrote on 26 December 1941: Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We are determined to exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan with the United States as its keystone. I ask honourable members to mark those words: 'with the United States as its keystone'. Despite intense criticism, Curtin fought for his beliefs and for Australia, and he prevailed. No such action has characterised this Prime Minister, and he deserves the censure of the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(10.42) —Mr Speaker, it is of great interest that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) should have concluded his pathetic speech with a reference to that great Australian leader John Curtin, because I ask the House why it was that John Curtin was standing in this place at the end of 1941 in Australia's hour of greatest need. Why was John Curtin standing in this place invoking the relationship with the United States of America? The answer is extremely simple; it was relevant in 1941 and it remains relevant in 1985. John Curtin was assuming responsibility for the defence of Australia and invoking the relationship with the United States because the conservative alliance in this country had failed Australia in its darkest hour. As in 1985, so in 1940 and 1941 were the representatives of the conservative powers long on rhetoric but short on action. On the night of 3 October 1941 something remarkable occurred in this place. Two independents sitting in this House, Coles and Wilson, had witnessed the Opposition's conservative predecessors in action and had seen them, when charged with the responsibility of the real defence of this country, engaging in verbal rhetoric. The government of that time needed to face up to its real responsibilities but after these independents had watched the conservative parties in power they said: 'The conservative parties of this country are no good for Australia; we will give responsibility to the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of John Curtin'. I refer simply to the words spoken in this place on 3 October 1941. Mr Wilson buried the conservatives and put upon them the curse they deserve, because they are men of rhetoric and not of action. He said: I consider that a change must be made in order to ensure stable and safe government for the effective prosecution of the war, the post-war reconstruction of the country and the repatriation of soldiers. Just as in war honourable members opposite failed their country because they never had the real interests of their country at heart, so today, through their temporary Leader of the Opposition, have they revealed their hypocrisy. They have no real interest in the security of this country. They would do anything to bring down the real security interests of this country. Having witnessed yet another example of this emotional pietism by which the Leader of the Opposition is inflicted, this sick, synthetic anger which he has in a state of semi-permanent erection around him, let us look at the facts. It is the case that, in November 1983, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the then Minister for Defence and I made a decision in respect of providing support facilities to the United States of America. That is the case. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken as though there is some problem between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence in regard to the decision I took in Brussels to change that. There is no question that there was a change of decision. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence will both be speaking in this debate. Honourable members opposite will get no comfort from that because, quite clearly, those two Ministers supported the decision I took. Let us get the facts on the record, because we have had no facts from the Leader of the Opposition. Consistently, we have had no facts from the Leader of the Opposition, whether in the matter of the Australian currency, for which he has no respect and about which he will undermine the real interests of this country, or on this issue. We have simply had prejudice and an attempt to undermine the real security interests of this country. The facts are clear. We on the Government side not only do not walk away from those facts; we stand side by side with them with pride. This is what happened: Just before I went to the United States in June 1983 I was told that a matter could be raised with me about a decision of the previous Government to provide support facilities to the United States in respect of a test with the MX missile. In regard to that I was briefed orally by the then Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). He subsequently wrote a letter to me, as I recall, on 7 June. When I was in the United States I did have discussions and I indicated that, if there could be any agreement in respect of this testing in Australia, the splashdown point that had been arranged by the previous Government within Australian territorial waters was something that would not be acceptable. I asked whether there could be a consideration of a shift of the splashdown point outside of any definition of Australian territorial waters, the most extensive being the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles, as honourable members will know. That question was left in the United States. The Leader of the Opposition has come into this place today and suggested a decision was made. If a decision were made by me in the United States in June, I ask a very simple question: 'Why is it that in October 1983 representatives of the United States State Department and Defense Department were in this country asking the Government whether it would make a decision and whether it was going to provide the facilities?' If a decision were made in June 1983, why have the Americans got people here in October 1983 asking whether the Government is going ahead? The answer is simple. When we came to consider this matter the three Ministers made the decision that those facilities would be provided. On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the then Minister for Defence and myself, I am not here to make an excuse for that decision. We were men of integrity and good faith. We believed in good faith that that decision was the appropriate one to give effect to a decision that had been made by the previous Government. That is how it stood. That situation changed and changed in a way which led to a mutually assumed decision by the United States and this Government that it did not make sense to adhere to that decision. Let me now go to the canards that have been perpetrated by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this matter. He would seek, as the conservatives always seek to do, to deny that in this country there are concerns about the international relationship, about the seeking of disarmament and peace in this world, which go beyond the Left in this country. I have said to members of the Left and I say it again, and they know the truth of it, that the Left has no monopoly upon considerations of peace and disarmament, nor do they claim it. What members of the Opposition have to understand-they will never want to understand because they do not understand the Australian people on these issues-is that the reaction that arose on this issue was not the monopoly, the exclusive concern of the Left of my Party. When I left Australia on 2 February, when the decision that we had taken in good faith became known, I became aware that there was a very considerable reaction in this country against the wisdom of that decision. It was not simply the Left of my Party or the Left in this country that reacted. I became aware that not only in my own Party, across all factions, there was a concern but also well beyond the Australian Labor Party there was a concern on this issue. As I thought about this issue I became increasingly concerned that the continuing fundamentals of our relationship with the United States could be jeopardised if there were not some reconsideration. There was not only concern for maintaining the fundamental alliance relationship with the United States which I would not see impaired, but at the same time there was also a concern that I would not see impaired or diminished in any way the capacity of this Government to pursue constructively and meaningfully in all relevant forums all available measures to bring about a decrease in the level of nuclear arms in the world. Both of those issues are of fundamental importance to me and to my Government. I became aware that, with the dissent that emerged not only in my Party but also beyond this Party, the capacity of this Government to maintain those two fundamental issues of continuing importance may have been diminished. It seems to be the view of the Leader of the Opposition and of the rabble behind him that to change one's mind on something is a sign of weakness. I simply say to this House and to the people of Australia that, while I am Prime Minister, if I believe a decision that I or the Government have made should, in light of subsequent circumstances, be changed, I will change it. The people of Australia do not want a Prime Minister who is bigoted and dogmatic and who will not listen to the clearly expressed voice of the people. As I listened, I came clearly to the conclusion that those two fundamental considerations were jeopardised by a continuing adherence to the decision that we three Ministers had taken. In Brussels I came to the view that it was appropriate that that decision be changed. Let me repeat: The fundamentals of what we are talking about, the two central elements of the approach of this Government to international matters are, first of all, that the alliance relationship with the United States is of fundamental importance to this Government and to the people of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech would have people believe that members of the Opposition have some exclusive adherence to that relationship. As I said in opening, this great Labor Party forged the relationship. When a Liberal-Country Party government could not defend Australia and the people threw it out, this Party forged the alliance relationship with the United States. Since the ANZUS Treaty was signed in 1951, my Party consistently, without change, adhered to that alliance relationship. When I returned the next day, on 12 February, the Cabinet met and unanimously endorsed the report which I gave. The first paragraph of that report was in these terms: Federal Cabinet today reaffirmed Australian Government policy on the basic issue of the Australia-United States alliance, the ANZUS Treaty and on disarmament and deterrence. That was the unanimous decision of the Cabinet on 12 February. One week later that was unanimously endorsed by the full Caucus of the Australian Labor Party. That was the central and first position that I was concerned to maintain. Let it be quite clear to those on the other side of the House who do not want to hear or understand and to the people of Australia that our alliance relationship with the United States is central, and we will do everything to maintain it. We are not a unilateralist party. We reject unilateralism because it is a fatuous and dangerous doctrine which we will not embrace. Secondly, we adhere to the centrality of the United States alliance relationship. I will have more to say in detail about that matter in a moment. From the first day of this Government we also committed and dedicated ourselves as a government, and particularly through our most effective instrument in this area, the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, in all relevant forums to pursue paths which would reduce the level of armaments in the world to bring the two super-powers together. While we recognise and play our part in the current system of deterrence, we recognise that it is not the sanest way for super-powers to conduct their relationship. The only advantage, the only argument for deterrence, is that it is the system which has saved the world from nuclear holocaust for 40 years. Therefore we are prepared to play our part in that policy of strategic deterrence. We do not do that only by words; we host the joint facilities in this country. As distinct from those on the other side of this place who have sought as much as they can to shroud the operations of those facilities in secrecy and to keep the people of Australia in the dark, with the advent of this Government we took steps to try to take the people of Australia into its confidence so that they could share a proper understanding of the true function of those facilities. Let me emphasise what they are. We do not jointly host those facilities because they are part of an offensive capacity; they are a necessary part of the process and system of deterrence. Because of the early warning system they provide in this way and because of the way in which they provide the possibility of verification they are an essential part of the processes of negotiation for meaningful disarmament treaties. We did not try to keep those issues shrouded in secrecy, because we have a fundamental commitment to the processes of disarmament. We truly understand the relationship between deterrence and disarmament. For the first time we have gladly undertaken with the Australian people to make a statement in this Parliament as to those functions. That is the first central element. The second is that we believe, as distinct from the previous Government, that Australia does have in this sorely troubled world-understand our size; we are not a super-power-a capacity to play a recognised part, a respected part, in the international forums of this world, in the discussions which take place in the United Nations, in the Committee on Disarmament. If this Government was to be able to do those things it was important to me that the people of Australia should not see us as diminished or impaired in any way in our capacity to conduct those discussions in such international forums. So, it was for those reasons that I came to the conclusion I did. I knew that it involved a change of decision but, as I have said, the Australian people, I believe, will respect the Prime Minister and the Government who, for good reasons, are prepared to make a decision which is for the greater good. What should be understood is that by the time I arrived in Washington on the Tuesday evening the United States had independently arrived at the same conclusion as I had. When I arrived in Washington I found a clear understanding that the priorities in this matter should be as we saw them-as I saw them and as the United States saw them. The provision of facilities for the MX testing was a transient thing; it had nothing to do with the continuing centralities of importance to which I have referred. In a calm, rational and mature way the United States said: 'Very well. We understand that. It is much more important, in terms of the things that are of continuing significance to the relationship between us, that that be put aside so that the important central issues remain undamaged.'. The Leader of the Opposition puts himself up as the one who has the capacity to have a relationship of substance with the United States. What sort of capacity does he have for a relationship with the United States if he says in this place that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States are liars? That is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. In these matters I would prefer to the mean and miserable mind of the Leader of the Opposition clear, open, public statements which confirm the private affirmations to me of what the position of the United States is. Let me refer to them. This is what the President of the United States had to say. He agreed with my statement of 7 February which was in these terms: The relationships between Australia and the United States under the ANZUS Treaty, and the rights and obligations assumed under the Treaty, were undiminished by recent events. The President, speaking with me on that day outside the White House, had this to say: Australia is a reliable ally, an important trading-- Mr Hodgman —It was. Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite laugh. They are saying that when the President of the United States says that he is lying. The President of the United States can make his own judgment about the people opposite who call him a liar. The President of the United States had this to say: Australia is a reliable ally, an important trading partner, a trusted friend and a fellow democracy. He went on to observe that he could not overstate the value the United States placed on its friendship with Australia. The Leader of the Opposition went on to try to equate this episode with a decision of the Government of New Zealand. Let me quote what has been said subsequently in the United States on this matter which completely demolishes the equation which this miserable Leader of the Opposition makes. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr Dam, was asked on 14 February whether the ANZUS Treaty had been threatened by the MX issue. A direct question was put to the United States spokesman about a matter which the Leader of the Opposition raises. The Leader of the Opposition seeks to equate the MX issue with what has happened in New Zealand. Mr Dam was specifically asked whether the ANZUS Treaty had been threatened. Mr Dam replied that the MX missile was a 'totally different question' from the question of banning access to United States ships. He went on to state: There was a question on which the United States simply decided to forgo the assistance that was going to be available through the use of an airfield, essentially, and that was a minor adjustment. Mr White —Why? Mr HAWKE —I know the honourable member does not like it but he should listen to what Mr Dam said. He stated: . . . that was a minor adjustment. It doesn't go to the concept of the Alliance. That is the official position of the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States and the spokesman of the Department of Defense. Let me go to that part of the Leader of the Opposition's statement in which he castigates me and my Government for not bullying the Government of New Zealand. He says that we should have rewritten the ANZUS Treaty. The facts are clear; they are simple; they are straightforward; and they are agreed upon between the United States and my Government. They are that we should not be engaging in rewriting the ANZUS Treaty. The specific position of President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz is that we should not seek to rewrite the ANZUS Treaty. What they want, and what we agree with, is that under the existing ANZUS Treaty we should continue our bilateral relations in the hope that subsequently the Government of New Zealand will change its position and resume its capacity to conduct trilateral relations. That is the position of the United States; that is the position of my Government. Let me quote what Secretary of State Shultz said. It should be good enough for the troglodytes on the other side. I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 February: According to an AAP report, Mr Shultz last night warned Congress against overreacting to New Zealand . . . This is what Secretary of State Shultz is quoted as saying: 'I don't think we want to transform an ally into an enemy,' The practical situation is that the relationship between Australia and the United States remains undiminished under ANZUS. We will continue the bilateral relationships between us. The United States understands that we will continue bilateral relations with New Zealand because it is in the interests of Australia and New Zealand, and of the United States, that the capacity of Australia and New Zealand in defence terms should remain undiminished in the area of the South Pacific which, unfortunately in light of recent events, is becoming somewhat less stable than it was. It would be an act of mutual insanity if the United States, New Zealand and Australia did something to reduce the capacity of Australia and New Zealand in this area. When I was coming back from the United States, we heard with great interest that the Leader of the Opposition had cancelled his visit to see Mrs Thatcher so that he could stay in Australia and take advantage of the discomfiture of the Prime Minister and the Government. As honourable members may imagine, I came back in fear and trepidation that Peacock remained in Australia and intended to pluck my feathers. But, between my returning from overseas and Parliament's resuming, I was waiting for the words of Peacock. Where was the thunder coming from? Not a word did we hear. I ask honourable members: Does anyone remember a word spoken by the Leader of the Opposition? There was not a word. We did hear something from the pretender, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He filled the vacuum provided by the incompetence or the temerity of the Leader of the Opposition. After hearing the Leader of the Opposition's speech today, is it any wonder that he did not open his mouth when he stayed back in Australia? In conclusion I move the following amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition: That all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words- 'reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to the ANZUS alliance and in particular the strength of relationship between the U.S. and Australia arising from that alliance'. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.13) —I second the original motion. I say: So much for the amendment that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just moved, so much for the wholehearted endorsement of the Australian Labor Party behind him, so much for the strength of the Prime Minister's conviction; Government members have walked out on him and are not prepared to stay in this House and debate the most fundamental and vital principle that this nation can face. The Prime Minister likes to see himself wearing the mantle of John Curtin. John Curtin would turn in his grave if he heard this man's duplicity. Whether it is principle or expediency, rhetoric or performance, honesty or duplicity, there is no question that this man wears the mantle of Gough Whitlam. I refer not to the Gough Whitlam who was elected in 1972 but to Gough Whitlam in those fading days of 1975 when he had lost credibility at home, had lost credibility abroad and with it, sadly, the credibility of the nation of Australia. Tragically, the crux of this debate, which has so ably been presented in its detail by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), is that a nation's credibility and a nation's international reputation stands or falls with the credibility of its Prime Minister. The performance of the Prime Minister today was not only inept and inadequate but, sadly, also totally without any rationale. What the Prime Minister of Australia has done is to send our alliance with the United States of America out of the window, his Party through the roof and the dollar through the floor. The consequence is that today Australia is going through a period of instability which is affecting our economy and our international trade relationships and which is leading our country at the moment into a stage of uncertainty which no one would have believed possible given the incredible run after the Government was first elected. This is the first working day of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of Australia. Let us contrast it with those early days of the Thirty-third Parliament when it rained, the drought broke and everything seemed to be running in the Government's favour. The consequence of the Prime Minister's actions-not because it has rained; it has even stopped raining and one can understand it-is that Australia's credibility is now at risk. All the other things that are happening-the breaking of the consensus and the disruptions in our community-are happening because we have a Prime Minister who is unable to lead. It is important that we realise why that duplicity is so important. Those members of the more responsible right wing element of the Labor Party must be sad that the credibility that they believed a Labor Government would have in this country has gone. Of course, the left wing never wanted it. Those radicals have views and ideologies that conflict with those of the vast majority of Australians. While we can listen to those views and comprehend their commitment to their principles, those principles are not ours. Left wing members are ideologically prejudiced. They are not concerned for the well-being of Australia; they are concerned for the well-being of their faction. The consequence of the Prime Minister's about-face on the MX missile issue is that the left wing not only has asserted its strength within the Caucus but also has shown the people of Australia that henceforth, when there is a question about which it feels sufficiently strong, its will will prevail. I return to the MX issue. A great deal has been said by the Prime Minister today about the circumstances that happened during his regime. It is worth recalling some of the circumstances that happened before this Government was elected. The original consultations with the United States began in 1981. There was a series of consultations. There was a series of submissions to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Fraser-Anthony coalition government. On each of the two occasions when I presented a submission on the matter I had a public statement which was about to be released. The Americans did not concern themselves about the security of it. However, quite properly, they said that they wanted to consult with other countries in the region. Indeed, they had consulted with New Zealand but wished to consult with other countries in the Pacific. We said that we wanted to consult with Tasmania. The splash-down point was identified 220 kilometres south-east of Cape Pillar. It was there, for reasons that were quite properly established, with respect to the concern by the Americans and the then Australian Government that there should be no risk at all of any consequence of any mishap in the course of that flight. We established, before we gave that initial approval in principle, that the risks of any fall-out in any way-it was not a question of nuclear fall-out but of missile trajectory-or any adverse consequences to anybody in the whole of the flight path were zero. We identified to our total satisfaction that there was absolutely no risk. The first thing that we established was that there was absolutely no risk to anybody, not only in Australia but also at the Vandenberg base in California and right out to the splash-down site. The second thing that we established in order to ensure that there should be a proper measure of understanding was what sort of assistance would be required from Australia. I know that there has been a great deal of hoo-ha from the Left. It is trying to blow up the issue and to suggest that in some way Australia is participating in some sort of advancement of the nuclear armoury. What absolute rubbish! We are asked to allow limited transit rights for four aircraft and some assistance to a ship. The important part about the Prime Minister's explanation to this place today is not just that he showed he totally accepted that position up to the time he suddenly rang those numbers men around the world, wherever they might have been, but that he also accepted that the ship that came out to Australian waters and laid the sensors, did so on the splashdown point as identified and accepted by the Hawke Labor Government. We had not settled on the splashdown point, although it had been identified, or the final arrangements simply because there had been a delay in the MX program. Because of that delay, the last submission we had was in October 1982. The Prime Minister acknowledges that it was next picked up in May 1983 before he went to the United States. Then it was his word, his discussions with the United States Administration, no doubt with the President himself, that led to that sensor ship coming and placing the sensors on the floor of the Tasman Sea. The Prime Minister, whatever happened in his Cabinet, however he denied those Caucus committees, whatever he refused to tell those of the Left, made the decision. Make no mistake about it; the Prime Minister, his then Defence Minister the present Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), who were all able within their Party Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee to reject the bid then had they wanted, allowed that sensor ship to come out from the United States and lay down the first part of that missile testing program. It came here under the direction of the Prime Minister. It came as a result of an undertaking by Prime Minister Hawke to President Reagan and to the United States Administration. It is no use the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence now saying that they accept that the Prime Minister can change his mind, because these two men accepted that it was right in principle. The Leader of the Opposition has read their statements to the House. We know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a very eloquent, very forceful and very wise statement of support for that program on the Willesee show. Mr Hunt —He was good. Mr SINCLAIR —He was. It is a pity he could not maintain his accuracy and his assessment of the subject matter. Those sensors were laid and the Hawke Government committed itself absolutely to that MX missile program. We find ourselves in this position today because of two things. The first is that the Prime Minister went back on a firm undertaking to the President of the United States. I know that we have other problems with ANZUS, which is a very important issue. We have to think about that in this place and every Australian has to think about it, but we need to understand that the Prime Minister's refusal to honour the obligations and commitments that he made on behalf of our Government has reflected on every Australian. It was his failure to honour his word that has led to Australia's reputation in the United States sliding. Let there be no mistake about that. If we talk to anybody in business or to officials in administration we will find that they will say: 'Oh, those lefties have got control of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted.' Hence the mantle of Whitlam; that whiff of Whitlam again is in the air. The second thing that it is important to recognise-as I think do all members of the Labor Party, certainly the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who are at the table-is that the problem lies not only with the decision and with the fact that the Prime Minister went back on his word to the American President. Indeed, how remarkable it is that he comes into this place and says that the President and the Secretary of State of the United States are liars. What would they say about Hawke? Did he tell the truth to them? But the essential concern that we have is the manner of his changing his mind. Of course, the Prime Minister should be able to change his mind. Every one of us recognises that it is essential to take advice, to do the right thing and to listen to the advice that has been given; if it is then found there are likely to be consequences of decisions, they should be changed. But what did this Prime Minister do? Did he consult with the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister? Did he say: 'Look, Bill, I really think we ought to reconsider that decision we first took nearly 12 months ago'? Did he consult with the new Defence Minister? Did he say: 'Look, Kim, I know how much it would prejudice our national defence if we were not able to meet our full ANZUS commitment, but I really think we have a bit of a problem'? No. What did he do? He rang Japan and he rang-- Mr Peacock —Swaziland. Mr SINCLAIR —Swaziland. He was in a position in which he could have done the right thing but did not do so. Not only could he have done the right thing by the country, but also by his colleagues. Any Prime Minister who is not prepared to support the principles that his Foreign Minister and his Defence Minister were enunciating in Australia at the very time he was changing his mind does not deserve to be Prime Minister of this country. Sadly, the Prime Minister's manner of changing his mind was as serious in its implications for our reputation as was the change of mind itself. We all need to remember that we on this side of the House adhere very much to the principles enunciated in the statements made by the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister and by Ambassador Butler with respect to the role of deterrence and the degree to which deterrence had prevented any outbreak of nuclear war for 40 years, as the Prime Minister himself said today. Part of our concern about the Prime Minister's loss of face and his breach of faith in failing to meet national obligations is that Australia has backed out of playing a responsible part in the Geneva talks which had so carefully been negotiated in those conversations between Foreign Minister Gromyko and Secretary of State, George Shultz. We need to remember that our ANZUS alliance and our commitment to that very limited assistance to the MX missile testing program was part of what we see as Australia's role in preserving world peace. We are not an isolated country way down here in the South Pacific. We are a major trading country. We have a responsibility to look after more than our own continental confines. We have a responsibility to play our part for the preservation of peace in the world. Deterrence has helped to achieve that peace. The Leader of the Opposition as Foreign Minister, the previous Prime Minister, and all of those in coalition governments over the years have consistently sought to achieve disarmament. We have sought to implement peace. We have participated whenever we believed it appropriate in negotiations and peace forces in order to ensure that Australia's role would be recognised. Let us make no bones about it. There is no suggestion, as some Government members have said, that we on our side of the House are running dogs for the Americans. After studying the Camp David accord, we rejected the invitation to participate in a joint defence force or peace force in Lebanon. We did not participate with the Americans in the rapid deployment force they sought to establish in the north Indian Ocean to look into troubled areas in the Middle East following the Afghanistan fighting. Mr Peacock —I told them we wouldn't do it. Mr SINCLAIR —As the Leader of the Opposition says, when he was Foreign Minister he said that he would not do it. As Minister for Defence I did not accept some requests from the Commander in Chief of United States Forces in the Pacific and the Americans about the role the Americans wished our forces to play in the Pacific. We are an independent nation. We are concerned not just about our own peace, but also about the implications for world peace for this country and the part of the world in which we live. It is that which worries me about our breach of faith on the MX missile testing, because we had a very limited role. It was frankly no more than providing refuelling rights and a stopover point for about seven days for a limited number of personnel-18 from three aircraft and 15 from the other-and some limited rights for one ship. I believe that that was a very responsible way by which we could have said to the Americans: 'Yes, we are prepared to help you test that MX missile at its maximum range. We understand that deterrence means that you need to have a missile capability which ensures that when you go into those Geneva talks you are not left in a position of not being able to say that you also have a missile in your armament that the Soviet can count, thus leading to a mutual reduction of armaments'. As the Prime Minister said only a little while ago, deterrence has saved the world from nuclear holocaust for 40 years. Why is he not prepared to let his Government do as he first recognised it should do? Why? Because he is the plaything of the Left. Principle does not matter. Expediency is pre-eminent. Another thing we need to worry about in this whole affair is that the ANZUS document is a very important part of mutual world deterrence. It is not just a legalised document, for all that the Government keeps on reviewing it. Goodness me! The Government cannot even keep its act together. After this business had blown up, after we were told that the Government had found a new form of Cabinet consensus, that George Shultz had said, 'Good on you, Bob', and that really there was no fundamental breach in our relationship, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) came out and said: 'We cannot live with this ANZUS document'. In order to satisfy her left wing colleagues she has called for a review of the ANZUS Treaty because it conflicts with Labor Party commitments to peace and disarmament. Never mind that her proposed review conflicts with Australia's objective of trying to ensure the peace of the world. Never mind that it conflicts with the national interest. Never mind that ANZUS is there as a bulwark to ensure that in any ultimate threat situation we can rely on the United States. The Labor Party's commitments to peace and disarmament mean that there has to be yet another review of ANZUS. Let us go back to ANZUS. ANZUS is not just what is written. It is a total understanding between the two countries. The mutual respect that Liberal-National Party governments enjoyed with the United States Administration meant that annually we would discuss the problems. We would look at areas where we felt that there could be some modification. It is not a matter of throwing away the baby with the bath water. It is not a matter of accepting the advocacy of Prime Minister Lange that New Zealand should not allow visits of nuclear warships to New Zealand ports, which Mr Lange has implemented, or that such ships should not come to Australian waters, as both Premiers Cain and Burke advocated. In regard to ANZUS we are certainly concerned that we bear our responsibilities. Of course, we all know that Prime Minister Hawke does not regard ANZUS with altogether total respect. Way back in 1976 honourable members will recall that he signed an advertisement calling for Australia to end the ANZUS military alliance. So what faith can the United States put on this Prime Minister? He came into government; he pretended to be respectable. Honourable members will remember that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was doubted by the Americans, but about Prime Minister Hawke they said: 'Oh yes, Hawke will do the right thing'. But Hawke has done the wrong thing. We know that the Americans doubt Hayden. Now they cannot trust Hawke. So neither of the two principal exponents of our foreign policy, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, can really be said to have met Australia's or their Government's commitments to the unwritten part of ANZUS. In those circumstances the Opposition believes that the Labor Government has fallen down totally in its responsibility to the Australian people. This censure motion, which has been moved not against the Prime Minister alone but against the Government and all its Ministers, is intended to do several things. Firstly, it is intended to illustrate that the Prime Minister has broken his word internationally. Secondly, it is intended to illustrate that we on this side of the House stand strongly behind the ANZUS alliance, that we reject the duplicity of which the Prime Minister has been guilty, that we deplore the fact that the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister, who were saying the right thing, have had the rug pulled from under them because of the Prime Minister's anxiety to retain office. We reaffirm our fundamental commitment to Australia making a positive contribution to peace and disarmament. We can do that only be meeting our international responsibilities and accepting that within the ANZUS commitment we can play a positive part towards ensuring world peace. A Prime Minister who is not prepared to maintain his word is a Prime Minister who does not deserve to retain his office. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(11.36) —To an uninitiated observer of the parliamentary proceedings this morning, the rather generous comments of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) about me and my abilities would seem a display of a warm and affectionate regard. They are certainly uncharacteristic and would rivet an outsider's attention. I want to say that, firstly, I still have some ambitions left ahead of me in the political scene, and accordingly, I wish that the right honourable member for New England would desist from making those sorts of generous comments. They are unhelpful. Secondly, it seems to me that the kiss of approval from the right honourable member for New England is the guarantee of a terminal case of political AIDS. This morning in the House we saw, on the first working day of the new Parliament after the most recent national election, the first positive steps by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to accelerate the ambitions and fortunes of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). It will be recalled that, at the Press conference soon after the election, seated side by side, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party were engaged in question and answer proceedings. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party engaged in a St Peter like denial on three occasions. On three occasions he denied he had the opportunity to declare his loyalty to the Leader of the Opposition in the fowl yard of Opposition politics. The formidable Michelle Grattan records that he forfeited the opportunity. She wrote: He- the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party- said that someone with his record of loyalty to the Liberal Party's cause was not required to handle the question. When pressed, Mr Howard again dodged. This morning he has had justification for the strategy he has embarked upon to take over the leadership of the Liberal Party. This morning's was a doleful performance by any measure. As a political practitioner in this place for nearly a quarter of a century I would have to admit, in a candid assessment, that the materials were there to light the brushwood underneath us, to have a really effective auto-da-fe in this political pit. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition reduced what should have been a drama of high order to a relatively trivial incident. The trouble with the Opposition is that it is infected with some sort of juvenile disorder. It prefers to suffer feverish hallucinations and to repudiate good friends and allies. This morning we heard the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable member for New England impugning the integrity of the President of the United States of America. That is the only way one can assess the comments made this morning, comments which were in diametrical conflict with the assertions of the President of the United States. The Opposition has cast doubt on the word and credibility of the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Shultz. It rejected the word and commitment of Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia. Put to the test, the Opposition always fails Australia first. Let me give some examples. At the beginning of last week the Leader of the Opposition announced with some fanfare that he was cancelling a visit to Europe in order to attack the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and this Government over its handling of matters affecting the alliance with the United States. In the light of the lack-lustre performance we have seen this morning, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who replaced the Leader of the Opposition, can regard himself as having visited Europe on false pretences. In matters of foreign policy the Leader of the Opposition has an insatiable and regrettable desire to put down Australia and Australia's national interests. It will be recalled that in the latter part of 1983 he claimed that Australia's relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations had been damaged beyond repair by our Government. The facts are that Australia's relations with ASEAN were then at the beginning of a stage of development which now sees them better than they have ever been. Similarly, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition decry this Government's positive projections of the scope for the development of economic relations with China. He and his colleagues have asserted with relish that the work which we and the Chinese Government have put in to develop co-operation in regard to iron and steel, for example, was certain to fail. The Opposition's attitude is this: Sell Australia first! Do not stand up for the national interest. Undermine the confidence of this country and the conviction of other countries that this country is able to work successfully together with them, whether it is in an alliance or a commercial undertaking. I am confident that co-operation will be taken further when the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of China, Hu Yaobang, visits Australia in April. Even more shamefully, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition bow to the wishes of reactionaries on his backbench in supporting the South African regime against the anti-apartheid policies of this Government. He is now continuing this regrettable tendency to put Australia down, sell Australian first and subordinate the national interests to his narrow view of his Party's interest. The Leader of the Opposition has been predicting gloom and doom about ANZUS and Australia's relationship with the United States. But what would we expect from the former Foreign Minister in the Fraser Government-a government which greeted with unseemly glee every heightening of tension between the super-powers during its period in office and which speculated with enthusiasm and extraordinary recklessness on the alleged imminence of a third world war. Its only remembered initiative in East-West relationships was the bullying and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to prevent any Australian athlete from attending the Olympic Games in Moscow. It is a record of selling Australia short, of dividing it and undermining the confidence of other countries in what this country can do and achieve alone and in association with others. The undeniable fact is that we are not witnessing the dissolution of ANZUS. That is merely a synthetic pretext for the Opposition in trying to generate some enthusiasm behind the Leader of the Opposition at a time when he desperately needs it. His Deputy Leader, given the opportunity three times immediately after the election to declare unequivocally his loyalty for his Leader, in the words of Michelle Grattan dodged the opportunity to do so. He did so with solemnity which would have done St Peter justice near the fowl yard of Liberal Party politics. The gravamen of the Leader of the Opposition's charge is that the changes in the arrangements for the MX tests, addressed by the Prime Minister this morning, have weakened, if not terminally, at least seriously and critically the ANZUS alliance. Let us understand what is being said by our major alliance partner, the United States. The facts repudiate the synthetic concoctions of the Opposition. This was what was said in Washington on 6 February in a joint statement by the Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz: The US side brought out that there are a variety of ways to monitor an MX test and that the monitoring effort need not involve the provisions of Australian support. A decision has been made by the US to conduct the MX tests without the use of Australian support arrangements. Is ANZUS floundering, as our friends opposite would seek to have this community believe? Of course it is not. How could we accept their word? We could scarcely accept the word of the right honourable member for New England. The quip that is going around Parliament now is: 'How can you tell when the right honourable member for New England is lying? When his lips are moving'. We saw that this morning in the way in which he presented that flimsy, unconvincing and manufactured case aimed to sell out Australia, to undermine national self-confidence and to create doubts in the mind of our major ally as to how deep, abiding and bi-partisan may be this nation's support for the ANZUS alliance. Let me quote what senior United States officials have to say about the relationship. I quote from an answer to a question on ANZUS given by Mr Paul Wolfowitz at a Press conference on 7 February: Our relationship with Australia is as strong as ever under the ANZUS treaty. Yet we have the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party coming here this morning and saying something diametrically opposed to the declaration of the United States of its assessment of the relationship between the two countries. Mr Wolfowitz also said: I think ANZUS is a treaty we view as intact. We would like to keep it intact. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party did their best this morning to try to undermine the treaty, to try to weaken resolve and to try to cast doubt in the mind of the major ally of the ANZUS alliance. One has to ask the question: Why are they engaged constantly in this tactic of selling out Australia first? Why do they not show some confident patriotism about this country and engage in bipartisan commitment to the ANZUS alliance? Certainly, let us have differences, but let us have real differences. They are the grit and the grist of the parliamentary mill in the democratic process which we have. But let us not have spuriously manufactured differences which are aimed to undermine the credibility of this country, not just now but in the future, differences that destroy both national and international confidence. That is what the Opposition is about-sell out Australia first on any occasion. Mr Wolfowitz also said: I mean, our first priority, having pulled out of the exercise- that is, the trilateral exercise- is to focus on how to solidify our co-operation with Australia on a bilateral basis. The question was put of drawing up a bilateral treaty between Australia and the United States. Mr Wolfowitz said: That is not our objective. He does not want any of this nonsense being put out by the Opposition. Again, on the ANZUS treaty and our bilateral relationship in it, he said: It is the basis of our co-operation with Australia, which is solid. A senior spokesman of the State Department in Washington, speaking on behalf of the United States Administration, said that it is solid. He went on: We do not seek to change the treaty or to find a new one. Yet this morning we were subjected to the blandishments of the Opposition that that is what should be done. In whose best interests? Certainly not those of the United States in so far as our relationship is concerned. At the time of the departure of our Prime Minister, the President of the United States said: I cannot overstate the value America places on our friendship with Australia. The President of the United States says that he cannot overstate how valuable he finds our relationship. The Opposition does not believe that. Who is to be believed? The right honourable member for New England or the President of the United States of America? The credibility of the right honourable member for New England is as good as that of a bankrupt partner in a failed funeral parlour. The President went on: Australia is a reliable ally. We have not heard that this morning. Whose word are we to accept? That of the Leader of the Opposition, that of the Leader of the National Party or that of the United States President? The United States President described Australia as a trusted friend and as a key ally and a vital voice in world affairs. He said: Australia makes a significant contribution to the way that we approach international challenges. Yet this morning the Opposition is selling out Australia and trying to downgrade the role that we can and do play internationally. For what purpose? It does not serve our standing internationally any good and it does not reinforce the confidence of the people of this community to hear the Opposition, the alternative government, speaking in this way. Why do honourable members opposite engage in these deceptions and manufacture these brutal untruths and spread them around? It is as though they were claiming to speak with some authority for the American Administration. The undeniable facts are on the record, and the Opposition's claims are repudiated by the American Administration. As the Prime Minister said, we embark on a range of international initiatives within the alliance. We are firmly committed to it. In fact, after a review in 1983-the first for some 30 years-which I conducted with other members of ANZUS, I said this in the Parliament on 15 September 1983: The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. Our assessment of the review was entirely endorsed publicly by the United States Administration. Yet we have the Opposition trying to bring up some flimsy doubts about just how successful we have been in maintaining that alliance. But here is the distinction and this is what the Opposition cannot come to grips with. We approach many of these issues in a different way. For example, there are differences within the alliance, yet the firm resolve that we have displayed in it has been endorsed and commended by the American Administration. None the less, we exercise many independent initiatives, and these are respected and accepted. For instance, many positive things came out of the negotiations conducted in Washington by the Prime Minister. He made it clear that we do not endorse the strategic defence initiative and that we do not endorse the strategic modernisation program. They are quite unequivocal assertions. Where does the Opposition stand on this? Mr Howard —You ought to endorse the strategic defence initiative. We did more to get the Russians to the negotiating table than anyone else. Mr Sinclair —You want to endorse it, too. You have given it away. Mr HAYDEN —I am curiously interested to find the unequivocal endorsement of SDI and the strategic modernisation program by both the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. The programs cover Trident, the MX missile, development of the cruise missile, the STOVL bomber and a whole range of kindred things. If their position is an unequivocal and unrestrained endorsement of those programs it means that any pretence of supporting deterrence or a nuclear freeze at stable levels is meaningless from members of the Opposition. Other positive features to come out of the negotiations were the unequivocal mutual commitment between Australia and the United States to ANZUS and the clear declaration of our persistence to promote the comprehensive test ban treaty, an issue in which we have been particularly active at Geneva and in New York at the United Nations. Those things having been said, let us look at some of the content of the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. He accused us of undermining ANZUS. Who says that we have undermined ANZUS? It is not our allies, who are members of ANZUS, but people such as representatives of the Opposition. The Americans have clearly declared otherwise. The Leader of the Opposition accused us of breaking a firm commitment. In fact, the evidence is that the Americans were quite happy to make an adjustment in relation to MX testing because facilities in Australia were not required. The Leader of the Opposition accused us of failing to respond constructively to the ANZUS crisis. Presumably, this means that the Opposition policy would be to go out and pound New Zealand-a totally unproductive approach to this rather delicate and difficult situation. We are accused of the pursuit of contradictory policies setting back international security and disarmament. I have no idea what this means. I can only presume that the Opposition is criticising us on this basis. It is a criticism which is current in many parts of the community. It arises from misunderstanding. It is the product of the failure of the Opposition parties to educate the community properly during the many years of government in respect of what deterrence really means. Their presumption presumably is that one is either totally for the nuclear arms race or totally against it; there is no alternative. The interjections from the Opposition make it clear that its members are totally for the arms race. There are alternatives of approach. We accept that the world situation is imperfect. Nuclear arms are deployed about the world, in particular as between the two super-powers. We accept that in place is a very unsatisfactory arrangement which is described as deterrence but at this point we can see no alternative. We recognise that merely to opt out of any responsibility at all on the one hand, becoming neutral and isolationist, will not preserve our best interests. If there is to be a nuclear winter as a consequence of a massive nuclear exchange between the super-powers we will not be exempted from the lethal effects. Therefore, we have a liability, morally, to engage in those procedures which can discourage and deter nuclear exchanges taking place. That is the role of the facilities in Australia, at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Let me put it even more sharply. Those facilities have key functions in respect of verification. Those verification obligations arise from the SALT II treaty, not ratified by the super-powers but very much honoured in practice. Should Geneva prove successful in arriving at some sort of resolution in respect of the arms race, such national technical means of verification will be essential. Those facilities will become absolutely critical to the verification procedures which guarantee, hopefully, that any such conclusions, hopefully reached, are kept in place. Are we to walk out of our responsibilities? Are we to turn our backs and shirk our moral commitments? I will certainly not. There is an in-between way-between where my friends opposite want to go in total support of the nuclear arms race and where others at the other end of the spectrum want to go, totally dropping out of any involvement at all. In the meantime, we are working for arms control and a nuclear arms freeze to prohibit, hopefully, the nuclear arms race breaking out and expanding in outer space. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(11.55) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made a mistake, and no amount of abuse, no amount of rationalising and no amount of gobbledegook will alter that fact. The Prime Minister reversed a perfectly proper commitment, without the good reasons which he said this morning justified changing his mind. His Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had justified that decision, and we in the Opposition would have supported the commitment which he had made to the United States. This debate is about the need to see the Australian-American alliance in the broadest possible perspective as part of the integrated Western alliance bringing stability to the South Pacific and South East Asia and, in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance, to the rest of the free world. It is not a question of semantics or literal interpretations of the ANZUS commitment; it is part of that understanding which allies of so many years standing have, which close friends have, which was involved in the simple request to provide facilities to aircraft for the monitoring of missile tests in international waters. The Prime Minister should have toughed it out. He should have spoken not only to his left wing but also to any other element in the community which doubted the correctness of his position. We would have helped him in explaining that to the public, to the extent that the public was involved. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the public was not involved but that it was a question of trade-offs within the factions of the Australian Labor Party. Had the Prime Minister chosen to tough it out it would not have been difficult to do so because, as he and the Government well know, there is no logical inconsistency between commitment to the cause of nuclear disarmament and willingness to provide port facilities for United States ships or aircraft involved in monitoring the testing of unarmed missiles in international waters. The proposed tests do not involve the explosion of nuclear warheads; nor do they impinge in any way on Australian sovereignty. The fact that these missiles are controversial, the fact that they have a first strike capability, does not exclude their deterrent value, and deterrence, as the Prime Minister has said, is at the core of the Government's approach and certainly at the core of the Opposition's approach to arms control negotiations. Negotiations between the two super-powers are imminent. What will be one of the first things to happen? The Soviet Union will produce information to show that Australia has reneged on an undertaking it made to the United States. That will embarrass the United States in the discussions which are due to start in Geneva in a fortnight's time. If deterrence remains the principal safeguard against nuclear war until the super-powers can mutually agree to nuclear disarmament, one would think that this facility could have been explained very easily to any reasonable Australian. That group may not include the left wing of the Labor Party, but it does include the overwhelming majority of Australians. This deterrence factor is important because it is not just the Americans who test missiles of that nature. The Soviet Union does so too. In this debate it is often presented that only the Americans are engaging in research of the various kinds alluded to by the Foreign Minister. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister made an error by reversing a perfectly correct decision without just cause and without giving just reason. What is the nature of that mistake? If it were just a mistake it would not be a major issue, but it is a grave mistake because it calls into question Australia's reliability as an ally. What a juvenile exercise it is to say that we have in any way impugned the honesty of the President or the Secretary of State. Mr N. A. Brown —That is nonsense. Mr MACPHEE —Of course it is nonsense. They are saying publicly what all Americans and all Australians want, which is that we maintain our unqualified allegiance; we maintain our support as allies. Again, it does not mean that we cannot be constructively critical of positions that the United States wants, through the ANZUS Council and through other negotiations with the United States. We can and we must, at various stages of our careers, put views to the United States which might be at variance with those it holds. But there are ways and means of doing that, and certainly reneging in this way on an arrangement, which may not cause the Americans great inconvenience, nonetheless puts some doubt into the minds of officials, business people and Americans generally. They will ask themselves: 'Is Australia joining New Zealand now as a doubtful ally? Of all the allies we might have thought we had unquestioningly beside us, we had Australia and we had New Zealand'. Coming as it does on the heels of the decision of New Zealand regarding nuclear vessels and vessels which might carry nuclear weapons, it is seen privately by United States citizens and officials, and by other members of the Western alliance, as a questioning of our reliability as an ally. Mr N. A. Brown —It is contrary to the spirit of the alliance. Mr MACPHEE —Certainly, it is utterly contrary to the spirit of the alliance, of which the ANZUS treaty is merely a symbol. The contents of the ANZUS treaty are quite insignificant compared with the arrangement we traditionally have with our good friends. If our good friend says: 'I am conducting these tests as part of an overall strategy to bring people to the conference table to have discussions, as part of a resolution of East-West tension and conflict; will you facilitate by refuelling the aircraft?', of course, we say yes. If we cannot explain that to the Australian people together, then there is something lacking in the capacity of our political leadership. Yet the Prime Minister did not even give that a chance; he did not even put that to the test. Contrary to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, my visit on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to Europe was not a waste of time. In his place, I chaired a meeting of the non-socialist parties from the democracies of the world that belong to what is known as the International Democratic Union. This meeting of foreign Ministers and shadow foreign Ministers had this to say, in a communique issued in my name at the end of that meeting, under the heading 'ANZUS and the Western Alliance': In assessing recent developments in the Pacific area, particularly the actions of the Labor Governments in Australia and New Zealand, the meeting emphasised the importance of consistency and dependability among allies and the honouring of obligations essential to the Western Alliance. Member-Parties coming from NATO countries, in particular, believed that political events and uncertainties in Australia and New Zealand raised questions that were bound to impinge on policy-making and longer-term planning in Washington, not least the future basis of operations and commitments in the Pacific region. Referring to the recent decision of the New Zealand government to refuse entry to any American vessel with a nuclear capability, they expressed grave disquiet at the implications of this for the future of ANZUS, and its consequences on Western defence as a whole. They expressed their support for the decision taken by the New Zealand National Party in totally opposing the short-sighted decision, and for the Australian Liberal Party's opposition to any reneging on security obligations. The decision to reverse the provision of facilities for the MX missile monitoring was a reversal of a decision relevant to our security and to the security of the Western alliance generally. There is no doubt about that. But all public utterances by the President, the Secretary of State and others will continue to have regard to the long established relationship with the United States, begun with Prime Minister Curtin, but continued, embellished and developed by the Menzies Government and subsequent coalition governments. Therefore, of course, one has to read between the lines. One has to know what people are saying privately. Oddly enough, I was going to quote the very words the Prime Minister quoted, which the President uttered when he and the Prime Minister left the Oval Office, because they show what the United States expects of its allies. I did not read those words as guaranteeing that there was no problem about Australia because of the change of mind of the Prime Minister. On the contrary, I read those words as a clear warning to the Australian people that if these sorts of undertakings are revoked in that way again, and at a time when it causes maximum embarrassment to the United States when it sits down to have its discussions with the Soviet Union, then it will not be seen as a hiccup and there will be a serious matter indeed to be faced. Mr N. A. Brown —Where do their election promises stand? Mr MACPHEE —Where indeed do any of Labor's promises stand in relation to security and the American alliance and the Western alliance in general? I believe that the Prime Minister has shown this morning that there were no good reasons. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has not provided any. He spent his time talking initially about China and various other matters. There was no enthusiasm, in his stumbling contribution to the debate, to in fact support the Prime Minister's decision. It is unprecedented that there should have been a Press release coming out of the Cabinet saying: 'We are all friends and everything is terribly affable'. That has never happened, in my memory of Australian politics. Mr N. A. Brown —It was unanimous. Ha, ha! Mr MACPHEE —They were unanimous in supporting the Prime Minister! What a shame that the two key Ministers had already been on television saying the opposite. What a shame the Ambassador for Disarmament had been saying the opposite. Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Perhaps I may tell the honourable members on my left that I do not consider the honourable member for Goldstein needs any assistance. I call the honourable member for Goldstein. Mr MACPHEE —The Prime Minister needs assistance, and he needs to reverse his reversal. We will support him if he will go back and now say that he will try to convince any doubting people of the importance of providing that facility as part of the alliance. I really believe that if he reverses that, then privately as well as publicly the words of the President and the Secretary of State will have some meaning again. But unless that happens there will be a lingering doubt. We have seen it with Congressman Cheney, a person who we all know has very close associations with the President and with the White House generally. These words, which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have sheltered behind, reflect the regard in which Australia is held and the sentiments that still prevail regarding Australia, rather than the disquiet which is now being expressed quite openly in Washington and amongst officials of the United States throughout the world. We have a shrinking world in which the alliance which we have with New Zealand and the United States is of great relevance to the Western powers generally and to the whole of the region in which we live. The fact is that we have collective security, and as independent countries we have entered into alliances. Of course, those alliances to some extent circumscribe our sovereignty. For me, the most interesting thing at Bonn was not just the strength of feeling amongst the NATO allies, but the strength of feeling amongst those political parties from democracies which are non-aligned. Countries such as Austria and the Scandinavian or Nordic countries say that their contribution to world peace is by their non-alignment, by their neutrality, whereas our contribution is by our alignment with the United States. Solidarity is the key to the Western alliance, and this episode, coming as it has on the decision of the New Zealand Government, seems to question our solidarity in that regard. One can look at ANZUS literally, or one can look at the spirit of it. I believe that when the Secretary of State speaks of the concept of the alliance, he is deliberately using that in a literal sense. The umbrella which is placed about all the nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations and all the small island nations of the South Pacific is now itself in question. What if, for example, in the transition to internal self-government and to eventual independence, New Caledonia does not have a smooth ride? What if a regime came to power there, or elsewhere in our region, which took up positions or alliances which were hostile to Australia, or which were destabilising for our part of the world? To whom would we first turn? Obviously the United States. We could hardly expect the United States to continue to provide assistance to us if a fundamental form of assistance such as refuelling aircraft monitoring missile tests in international waters is not provided. Neither their aircraft nor the tests were any threat to peace, and the commitment by Australia was in the spirit of our close alliance with the United States. We all know that no man is an island, and it is equally true that no island nation is totally independent. Interdependence is a fact of life, and that is what has been offended and ignored by the Prime Minister's capitulation. What confidence can any ally have in a country whose government reverses commitments not on merit but on factional numbers? We have examined the merit, and the Government has not made any endeavour to justify its decision. There is not even a pretence of merit examination. That is an insult not only to our ally but also to the Australian people themselves. It was the factional balance in the Australian Labor Party and not Australia's interests or the interests of the alliance that was the criterion for this decision. So again I say: Let the Prime Minister face anyone in the community who doubts the wisdom of his original decision and we will support him in trying to settle down any disquiet. Then he can reinstate his undertaking to facilitate the monitoring and thereby give more confidence to people in the United States than they now possess. In conclusion, I point out that, while people tend to take for granted the alliance, there is nonetheless an increasing Soviet presence in our region. There is a current Vietnamese offensive in Kampuchea. Hanoi's army has trebled in the last 10 years. Who has funded that? It is the Soviet Union, certainly not Vietnam's neighbours, China or Thailand or the countries of Indo-china. Vietnam's air force is now the biggest in South East Asia and, with Soviet help, Vietnam is building a very significant navy. For what purpose? No one is attacking Vietnam; in fact, Vietnam is attacking its two neighbours, Cambodia and Laos. The fact is that Vietnam has provided the Soviet Union with a large naval and air base at Cam Ranh Bay and the Soviet navy has a very significant presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans as well as in the South China Sea. These developments certainly worry our ANZUS partners, New Zealand and the United States, and they are of concern to the ASEAN countries to our near north. As far as we are concerned, they must be very relevant factors in this debate. On 12 February Singapore's Foreign Minister, Mr Dhanabalan, voiced his concern about the recent strains in the ANZUS alliance, saying that they could seriously affect ASEAN and general Asian Pacific regional security. All our neighbours are linking our decision on the monitoring of the MX missile testing to New Zealand's decision regarding nuclear warships. Mr Dhanabalan said that regional security depended on a balance of power between the super-powers and that within this framework all states in the region had a part to play. They had to do what was necessary to help the United States maintain an equilibrium with the Soviet Union. That was said not after Mr Lange made his many statements regarding warships with nuclear capability but after our Prime Minister backed down over the provision of facilities to assist the monitoring of MX missile testing. This statement was followed by one from Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, who made it clear that all the ASEAN Foreign Ministers were worried about the flow of Soviet arms to Vietnam and Kampuchea. In fact, on 12 February the six ASEAN governments appealed to foreign countries for military aid to help Khmer resistance forces fight Vietnamese troops occupying Kampuchea. Such is the extent of ASEAN concern about the escalating Soviet presence in the area and such is its concern about any questioning of our reliability as an ally of the United States. We then find Mr Nakasone setting out Japan's defence commitments, saying that the United States would be allowed to take vessels into Japanese ports if those vessels were nuclear powered or had a nuclear capacity and that certainly in times of danger Japan would co-operate with the United States in that way. So all around us there is concern about our reliability. This concern should not have arisen. The Prime Minister should reverse his decision and revert to the position he initially took, which was so ably supported by the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.15) —One thing from which the Opposition simply cannot escape in this debate is that, even bearing in mind the important element of co-operation in our alliance with the United States through ANZUS and its significance for United States defence purposes, the Americans found absolutely no problem, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in the United States, in withdrawing their request for limited logistical support for the MX missile exercises. They had no difficulty at all in doing that. Trying to indicate that that was anything more than simply a small episode in the relationship between ourselves and the United States is drawing a very long bow indeed. Nevertheless, for the last hour or so members of the Opposition have attempted to draw that very long bow. The raising of these issues in the debate brings us to the important matter of the support that exists in the Australian community for the American alliance, the extent to which that support has been eroded over the years, and the means by which that support ought to be brought back to the fullest possible extent. On the question of the undermining of ANZUS, the blame resides solidly with those who have been responsible for administering that alliance for some considerable time. There was never any attempt by the Liberal Party of Australia when in government, particularly following the enunciation of the Guam doctrine by President Nixon in 1969, to give real value to the ANZUS alliance, and there has been no effort by the Liberals in Opposition to place real value on the alliance beyond simply making assertions about it. There has been no sensible attempt in the defence area to explain the value of the alliance within the framework of our requirement to adopt a self-reliant defence posture. When the Liberals were in office during the last decade they permitted, by evading discussion on these issues, the development of a falsely based and alarmist view about, for example, the general purposes and functions of the joint facilities in this country. They founded that falsely based and alarmist view firstly in the way they explained the establishment of the North West Cape naval installation. I can well recall from my reading of that time that Prime Minister Menzies justified it as being a facility which communicated with naval surface ships. It has been openly acknowledged for some considerable time now that the facility is totally associated with providing communications for submarines and potentially for ballistic missile submarines. From misleading us in that area, the Liberals moved to misleading people in public debate in regard to other joint facilities established in the 1960s. From Liberal Party Defence Ministers at the time we got euphemisms about space research and generalised statements about their value to deterrence, but there was no attempt to argue that through logically with the Australian community. As a result, false rumours were permitted to persist. We had rumours about whether those facilities were in fact missile bases and rumours about whether electricity at the bases came from nuclear generators. A plethora of doubt was cast on those facilities, particularly doubt as to whether the Australian Government understood what went on there. In fact, those doubts as to whether the Australian Government knew what went on at those facilities were augmented repeatedly by the floundering of Liberal Party Defence Ministers when they were called upon to explain whether or not they understood that particular developments had taken place. That floundering was dramatic indeed. We well recollect the difficulties the predecessor of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) had when discussing a particular element of change in construction at North West Cape. The doubts that were left in the Australian community about those joint facilities and that central element of co-operation between ourselves and the United States of America were: Firstly, the particular purposes which they served; whether those purposes were benign or dangerous and, if dangerous, to what extent they could be explained and justified. They left severe doubt in the public mind that the former Government had the first idea about what went on at those joint facilities. I recollect Mr Gorton coming into this place, admittedly after he was Prime Minister, and saying: 'No, I never really did understand what went on when I was Prime Minister at the time. I did not really want to make myself aware of what went on. I think I could have made myself aware if I wanted to but I really did not understand.' Then we had Prime Minister McMahon, who was also a Prime Minister at the time those facilities were being established, coming into this place and saying: 'I think I knew what happened then but I cannot be absolutely certain now that I knew what was happening at that point. In any case there was no real need for the Australian public to know'. These were people who had responsibility for administering those facilities. Is there any small wonder that at least a generation of young Australians who were brought up in the period since the enunciation of the Guam doctrine of President Nixon and the commitment of Australian forces to Vietnam had very severe doubts as to whether the Australian Government was in control of its side of the relationship with the United States and understood what commitments it was entering into and what commitments were being made? We, as the Government, must now live with the consequences of the incompetence of the administration of foreign policy by our Liberal predecessors. When I went through those statements of doubt expressed by Mr Gorton and Mr McMahon I noticed the difficulties that Jim Killen had when he was floundering in this place trying to explain one particular development at North West Cape. There was silence from Government members, particularly those who were Ministers at the time, because they knew, they understood and they were aware that those statements were made by those individuals. As a result we have to live with the consequences when explaining to the general public the very considerable significance of those facilities. There was never any effort by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia to do that when they had the opportunity. They simply did not have the intellectual facility to grasp it nor did they have a commitment to those aspects of the general purposes and functions of the joint facilities which impact most seriously in the area of arms control and disarmament. They ran away from a complex debate. I believe that they did that for three reasons, and they are running away from the complex debate now for the same reasons. Firstly, they have always had a desire to wrap themselves in the flag as far as they possibly can; secondly, to leave complexity and difficulty aside; and, thirdly, to put out the most simplistic interpretation that they possibly can of the relationship. When that facility is being denied them, as it has effectively been denied them since the early 1970s, they have a Midas touch for failure in dealing with the relationship with the United States. At the time it was enunciated they found themselves in a crisis as they have frequently found themselves at several points in time since then. It ill becomes the Leader of the National Party to come into this chamber today-his Defence ministry would not level with the Australian public on the general purposes and functions of the installations-and say that he did not want to commit Australia to the rapid deployment force and was that not a great gesture of independence. I know why he did not want to commit Australia to the rapid deployment force. If he had committed Australia to the rapid deployment force it would have meant that the entire business end of the Army would have been attached to it. As I recollect, at the time the United States was looking at a commitment of 2,000 or 3,000 to the rapid deployment force. At that time that was the entire business end of the Army. It would have been pretty difficult for the Leader of the National Party to have come to a conclusion that what he really wanted to do was to make a balanced judgment as to whether this was going to be essential to the American alliance, and on balance he came to the conclusion that a point of independence was necessary. The simple fact is that he did not have anything to commit. The second reason why we find ourselves in a situation of difficulty, created for us by a Liberal-Country Party government, given that it ran this country for most of the last 30 or 40 years and certainly for most of the period that the alliance has been in position, is that the coalition is intellectually decrepit. It has never been able to confront the complexities of the Guam doctrine and what that has imposed on us, for example, in our necessity to establish defence self-reliance. One would have thought that, 12 or 13 years after that, members of the Opposition might have arrived at a few conclusions. But what do we find in the last election campaign? We find two perspectives produced three months ago by two Opposition spokesmen during that election campaign. I have the coalition policy on defence support, drafted, no doubt, by one member of the Opposition who was justifiably removed from the front bench in the immediate aftermath of the election. He said: . . . in a future conflict, we may have to rely entirely on our own forces, and our own capabilities to support those forces. Circumstances may be such that neither the United States, nor any of other of our traditional allies will be capable of, or willing to assist us with forces and defence materiel. That was the Liberal Party's defence support policy. Let me turn now to the National Party's policy which states: . . . the ADF- the Australian defence force- should be structured as far as possible to enable co-ordination with our allies and to participate, where required, in such multinational force commitments as may be in our national interest. The Coalition would maintain and demonstrate the capability to project a naval and air presence to the north and west of Australia, in co-operation with our allies. The coalition has never been able intellectually to get to grips with the point at which it was left 13 years ago by the change that then took place in the United States doctrine. I now come to an election campaign, held only two or three months ago, to find two totally contradictory defence perspectives being offered on what would have been the responsibilities of a Liberal government had it been elected at the time. But that is not surprising because it was precisely that sort of backing and filling on defence policy that went on during the entire period of the Fraser Government. Where were the heads of that Government really at? They left an impression in the community that all we had to argue about was whether the United States alliance constituted ironclad guarantees in all circumstances. The debate revolved around that at its simplest level. There was never a real explanation to the Australian public that that really begged the question. That proposition really begged the question that there were other areas that were far more significant that we ought to be considering when we looked at the contribution of the United States alliance to our defence forces. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) had a kind remark to say about Paul Dibb, a gentleman whom I have just appointed to conduct a defence review. I am the first to concede that the defence review being conducted by Paul Dibb is too late. It should have been conducted five or six years ago. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Opposition had a kind word to say about Paul Dibb in that regard. I would like to take it a point further because the Leader of the Opposition did emphasise what is the real significance of the American alliance to us and what it does for us, taking it out of the realm of the sort of mindless discussion about ironclad guarantees and the rah, 'rah historical perspectives presented by the various speakers today. He pointed out that it had real value to us in the area of intelligence and that to be able to replicate that in some other way by our own national means would be such as to involve us in an unacceptable cost. He pointed out the considerable value to us of co-operation in the area of defence science and that to replicate that elsewhere would provide us with acceptable costs. He pointed out also the value in our equipment program. Then he went on from that point to indicate the value of an ultimate deterrent, for most sensible purposes, in the circumstances in which we are most likely to find ourselves. As the Opposition spokesman on defence support said during the last election campaign, we must establish a strong level of defence self-reliance. I see that the former Minister for Defence has come into the chamber. He will remember that. He was a good Minister. The third reason why our opponents have never been able to get to grips with this, why they could not level with the Australian public about the purposes and functions of those facilities, was that they had absolutely no commitment to arms control and disarmament policies of any description, let alone the ability to devise any of their own. They had no commitment to those positions. They might now like to imagine that they had. If they had a commitment to those positions they would have found themselves sitting much more comfortably with a public explanation of those joint facilities. The joint facilities are quite critical to arms control verification. If honourable members want evidence as to whether those functions are important in the arms control debate, they need only look at what happened in the United States Senate when it was considering the SALT II Treaty. One of the grounds on which it was rejected for ratification by the United States Senate was that because of the loss of facilities that did some arms control verification in Iran, the United States could not be sure that its national technical means of verification were in place. That may well have been a false argument during that debate but, in the atmospherics of arms control, the psychological elements are enormously important and, therefore, the functions that are performed by facilities such as our joint facilities in that area are quite critical to the achievement of arms control and disarmament agreements. As I searched back in my memory and papers I tried to find some contribution that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition in any area of Australian foreign policy development when he was Foreign Minister. I could not. The most distinctive features of the previous Government's foreign policy, the ones that stand the test of time and are remembered, were all initiatives of its leader. Those initiatives related particularly to racial issues, issues in southern Africa and issues of economic relations between North and South. I can recollect all of them; but I cannot recollect any initiatives in other areas. The only time I can really remember in that he stood out and went against the position of the American Government-this does bear some remarking on as it was a position different from that adopted by the American Government-was when Jimmy Carter argued that what he really needed was a demilitarised Indian Ocean, that that was the sort of thing we ought to be looking at as it would be a decent arms control and disarmament policy. For the first time our opponents invoked a position that had been created under discussions between Barnard and the then United States Defense Secretary, Schlesinger, in 1974 that gave us input into the United States strategic policy. That was invoked and a very lively campaign was conducted by the Foreign Minister at the time to get the demilitarised zone proposal pulled out. The Leader of the Opposition is grinning now because he knows that is true. If there was one single arms control initiative taken by him as Foreign Minister, it was to take out the proposition on the establishment of the demilitarised zone in the Indian Ocean. It is hardly the most outstanding record, either in terms of foreign policy or in terms of this disarmament area in which he now tries at least partially to cloak himself with argument in that regard. The simple fact of the matter is that all these things combined have put us in a difficult situation in this country. A new generation of Australians growing up since the Vietnam war have come to mistrust elements of our co-operation. They also have doubts about governments knowing what they are doing and being well motivated in what they are doing. It will be a challenge for this Government as it goes through its successive three or four terms to place the ANZUS alliance in the public mind firmly within the framework of our defence and foreign policies. We know what we are doing in that regard. There is significant evidence that a section of the public-not a majority of the public-does not. This issue is so important that this country cannot afford to have a section of the public not in agreement with us on it. That will be the challenge for this Government in dealing with that problem. Whether or not the Opposition likes it, the simple fact of the matter is that a variety of United States officials over the last two weeks have gone on the public record following the United States decision to withdraw a request for limited logistic support. They have said, in detail, that they do not believe that any problem has accrued via this for the United States alliance, that the United States remains firm with Australia, that our military co-operation remains firm and that our most important commitments remain firm. Those commitments include the joint facilities and a willingness to exercise. Only yesterday I announced a most extensive exercise between ourselves and the United States that will take place next month. It will, of course, presage a series of exercises as time goes by because the bilateral relationship between ourselves and the United States is very strong. We have every right in terms of our own stewardship of the alliance and our commitments to it to move the amendment that we have. I believe that amendment should and will be carried. Accordingly, I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hawke's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 81 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. WAldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. JBrown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoClelland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER —Before putting the next question, for the benefit of new members and some who have had temporary absences and may have forgotten, I inform honourable members that during divisions it is usual for them, as far as possible, to sit in their usual seat. Once the tellers are called, no movement is permitted because a count has to be taken. I hope that honourable members will not hold newspapers and papers in front of their faces as the tellers will be unable to count them. Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Moore (Mr Blanchard), Lilley (Mrs Darling), Forrest (Mr Drummond), Bowman (Mr Keogh), Ballarat (Mr Mildren), Wide Bay (Mr Millar), Banks (Mr Mountford) and Curtin (Mr Rocher) to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker-- Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I ask that questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Opposition members interjecting- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, are we still on notices? Mr SPEAKER —No. The procedure agreed to yesterday was that questions be called on at 2 p.m. Now that that has been disposed of, I will go to the continuation of notices of motion. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 1, I shall move: That this House reaffirms its policy to welcome visiting ships and aircraft of nuclear allies, subject to our allies meeting the safeguard conditions laid down by the Fraser Government. Mr FREE(Lindsay) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on its major achievements in the field of sport, in particular- (1) the generous financial support for Australia's world class athletes provided by the recently announced National Athlete Award Scheme grants; (2) the great success of the recent Australia Games in which the Government was the major financial sponsor, and (3) the announcement of government support for the Brisbane City Council's bid to stage the 1992 Olympic Games. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling for further notices, I remind members of the House of the advice on notices of motion that has been given to the House by my predecessor and me on previous occasions. Motions are intended to be propositions in concise form placed before the House for decision. I have a duty under the Standing Orders to examine all notices of motion to see that an excessive amount of argument or information is not given in those notices that presage debate on the question in the House. I ask honourable members once more to take notice of that advice in forming their notices of motion. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —I give notice of my intention to present, on General Business Thursday No. 3, a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to certain matters concerning Commonwealth employees. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 4, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; and (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance by sectional vested interests including some members of the medical profession. Mr Cadman proceeding to give notice of a motion-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member ignores the warning I gave earlier. The notice is out of order. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 6, I shall move: That this House, noting the progress being made towards the establishment of a national meat inspection service and the constructive steps being taken with regard to export inspection, congratulates all governments for their co-operation in this endeavour. Mr Howard proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reframe his notice in accordance with the practice of the House. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 5, I shall move: That this House- (1) acknowledges and applauds the Government's record in focussing public attention on the problem of road safety; (2) encourages the Australian community to join with and assist governments in fostering better attitudes towards road safety, especially amongst the young; and (3) urges all State governments to heed the Federal Minister for Transport's call for the introduction of a graduated licensing scheme whereby the nation's youth might be better trained and- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now starting to include matter. I invite him to round off his notice. Mr SCOTT —The notice continues: qualified before being licensed to drive independently. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 7, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to state clearly and comprehensively its objectives and programs in respect of foreign policy and in particular deplores the ad hoc method of decision making which is a consequence of that failure. Mr Ronald Edwards proceeding to give notice of a motion-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 1, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the Government's renewed commitment to Australia's outdated centralised wage-fixing system and the full indexation of wages, and (2) urges the Government to recognise that while this protects the real incomes of those in jobs it condemns the Australian economy to continuing high unemployment, especially for young people. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a Joint Standing Committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee for Business Affairs, be appointed: (a) to review- (i) Commonwealth legislation with a view to removing- (A) provisions (including provisions that require information to be furnished to a person) that impose or may impose unreasonable burdens on business and on industry, and (B) unnecessary or out-of-date provisions; (ii) the administrative practices of Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities, so far as those practices have an effect upon the operations of business and industry, with a view to ensuring that those practices do not impose unreasonable burdens and demands on business and on industry; (iii) such laws and practices with a view to ensuring that, in respect of business and industry in Australia, they comply with international obligations assumed by Australia, including through the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labour Organisation; (iv) suggestions for the improvement of Commonwealth laws and practices in relation to activities of business and industry, whether made by business and industry representative bodies or otherwise, and (v) reports of commissions and other inquiries with a view to making recommendations for the enactment of laws that may be made by the Parliament concerning business and industry in Australia, and (b) to recommend, in relation to the activities of business and industry, appropriate laws that may be made by the Parliament and that may have effect uniformly throughout Australia. (2) That the committee, for the purpose of performing its functions, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the House. (3) That details in respect of the composition, powers and proceedings of the committee be the subject of a subsequent resolution. (4) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 5, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for those domestic economic policies which have contributed to the recent decline in the value of the Australian dollar, including- (1) excessively high levels of government spending; (2) the failure to use the August 1984 Budget to seriously tackle the deficit; (3) the abandonment of monetary targeting; and (4) encouraging a wages policy which the country cannot afford. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 10, I shall move: That this House approves the Government's commitment to develop policies and programs to improve opportunities for young Australians in education and training, employment, health and housing, and its decision to put in place income support arrangements which will make those opportunities available to disadvantaged youth in particular. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) acknowledges that, while Australia's sugar industry is one of the most efficient in the world, it is going through one of the worst financial crises in its history for reasons beyond its control, and (2) calls on the Minister for Primary Industry to honour the Government's 1983 and 1984 pre-election undertakings to assist the industry through its current recession. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 8, I shall move: That this House praises the Government for the progress it is making in implementing fisheries management regimes for Australia's major fisheries thereby correcting years of neglect and returning them to profitability. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 9, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for lowering CSIRO's funds for continuing research by $9 million, and (2) calls on the Government to take a more constructive approach to science and technology to ensure the continued effectiveness of our vital scientific institutions. Mr GEAR(Canning) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 10, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government for its comprehensive and farsighted transport policies and for encouraging the development of a national transport system that is balanced in terms of industry, regions, models, and ownership. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Government to establish the National Police Academy in Goulburn, in co-operation with the existing Police Academy of the NSW Police Force in Goulburn. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 11, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on the success of its policy of improving the efficiency of the Australian shipping industry, and (2) commends the turnaround in operating results of the Australian National Line, resulting in a $22 million improvement in 1983-84 over 1982-83. Mr N. A. Brown proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice is out of order. The honourable member for Menzies knows full well that a warning has been given and he is defying the Chair. Mr Milton proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is introducing argument. The notice is out of order. I thought I made plain to the House in plain ordinary English, as my predecessor did, the concise nature of notices of motion. A notice is out of order if it contains unnecessary information and argument. I ask honourable members to take note of that. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 12, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the Government's promise to provide a fair, equitable and efficient health care system; (2) expresses its concern that the introduction of Medicare has led to a shift from private to public health care with public hospitals unable to meet the rapidly growing demand, resulting in (a) growing queues, (b) a fall in public hospital standards, and (c) an erosion of private health care, and (3) condemns the Government for its breach of election undertakings and its failure to provide reasonable access to public hospitals for the elderly, the poor and the chronically ill. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 13, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to establish a policy co-ordination unit in the Department of Primary Industry for the purpose of further developing policies for rural and provincial Australia. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is concerned at the intention of this Government to do away with the notice of motion procedure in order to quash opportunity for expression of opinion in this House, and (2) condemns the Government for its desperate shortsightedness which it will come to rue within the next 33 months when it returns to Opposition. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 14, I shall move: That this House recognises the significant contribution that has been made by TAA and Qantas to the development of aviation in Australia and places on record its view that these 2 airlines should remain in public ownership. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the damage inflicted by recent bushfires in western New South Wales; (2) draws to the attention of the Government the plight of people in those isolated areas whose phone services have been terminated by fire damage, and (3) calls on the Government to make funding available so, that with the co-operation of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and Telecom, a telephone service may be made available on a 24 hour basis to those people affected until a proper telephone service can be provided. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House, noting the remarkable improvements in the Victorian economy in the last three years, especially in the housing sector, commends the Victorian Government for its excellent record of economic management. Mr Peacock-The Opposition is quite prepared to have this matter brought on forthwith and to discuss it. Is the Leader of the House prepared to allow a debate on the issue? Mr Young-No. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses- (1) its strong support to the Queensland Premier and Government on their determination to restore full electricity power to Queensland and a permanent uninterrupted electricity supply to that State; (2) its total endorsement of the Queensland Government's absolute refusal to submit to the sort of industrial blackmail and lawlessness so often encouraged by the ALP, and (3) its hearty congratulations to the Premier on the restoration of full power to Queensland on the basis of principles enunciated by the Queensland Government. Ms FATIN(Brand) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 14, I shall move: That the House, noting the Government's objective set down in the Governor-General's speech to direct welfare assistance to the needy, believes that poverty among women in Australia is unacceptably high and, accordingly, calls on the Government to- (1) continue to pursue wage justice for women; (2) give women a high priority in job creation and training programs; (3) ensure that income security payments for supporting parents, and children of pensioners and beneficiaries are increased; and (4) continue its efforts to provide adequate child care facilities throughout Australia. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 15, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Transport and the Government for breaking its election promise to build the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway, and (2) calls on the Government to proceed with the railway following the favourable report of the independent Canadian Pacific consultant service. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 16, I shall move: That this House believes that the extent of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in Australia is unacceptably high and accordingly calls on the Government to- (1) continue to pursue anti-poverty measures as a major priority of government programs; (2) eliminate the special advantages available to the rich through strengthening anti-tax avoidance and other measures, and (3) support the efforts of the community, trade unions and State governments to end poverty and eliminate inequality. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns any moves by the Victorian Government to further centralise health services by closing efficient country hospitals which provide excellent care to local communities, and (2) expresses its grave concern at the threatened closure of the Beeac and Birregurra Hospitals in the Electoral Division of Corangamite. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House requests the Government to allocate sufficient funds in the forthcoming Budget to enable ward accommodation at Concord Repatriation Hospital, NSW to be upgraded. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 17, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for- (1) its unwarranted attack on the incomes of the elderly residents of Australia, particularly those living on farms, through the assets test and the superannuation tax; (2) its inability to produce a coherent and consistent retirement incomes policy, and (3) its failure to provide destitute farmers with an appropriate income support scheme. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 18, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its road safety policy, and in particular, for its effort in the building of better roads and better vehicles, and in fostering with in the community a greater appreciation of the costs of the road toll. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) will second: That this House condemns the Government for its gross mismanagement of the First Home Owners Scheme and particularly for- (1) its deliberate and calculated strategy to mislead and deceive applicants as to the length of time required to process their applications, and (2) Its disgraceful action in continuing this cruel strategy of deception after having received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the secret directive of 18 December 1984 is illegal. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) will second: That this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition for his deliberate and blatant slur and discrimination against the NSW members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party following his dumping from the shadow ministry of prominent NSW Liberals- Mr Young-He left all the idiots in. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the House come to order. The Minister should assist the Chair. The honourable member is giving notice of a motion which could quite easily be out of order. The Chair wishes to hear the words being used. Mr TICKNER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for his assistance. My motion concludes: and for one of their replacements being the member for O'Connor. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on General Business Day No. 2, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure- (a) to accept its national responsibilities for the mounting losses to the Australian people and the economy as a result of bushfires; (b) to fund adequately the continuation of the Project Aquarius experiments initiated by the former Government; (c) to fund adequately with the States, the National Centre for Rural Fire Research at the Chisholm Institute resulting in the centre's closure; (d) to commit funds for the regrouped Rural Fire Centre, now within the CSIRO Division of Forest Research, beyond May this year, and (e) to support and encourage the CSIRO in the development of a national fire research program, and (2) calls on the Government to establish a National Task Force of Federal and State Ministers to jointly develop a national strategy for bushfire research, community awareness programs and the provision of adequate support equipment and training for bushfire services throughout Australia, especially volunteer, bushfire brigades. Mr Campbell having given notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House applauds the Government, and, in particular, the Prime Minister for appointing the Premier of Tasmania as Chairman of the committee to manage the forced World Heritage area of South West Tasmania. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 19, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the development of a National Conservation Strategy for Australia; (2) congratulates the Commonwealth, South Australian, Victorian, New South Wales and the Northern Territory Governments on their endorsement of the strategy and the Western Australian Government for its announced intention to endorse the strategy; (3) supports the establishment of an Interim Consultative Committee (4) urges the Commonwealth and State Governments to take prompt action to consider and act upon the recommendations of the Interim Committee. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to take immediate action to reduce the risk of loss of property and life caused by bushfires, by examining Government assistance measures to help with the cost of installing fire prevention equipment in the private homes of people who live in high risk bushfire zones. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 20, I shall move, and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on the recovery in the housing and construction industry, and (2) recognises the success of the First Home Owner's Scheme in promoting housing recovery. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 21, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the direction of the ABC especially in the area of management structure, employment and financial control, and (2) calls on the Minister to initiate an independent assessment of these matters. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses it grave concern at the continuing communal violence against the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls on the Government to implement the proposed National Dairy Industry Plan; (2) views with alarm the threat of the Victorian Premier to sell cut-price milk interstate thereby attempting to destroy the long-standing regulated marketing of milk in New South Wales and elsewhere, and (3) views with concern the present statements of the Minister for Primary Industry which appear to favour the sale of New Zealand dairy products on the Australian market. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 1, I shall move: That this House applauds the Government's outstanding achievements in the promotion of tourism, particularly- (1) the economic benefits gained from the vast increase in the number of tourists from the USA and Japan; (2) the institution of National Tourism Awards to encourage excellence in the tourism industry; (3) the continuing astounding success of the Paul Hogan advertising campaign both overseas and within Australia, and (4) the tens of thousands of new jobs created in the industry in the last 2 years. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on General Business Day No. 3, I shall move: That this House, noting reports that there are more than 10,000 Vietnamese in re-education camps in Vietnam, calls upon the Australian Government to- (1) undertake its own independent enquiries as to the plight of those Vietnamese now held without any formal trial or legal procedures for wrong doing, and (2) establish through the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether any Vietnamese held in re-education camps are eligible for sponsorship by Australian relatives or under the special humanitarian program. Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Premier of Queensland for his irrational behaviour in prolonging the Queensland electricity industry stoppage, and (2) congratulates the Prime Minister, whose well reasoned and strongly worded appeal to the parties in the dispute, to reach a settlement and restore power to Queensland users, resulted in the announcement today of a settlement. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 4, I shall move: That this House expresses concern that certain expenditures by and activities of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism adversely affects the Government's ability to support and assist Australian athletes and the Australian Tourist Industry. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) will second: That this House noting that the Western Suburbs Rugby League team has been re-admitted to the 1985 Sydney Rugby League 1st Grade competition- (1) congratulates Rick Wayde and all the Wests players and supporters on the campaign they waged for reinstatement, and (2) wishes the Magpies success in the 1985 competition. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 6, I shall move: (1) That this House is of the opinion that, in order to give effect to the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, each House of the Parliament should- (a) agree to appropriate resolutions to give effect to those recommendations which the committee proposed be implemented by resolution; (b) agree to appropriate changes to the standing orders to give effect to those recommendations which the committee proposed be implemented by changes to the standing orders, and (c) pass a bill to give effect to those recommendations which require implementation by statute, and (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr GEAR(Canning) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 5, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to- (1) continue its fight against tax evasion despite the reluctance of the Liberal and National Parties and the Australian Democrats to support appropriate legislation, and (2) reintroduce tax avoidance legislation. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government to negotiate with the New South Wales State government to seek the renaming of the Alpine Way in the environs of the Kosciusko National Park as the McKell Alpine Way in recognition of the outstanding service of the former Governor-General and former Premier of New South Wales, Sir William McKell. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies) —I give notice of my intention to present, on the next day of sitting, a Bill for an Act to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice of my intention to present, on General Business Thursday No. 7, a Bill for an Act relating to the payment of commercial accounts payable by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) will second: That this House congratulates the Victorian Government on its development of a sound and constructive 10 year development plan aimed at restoring the destructive run down created by over 20 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House, noting the announcement by the Minister for Defence that US Navy warships, including the USS Buchanan, will visit Sydney early next month, calls on the Government to organise a massive public welcome to these ships and their crews in order to demonstrate the overwhelming support of the Australian public for the American alliance. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) will second: That this House condemns the Queensland National Party Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, for the trauma- Mr Donald Cameron-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for honourable members who carry heavy grudges to bring them into this chamber? Mr SPEAKER —Order! At this stage I indicate that points of order of that nature do not help the parliamentary institution. Mr WRIGHT —My notice of motion states: That this House condemns the Queensland Premier for the trauma, harm and personal and financial loss suffered by the people of Queensland because of his repeated refusal to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement during the recent power dispute. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over the failure of the Government, as a result of its Medicare policies, to maintain an adequate public hospital system in Australia, and (2) calls upon doctors to give their full support to the Australian Council of Procedural Specialists in its attempt to bring about the necessary changes to the Medicare scheme. Mr JULL(Fadden) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises Logan City, Queensland, as one of the fastest growing urban areas of Australia; (2) acknowledges that major establishment grants for the city have not been forthcoming from either the Commonwealth or State Government; (3) recognises that 12,000 people, or 1.9 per cent of the national unemployment figure, reside in Logan City, and (4) urges the Government to approve immediately Commonwealth Employment Program and Regional Community Development Program bids by the Logan City Council to alleviate the problems of the unemployed, and to provide correct infrastructure for this rapidly growing area. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in this, the centenary year of the birth of former Australian Prime Minister John Curtin, this House- (1) recognises the outstanding contribution made by him to this country, and (2) congratulates the Curtin Centenary Committee and A.L.P. Branch of Creswick, Victoria., for the highly successful commemorative celebrations held in January to mark the works of this great man. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that the percentage of unemployed in the cities of Bundaberg and Gladstone is twice the national average and that many rural and coastal towns in the Electoral Division of Hinkler have unemployment figures well in excess of twice the national average, and (2) calls on the Government to act with haste by instituting interim support schemes for the depressed rural sectors guaranteeing acceptable minimum prices and giving favourable consideration to increasing funding under the Commonwealth Employment Program for assisting areas with above average levels of unemployment. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is of the opinion that the system of apartheid remains entrenched in South Africa and is causing increasing tension in that country, and (2) calls on the South African Government to immediately and unconditionally release Mr Nelson Mandala, the leader of the African National Congress, and begin discussions with him and other African leaders in order to establish a democratic society in that country. Mr Hawker proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member reword his notice of motion in accordance with the advice I gave previously. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for failing to honour its 1984-85 Budget commitment to increase the subsidy rate to local government authorities under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act to 75 cents per meal, and (2) calls on the Government to honour its promise and increase the subsidy from the current 65 cents to 75 cents per meal without any further delay. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern that the Electoral Division of Cowper has an urgent need for more aged units, hostel and nursing home beds, and (2) calls upon the Government to make sufficient funds available in 1985 to provide more accommodation for the aged in Wauchope, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Bowraville, Macksville, Nambucca Heads, Bellingen, Urunga and Coffs Harbour. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) will second: That this House condemns the Government for its blatant attack on small family farms by introducing an inequitable assets test which disadvantages rural families. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 8, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Transport and the Government for indexing the Australian Bicentennial Road (ABRD) Program fuel excise of 2 cents per litre and breaking its word by hiding the estimated additional $500 million in consolidated revenue, and (2) calls on the Government to honour the commitment of the Fraser Government for all of the ABRD levy to be used on maintaining and developing Australia's roads. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at comments by (a) the Minister for Education that the Government introduce political courses in schools to prevent a re-occurrence of the informal vote of the last federal election, and (b) the Prime Minister who believes that people who voted informal are just plain unintelligent, and (2) calls on the Government to recognise that most of the informal vote was a protest vote and to abandon its idea of politically indoctrinating small children. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move That this House- (1) deplores (a) the continuous rise in fuel prices under this Government as world fuel prices continue to fall, and (b) the newly introduced quarterly indexing of excise tax on fuel; (2) is of the opinion that Australia's competitive position is being eroded by ever increasing fuel prices, and (3) calls for the immediate cessation of the practice of pricing our fuel on the OPEC price. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: That this House- (1) affirms that Australia is not neutral, not unaligned and not pacifist, and (2) condemns members of the Government for forcing the Prime Minister to destabilise Australia's defence, foreign relations and financial status. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for- (a) its use of the sugar industry review to delay assistance to the beleaguered sugar industry; (b) its use of unemployment benefits, for which many destitute canegrowers are not eligible, to delay consideration of appropriate income support for canegrowers, and (c) its constant increases in Government charges affecting industry costs, particularly now through more frequent adjustments to import parity pricing, and (2) and calls on the Government to immediately co-operate with the Queensland Government in convening the sugar summit. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister and the Government for- (1) the shameful failure to safeguard the security of the Tasman Sea, and (2) aiding the creation of a situation in which no western alliance naval surveillance whatsoever can be carried out in the Tasman Sea, which, as a consequence, has now been turned into a Soviet maritime playground. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the proposed joint United States/Honduras military manoeuvres close to the Nicaraguan border, and (2) calls on the United States to cease supporting military actions against the democratically elected Nicaraguan Government. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls upon the Minister for Primary Industry to re-convene immediately a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council to achieve a national dairy industry marketing plan, and (2) calls for this plan to be structured on the proposals set out by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and based on a national milk production entitlement of 5300 million litres per annum. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to explain at the earliest opportunity whose position the proposed Australian Bill of Rights represents if it does not represent the Government's position, as the Attorney-General has maintained. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the Government's pursuit of national uniform land rights legislation and neglect of the health, education and welfare of the Aboriginal community, and (2) calls on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to immediately implement policies to assist Aboriginal people. Mr KENT(Hotham) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Prime Minister for his excellent performance on 22 February 1985 in defending his Government against the inept attacks of the Opposition. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 8, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses concern at the willingness of the Government to co-operate with the NSW Government by relaxing immigration procedures for the recruitment of overseas doctors while it refuses to provide similar co-operation in recruiting power workers for Queensland from overseas; (2) expresses concern that those applicants for migration who have already had their applications severely delayed by industrial action in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be further disadvantaged by the preferential treatment that the government intends giving to those people nominated by the NSW government, and (3) calls on the Government to guarantee that the streamlined immigration procedures to be used to assist the NSW government to recruit doctors will be available to other employer nominees who are required urgently. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that 1985 marks the centenary of the birth of 2 former Australian Labor Party Prime Ministers, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, and (2) congratulates Australia Post on their recognition of this significant event by the issue of a special pre-stamped envelope. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to place Main Road 248, running from Crookwell to Boorowa, in N.S.W., on the priority list for upgrading and sealing under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the failure of the Government to upgrade the Pacific Highway, particularly between Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, the condition of which is causing loss of life and injury to people, property damage and immense economic costs to the entire Australian community, and (2) calls upon the Government to incorporate the entire length of the Pacific Highway into the national highway system. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at (a) the worry and fear generated in the retired population and (b) the effect on thrift caused by the assets test on pensions; (2) deplores the savage discrimination against persons residing on acreage blocks or in rural areas; (3) is concerned at the cost of implementation of the scheme in relation to the savings in pension payments, and (4) condemns the Government for introducing the scheme. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the first General Business Thursday available, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that a pensioner couple living on a farm worth $200,000 with a house valued at $50,000 would be ineligible for the pension under the Pension Assets Test whilst a pensioner couple living in a city with a house valued at $200,000 and other assets of $50,000 would be eligible for a full pension; (2) expresses its concern at the unreasonable hardship and worry that the Pension Assets Test is causing to many farmers and in particular soldier settlers, (3) draws to the attention of the Government that many soldier settlers will be forced to sell their properties and move to the city where with the same level of assets they will still be able to receive a full pension thus producing no savings for the Government, and (4) calls upon the Government to repeal immediately the Pension Assets Test as it is causing unnecessary hardship whilst failing to achieve its stated objectives. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for his unprompted back-down over the MX tests and for protecting his personal political position at the expense of the security of Australia, and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to give an assurance that he will not further compromise Australia's security in pursuit of placating the left-wing of his own party. Mr MILES(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to extend the roads designated as part of the National Highway in Tasmania to include that part of the Bass Highway between the Towns of Burnie and Smithton. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that the Crown of Thorns Starfish has attacked reefs in the central section of the Great Barrier Reef for the second time in 20 years; (2) notes- (a) that the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee (COTSAC) reported to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in December 1984 that the destruction of hard coral by the Crown of Thorns Starfish poses a serious threat to some reefs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and recommended a $3 million 5 years research program to examine the problem; and (b) that the Australian Marine Science and Technologies Advisory Committee gave the COTSAC research program one of its top 3 priorities in its submission to the Minister for Science for funding in the 1985-86 Budget, and (3) calls on the Government to implement funding for upgraded research in the 1985-86 Budget. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Victorian Government for its callous attitude towards country hospitals as evidenced by its proposal to consider closing a number of them; (2) further condemns the Victorian Government for singling out for closure the Korumburra and Morwell hospitals, and (3) is of the opinion that the Korumburra and Morwell hospitals play a crucial role in providing irreplaceable health services in their respective communities. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to place Trunk Road 92 running from Braidwood to the Nowra region via Nerriga, in New South Wales, on the priority list for upgrading and sealing under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the people of Australia for electing the Hawke Government for a second term. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 1, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its attack upon Australian parliamentary democracy by proposing to take away the traditional right of Members of the House of Representatives to personally give notices of motion in this Chamber, and to be heard to give their own notices of motion on behalf of their constituents and the people of Australia. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health for his disregard for health services for all Australians, and (2) recommends the Prime Minister take over the Health portfolio in light of the Prime Minister's capacity to find a compromise on any and every difficult decision. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 10, I shall move: That this House notes the continuing uncertainty in the grant-in-aid scheme administered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs occasioned by the termination, largely without adequate consultation and notice, of schemes operated by so called established communities, calls upon the Government to enunciate clearly the criteria to be used for rationalisation of the previously funded grant-in-aid schemes and the funding of new programs. Mr SPEAKER —Before proceeding to other business, I point out that I made a statement on the content of notices of motion earlier and I commend the reading of House of Representatives Practice, pages 400 to 406, on this matter. I think the ruling is on page 404. Some of my advice has been disregarded. The notices of motion will be examined and honourable members may find that some editing takes place. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the reports of the Auditor-General dated 7 December 1984 upon efficiency audits of Controls over Processing of Income Tax Assessments, Processing and Assessment of Income Tax Returns, Checking of Dividends and Interest Disclosed in Income Tax Returns and Processing of Income Tax Instalment Declarations. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Reports of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits-7 December 1984, and (2) That the reports be printed. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The extraordinary conduct of the Government in its handling of the Public Service dispute. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Klugman, R. E. Tuckey, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979 and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979 to provide for pro rata payment in lieu of long leave to judges of the High Court and other Federal courts, who retire with entitlement to a pension under the Judges Pensions Act 1978 although not having served for 10 years, and to exclude judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court from the scope of the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act. The two Acts now being amended were enacted following parliamentary pressure for legislation to regulate payments to retiring judges in lieu of long leave. The effect of these Acts is that judges of the High Court and other Federal judges are entitled to a maximum of one year's salary on retirement in lieu of long leave not taken, subject to a requirement of a minimum of 10 years service as a judge. Entitlements under the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act extend to office holders who have the status of a judge of a court created by the Parliament. In 1981 the Judges Pensions Act was amended to provide that a judge who, upon reaching a mandatory retiring age, is required to retire before serving the 10-year qualifying period for a pension will be entitled to a pro rata pension after six years service. No change was then made to the legislation providing for payment in lieu of long leave not taken. Consequently, we have the situation that a judge who is forced to retire before reaching 10 years service, either because of reaching a mandatory retiring age or because of invalidity, has no right to payment in lieu of accrued long leave. This is out of step with other long leave schemes, for example, that applying to Commonwealth employees under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Further, the absence of any pro rata entitlement to payment in lieu of long leave is a disincentive to older persons accepting judicial appointment. The effect of the present Bill is to ensure that a judge who retires on pension before having served for 10 years, whether because of invalidity or having reached a mandatory retiring age, will be entitled to a lump sum payment in respect of accrued long leave. Thus, for example, a judge who retires in the circumstances mentioned after having served for seven years and who had not taken long leave in that time would be entitled to 70 per cent of his or her annual salary. These are special cases. The Government believes that 10 years should otherwise remain as the qualifying period in the normal case for payment both of pension and of a lump sum in lieu of long leave not taken. The approximate cost of the proposed amendment in this financial year, 1984-85, will be $61,000. The approximate cost in the next financial year, 1985-86, will be $110,000. Unless an eligible judge retires on invalidity grounds, there are no anticipated costs in the following financial year. The effect of the definition of 'Judge' in the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act is to apply that Act to judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The conditions of service of these judges are now a matter for the Northern Territory Government; consequently the definition is to be amended so that it does not include judges of that Court. The Act will, of course, continue to apply to judges of the Federal Court who also hold commissions on the Northern Territory Supreme Court. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr N. A. Brown —I thank the Attorney-General for the advance copies of the Bill and the second reading speech. They will enable the Opposition more properly to reach a decision on the matter. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the first of three Bills which, apart from minor technical changes, are identical with Bills that I introduced on 9 October 1984 but which lapsed when the House was dissolved following the calling of the election. The purpose of these Bills is to recoup income tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes. This legislation was foreshadowed in a statement by the Minister for Finance on 28 April 1983. As indicated in that statement, the policy of the Government is to employ retrospective legislation, whenever necessary, to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during our term of office will be collected, irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. That policy means that there will not be the slightest possibility that a blatant tax avoidance scheme will be effective and is the only sure way of totally eradicating the tax avoidance industry. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the announcement of that policy, combined with the Government's demonstrated commitment to act in pursuance of it, has in fact finally brought the tax avoidance industry to an end. Trust stripping involves arrangements under which trust income is formally allocated for tax purposes to a beneficiary that does not pay tax on it-such as a tax exempt charitable institution. The income concerned, however, is effectively retained-undiminished by the payment of tax-by those family members really intended to benefit from it. Legislation against trust stripping was enacted in 1979 and amendments of a strengthening kind were made in 1981. Despite that specific legislation and the enactment of new general anti-avoidance provisions with effect from 27 May 1981, variants of trust stripping schemes continued to be developed and used because the promoters and participants were confident that the previous Government would only enact remedial legislation on a prospective basis. The variants of trust stripping arrangements with which this Bill deals seek to exploit a provision of the income tax law not used in earlier trust strips. Under that provision a beneficiary having a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate is treated as being presently entitled to that income. Briefly, in a typical new generation trust stripping scheme, the income of a family trust is formally allocated for tax purposes, directly or through a chain of trusts, to a charity that is exempt from the payment of tax on the income. Although the charity is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income, it is generally not entitled to payment of the income until 80 years hence. In the meantime, the charity receives only a token payment with the balance of the funds being retained for the benefit of family members. The claimed result of such an arrangement is that the trust income nominally allocated to the tax exempt charity is not subject to tax. In reality, the charity derives virtually no benefit from the income allocated to it. Even if the income is ultimately paid to the charity in 80 years time, the present value of that amount is negligible. For example, $100,000 payable in 80 years time is equivalent to less than $50 payable today. That is, by conferring on the charity a benefit worth less than $50 the family concerned seeks to avoid tax of up to $60,000. The essence of the scheme is that trust income is made to appear for tax purposes as income of an exempt body, but effective enjoyment of the income rests with the family that seeks to avoid tax. This is clearly a blatant tax avoidance scheme that warrants retrospective legislation. Accordingly, the Bill is designed to ensure that the tax sought to be avoided through these schemes will be recovered irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. I turn now to the details of the Bill. The legislation will operate where, under a tax avoidance scheme entered into on or after 1 July 1980, a beneficiary is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate and the present value of the benefit that will be derived by the beneficiary from that interest is less than 50 per cent of the amount of the income formally allocated to the beneficiary. Where income is sought to be stripped under arrangements of this type, the trustee of the stripped trust will, in the first instance, be liable to pay trust recoupment tax on the income at the rate of 60 per cent, that being the rate applicable to trustees under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. There is, however, to be a right for beneficiaries of the stripped trust to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the stripped income. If this election is made and the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the allocation of the stripped income among the beneficiaries is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the beneficiaries will be paid by them, the trustee of the stripped trust will be freed from its liability for trust recoupment tax. As foreshadowed in the statement by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) collection of the tax will not be allowed to be hindered by techniques such as participating trusts being left devoid of funds or being made to disappear. If the beneficiaries of the stripped trust fail to exercise their right of election and the stripped trust has ceased to exist, its beneficial ownership has changed or it is unlikely to be able to meet its liability for trust recoupment tax on the stripped income, the Bill will, in those very limited circumstances, place on all the persons who are in the eligible beneficiaries class in relation to the stripped trust, a joint and several liability for the trust recoupment tax payable on that income. The Bill provides that the eligible beneficiaries' class is to comprise those persons who directly or indirectly derived a benefit attributable to the stripped trust income. The class will not, however, include third parties who derived a benefit as a result of an arm's length transaction. Nor will it include a charity that is a nominal beneficiary under a particular scheme and which usually derives a token benefit. The imposition of joint and several liability on members of an eligible beneficiaries' class means that each person in the class is fundamentally, but subject to rights of contribution and appointment of liability that I will mention shortly, liable for the whole of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that group of persons. The right of contribution which the Bill provides will mean that a person in an eligible beneficiaries class who has in consequence paid some or all of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that class may seek through the courts an appropriate contribution from other members of the class. The right of apportionment contained in the Bill will mean that a person in the eligible beneficiaries class who is sued by the Commissioner for unpaid trust recoupment tax may act to have other members of the class joined as co-defendants in the recovery suit. Where that option is exercised the court will, having regard to the value of the benefit enjoyed or to be enjoyed, have power to determine how much of the unpaid amount it is just and equitable that the person sued, and each of the persons joined, should be liable to pay as trust recoupment tax. Another feature of the Bill is the imposition of penalty tax in cases where new generation trust stripping schemes are entered into after 28 April 1983. In line with our announced policy on retrospective legislation, the level of penalty that will apply to such schemes entered into prior to the commencement of this legislation will ensure that the amount recovered is the tax sought to be avoided, adjusted for inflation. In relation to any future schemes, the penalty tax will be equal to double the tax sought to be avoided. Finally, the Bill contains provisions to guard against divestment of assets in an attempt to frustrate the operation of the trust recoupment tax legislation. In bringing the measures before the Parliament the Government demonstrates once again its commitment to smashing the tax avoidance industry and ensuring that this deplorable anti-social industry will never be resurrected. The tax at risk from new generation schemes already entered into is currently estimated at about $10m. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that this legislation, along with other measures introduced by the Government, will make it plain to everyone that the days of blatant tax avoidance schemes are well and truly over. An explanatory memorandum providing a detailed explanation of the various measures contained in the Bill is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose a tax, to be called trust recoupment tax, on the taxable amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the trust recoupment tax legislation by the Bill I have just introduced. As I explained in my second reading speech on that Bill, liability for the trust recoupment tax will, subject to election arrangements, fall initially on the trustee of the stripped trust, but where it is impracticable or inappropriate to levy the tax at that primary level it will be possible to levy the tax at the secondary level on the class of persons who are referred to in the legislation as the eligible beneficiaries class. This Bill imposes on the taxable amount at either the primary or secondary level a trust recoupment tax equal to 60 per cent of the taxable amount. In addition, the Bill imposes tax on taxable amounts described in the legislation as elected taxable amounts and company taxable amounts. These taxable amounts may arise where the beneficiaries of a stripped trust elect to be assessed to income tax on the stripped income and one of those beneficiaries is a company. The rate of tax will be 75 per cent on elected taxable amounts and 46 per cent on company taxable amounts, the former rate applying where the shareholders of the company do not elect to be taxed on deemed dividends. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The third Bill in the legislative package to recoup the tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes proposes amendments to several Acts, consequential upon the two Bills I have already introduced. The first amendment is that of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Decisions under certain Acts are precluded from review through the system of review provided for by that Act. Decisions under the new trust recoupment tax legislation are also to be excluded from the purview of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, consistent with the position that prevails in relation to decisions under various other Commonwealth laws. However, a trustee or other person liable for trust recoupment tax who is dissatisfied with an assessment by the Commissioner will have available full rights of objection and appeal to a Taxation Board of Review or a Supreme Court and ultimately, if the matter warrants it, to the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia. Other taxation laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation that provide similar rights to contest liability are also excluded from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Two other Acts to be amended as a consequence of the trust recoupment tax legislation deal with the Commonwealth-State tax sharing arrangements. The first of the tax sharing Acts dealt with by this Bill is the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. Under section 4A of that Act, the Commissioner of Taxation is required by the end of July each year, to make a determination as to the amount of net personal income tax collections for the year. That determination is then used as the basis for the allocation of funds to the States by way of financial assistance for local government purposes. As the trust recoupment tax legislation basically seeks to recover personal income tax sought to be avoided, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act is to be amended to include net collections of trust recoupment tax as part of the tax sharing base. The amendment proposed to the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 will also include collections of trust recoupment tax in the tax base. This proposal is consistent with the intention of that legislation. In 1981 an understanding was reached with the States that they would receive tax sharing grants calculated by reference to a total tax base rather than the personal income tax base used in previous arrangements. That understanding requires that newly introduced Commonwealth taxes be included in the tax base. While the existing legislation allows for such new inclusions through the promulgation of regulations, the necessity for other consequential amendments provides an opportunity to include this amendment within a total legislation package. The Bill further proposes two minor technical amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 following the substantial changes made to that Act last year. The proposed amendments give effect to the intention to adapt and apply the machinery provisions of the income tax law for the purposes of the proposed trust recoupment tax law. Finally, the Bill proposes to amend the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983. Those amendments will mean that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interest on refunds of trust recoupment tax following a successful objection or appeal against a trust recoupment tax assessment. I also commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (3.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. My predecessor, now the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), advised this House on 11 October 1984 that the Government had reviewed the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and had decided to expand the objects and functions of the Institute to address current government policy objectives on multicultural and community relations issues. The purpose of the Bill I am now introducing is to give the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs this revised role. The review of AIMA reflected the Government's desire to ensure that the administrative arrangements to implement our multicultural and community relations policies were effective in meeting the needs of both migrant groups and the community generally. The Government 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. The Committee's report was tabled in this House on 8 December 1983. The Committee's report identified new and continuing needs for active government involvement in multicultural affairs, in particular the need to promote equity and access for those disadvantaged because of their ethnic or cultural differences and to promote harmonious relations between groups, and also more participation and social cohesion. The Government subsequently accepted the recommendation of the Committee of Review that the Council of AIMA conduct extensive consultations with interested ethnic and other community groups and individuals on the report. The report by the Council of AIMA on these consultations, under the title 'Looking Forward', was tabled in this House on 6 June 1984. The AIMA Council reported widespread support for the general ideals of a multicultural society and in particular the need to address the issue of social inequality and to relate multicultural policy to all Australians. The Government decided to address these needs by expanding the objects and functions of AIMA, by re-ordering the Institute's work priorities, and by achieving greater public visibility of, and openness in, AIMA's operations. I refer now to the principal clauses in this Bill. In Clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed that the objects of the Institute be amended to include a positive affirmation that AIMA should promote a just and equitable society that, firstly, accepts people irrespective of their particular ethnic or cultural background, including linguistic background, or immigrant origin and, secondly, affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. This amendment gives effect to the Government's recognition of 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. The amendment proposed by Clause 3 (a) of the Bill will remove the current restriction of the Institute's activities on cultural matters to those relating only to migrants. The AIMA Council 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. Such an interpretation should be invalidated. 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 insure that this occurs. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes a new and more specific statement of the functions of AIMA. It is proposed that the Institute continue to be responsible for providing advice to the Government, research, community educational activities, information and reports on matters relating to the objects of the Institute. Sub-clauses 1 (c) and 1 (d) of clause 4 propose to give the Institute specific directions 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. These new explicit functions for AIMA acknowledge 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. The 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. Sub-clause 1 (e) of clause 4 proposes that AIMA promote the use by ethnic community organisations of their right to make representations on particular issues and, where needed, provide guidance in relation to the process of making such representations. This addition to the functions is being proposed because the review of AIMA 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. Sub-clause (1) (f) of clause 4 proposes that AIMA encourage other bodies to conserve materials relating to the diverse cultures of Australians. This provision 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 that it is undesirable and impracticable for the Institute to have such a national repository function. Clause 5 of the Bill proposes to increase the membership of the governing council of AIMA from a maximum of nine to 12 persons. This will strengthen the Council and broaden community participation in the conduct and control of the affairs of the Institute. The public consultations during the review showed substantial support for a community input into the determination of the composition of the membership of the Council. It is proposed that this be achieved by the amendment in sub-clause 5 (1) (c) which will provide for public participation in the nomination of names and expressions of interests in appointments to the Council. Other minor amendments to the AIMA Act proposed in this Bill are detailed in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Financial Impact Statement The Budget appropriation for AIMA for 1984-85 is $2.53m. The Institute currently has a complement of 38 full time and eight part time staff. Given the need for budgetary restraint, there will no doubt be a reallocation of resources to the maximum extent possible to reflect priorities in implementing the revised objects and functions. The task AIMA has before it is to promote a harmonious and cohesive Australian society, one which accepts racial and cultural diversity, which is just and equitable, and accordingly gives migrants an effective opportunity to participate in Australian society in order to achieve their own potential. This task requires the active support and involvement of all Australians. Ours is a nation of great diversity. We need to ensure that diversity continues to be the source of our strength and a source of enrichment to our Australian way of life. I commend the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985 to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will be aware that the administrative changes following the recent election transferred responsibility for animal and plant quarantine from my portfolio to that of the Minister for Primary Industry. As Minister for Health, I retain responsibility for human quarantine. The changes in responsibility give effect to our election promise and implement Australian Labor Party Policy to transfer animal and plant quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. Agricultural quarantine is central to agricultural health, and the rural sector has long expressed an interest in seeing those elements of quarantine that relate to agriculture being more closely aligned with other agricultural activities. At the same time, the changes preserve the link between the human aspects of quarantine and the other health functions of my portfolio. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to amend the Quarantine Act to give effect to the changed administrative arrangements whilst at the same time clarifying certain provisions where some doubt could arise as to whether they apply to human, animal or plant quarantine. As the Bill is concerned only with administrative matters, there are no financial implications involved. The amendments reflect the Government's strong commitment to an effective quarantine service which plays a major role in Australia's social and economic well-being. The Minister for Primary Industry and I will work closely together on matters of mutual concern. I draw honourable members' attention to sub-clause 5 (1) of the Bill. The amendments proposed by this sub-clause provide the basis for the dual administration of the Act. The new sections 8A, 8B, 9 and 9AA provide for the appointment of officers who, under my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry and myself, will be charged with the execution of the Act. In place of the present Director of Quarantine, there will be two directors-a Director of Human Quarantine, appointed by me, and a Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine, who shall be the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry. The proposed new sections also provide for the appointment of chief quarantine officers and quarantine officers for each of human, animal and plant quarantine. The present Director of Quarantine, who is the Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer and a Deputy Secretary within my Department, will, by virtue of sub-clause 5 (2), assume the office of Director of Human Quarantine immediately upon the commencement of these amendments to the Quarantine Act. Clause 6 will insert a new section 10B into the Act to provide that a Director of Quarantine may delegate his powers. In the absence of a specific power of delegation in the Act, the current procedure is for the Director of Quarantine to authorise other persons to exercise those powers in his name. The insertion of the new section will not alter the practical effect of the current operational procedures. In providing for the administration of the quarantine function by two departments, I am quite confident that Australia's unique record in quarantine matters will not only be maintained but also enhanced. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a continuation of current assistance to the heavy commercial vehicle industry in Australia until 30 June 1985 or until the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on long term assistance to this industry is announced. Assistance for heavy commercial vehicles parts and accessories was set following the Industries Assistance Commission report, No. 169 of 15 May 1978. On 1 July 1983, an IAC interim report on temporary assistance recommended that existing arrangements remain unchanged pending the Commission's report on long term assistance. This report on long term assistance was presented to the Government in March 1984. It is the Government's view that cessation of the existing bounty assistance on 31 December 1984, when it was originally due to terminate, before the Government's decision on long term assistance arrangements for this industry could be announced, will create uncertainty in the industry with regard to the costs of locally sourced components. The extension of the bounty is intended as a holding action. Cessation of the assistance may result in losses being incurred by the industry. It would also result in an unannounced and sudden reduction in the effective rate of assistance. Moreover, it is expected that the Government's decision on long term assistance arrangements for the industry will be announced within a few months. Therefore it would be undesirable to terminate the assistance before that time. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the cost of bounty assistance between 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1985 will be approximately $2m, depending on the level of sales. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. House adjourned at 3.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m., and Friday, at 9 a.m., and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m., and Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.15 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.15 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 3.45 p.m. on each Friday the speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Presentation of petitions. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday only). 3. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Presentation of petitions. 7. Matter of public importance. 8. Notices and orders of the day. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Friday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p.m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at approximately 12.45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker ''That grievances be noted'' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and, if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and, after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debate New standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting ''for 2 hours after the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''until 1.45 p.m.''. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ''at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''not later than 12 noon on each sitting day''. Notices of motion Standing orders 133, 135, 138 and 139 be amended to read- 133. Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion which expressed a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity. 135. Subject to the provisions of standing orders 105, 133 and 211 the notices shall be entered by the Clerk on the Notice Paper, in priority of orders of the day, in the order in which they were received: Provided that- (a) general business notices received on the first day of meeting of a new session shall be entered on the Notice Paper in such an order that, as far as possible, priority shall alternate between Opposition and Government Members, and (b) 2 notices received from the same Member shall not be placed consecutively in priority of a notice received from another Member during the same sitting. 139. A Member who has given a notice of motion may alter its terms by notifying the Clerk in writing within such time as will enable the alteration to be made in the Notice Paper. Initiation of bills Standing order 211 be amended to read- 211. (a) A bill (unless received from the Senate) shall be initiated by a motion for leave to bring in a bill specifying its title, by an order of the House, on the calling on of a notice of presentation, or in accordance with the provisions of standing order 291. (b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a Member by delivering a copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. (c) A notice of intention to present a bill shall specify its title and the day for presentation, and shall be signed by the Member and, at least, one other Member. (d) The standing orders shall, to the necessary extent, be applied and read as if a notice of presentation were a notice of motion. Divisions and quorums In all standing orders, except standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 3 minutes substituted. Mr Young to move- That, in relation to the proceedings on any Sales Tax Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the presentation and the first readings of the Bills together; (b) one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and (c) the consideration of all the Bills as a whole together in a committee of the whole. Mr Young to move- That, contingent on any Bill being brought in and read a first time, I shall move, That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading being made an order of the day for a later hour. I also give notice that, contingent on any report being received from a committee or any report being adopted, I shall move, That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay. I also give notice that, contingent on my message being received from the Senate transmitting any Bill for concurrence, I shall move, That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay. A copy of the following election petition was tabled by the Clerk: Election petition filed by Hamish George Linacre and forwarded under section 369 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, by the Registrar of the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 February 1985: Acts Interpretation Act- Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report- Commissioner for Superannuation, report for year 1983-84. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, report for year 1983-84. Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Legal Aid Commission (ACT), report for year 1983-84.