Friday, 19 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 4, lines 1 to 20, leave out the clause. No. 2-Pages 5 and 6, paragraph 9 (b), line 38 (page 5) to line 13 (page 6), leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Page 6, after clause 9, insert the following new clause: ''9A. After section 14 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '14A. (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 14 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of the person relates; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '14B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land, or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of a person relates or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as a result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officer finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize that article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 14A.'.''. No. 4-Page 12, clause 16, lines 4 to 22, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''16. After section 25 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '25A. (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 24 or 25 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence in respect of which the warrant was issued; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '25B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land, or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence in respect of which a warrant for the apprehension of a person was issued under section 24 or 25 or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as a result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officer finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize that article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 25A.'.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.02) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments relate to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985. At the same time as this Bill was debated in the Senate the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985 was debated in the Senate. We will deal with that Bill later as amendments were also made to it. The amendments to both Bills were moved by the Government and relate to powers of entry, search and seizure. The amendments were prompted by comments of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Bills passed by this House gave certain powers of entry, search and seizure to police officers when executing a warrant for the apprehension of a fugitive. If a police officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that there might be upon any land or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, evidence in relation to the offences for which extradition had been sought, or any property which had been acquired as a result of such offences, he could enter the land, et cetera, and search for and seize such evidence. The Senate Committee drew these amendments to the attention of honourable senators on the basis that they may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Committee argued that the right to enter and search buildings and property is usually accompanied by a requirement that a warrant specifically directed to such action be obtained beforehand. I considered that there was merit in the Senate Committee's comments. Certainly clause 37 of the Criminal Investigation Bill, which may be regarded as representing modern processes in this area and which is consistent with common law, permits only the clothing and property under the control of the arrested person to be searched. The amendments which were passed by the Senate replace the existing provisions with provisions which provide that a police officer, in arresting a fugitive, may search only the person and clothing of the fugitive and property under his control for evidence relevant to the extradition crimes, or property acquired as a result of those crimes. Any such evidence or property discovered may then be seized. If there is to be any additional search of land, buildings, et cetera, and seizure of property in evidence, it may be undertaken only pursuant to a warrant issued by the magistrate. Another amendment to this Bill was moved by Senator Haines. It was not opposed. That amendment was to delete clause 4 of the Bill. The clause inserted a new section 4A which in effect would have enabled the regulations to amend the list of extradictable crimes in the Act to take account of serious new offences created by international conventions. With the deletion of the clause, the list of extradictable offences will have to be amended by statute when such offences are created. Of course, that can be done when the Parliament creates the new offences, and acceptance of the amendment negates any possible criticism that the proposed new section 4A would have involved an undue delegation of legislative power. Accordingly, I have moved that the Committee accept the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(10.07) —The short point to be made is that the Opposition agrees with the Government's motion to accept the proposed amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. I must say first of all that it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation for this Parliament and its committees to find that when we come into the chamber at 10 o'clock we have, with respect to the two extradition Bills we are concerned with, eight pages of amendments which we are expected to digest, in effect, on the spot. I see that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), to his credit, is nodding in agreement. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Whether the Government or somebody else is responsible for it, to be perfectly honest, I do not know. But whoever is responsible for it, it does not reflect much credit on the workings of this Parliament. We have debated at some length two extradition Bills. The Government and the Opposition had an opportunity to put their views in debate, the Bills went off to the Senate and some amendments were made there. That is the prerogative of the Senate; that is what the Senate, as a House of review, is for. The Bills have now been brought back to this House. That is a sensible way of dealing with legislation but it is completely nonsensical to expect members of this House, either in Committee or in the House, to debate in effect at one minute's notice eight pages of quite complicated legal provisions. Let me place on record the fact that the Opposition is completely dissatisfied with this method of operating the Parliament and Government back benchers should be dissatisfied. No matter what party is in government the affairs of the Parliament should be conducted in a manner so that members of Parliament can understand what is being proposed to change laws whether they be new laws or laws already on the books. I hope that those responsible will endeavour to find a better way of putting such amendments before this chamber than that which has been adopted on this occasion. The Opposition spokesman in the Senate, Senator Durack, yesterday informed me of the substance of the amendments and the reasons why the Opposition went along with them in the Senate. For that reason, and for that reason alone, the Opposition in this place is prepared to accept what the Government has put. Therefore, we do not oppose the amendments. The substance of the amendments seems to be a proposal for a search warrant to be issued by a magistrate in appropriate cases where appropriate facts are put before him showing that there is a need for a search to take place and a justification for a search warrant to be issued. I suppose that that is in keeping with the times. A speech by Mr Temby yesterday reflected the views of some people that the fight against crime may well have been compromised-if I can use a neutral word-by an excessive concern to get on with the job, in the course of which some civil liberties may have been put at risk. We have always taken the view that there is a balance to be obtained. On the one hand the fight against crime is of enormous importance. On the other hand, the civil liberties of individual citizens must be considered. To that extent one must continue to have regard for the need for machinery such as search warrants, which do exercise some restraint over law enforcement officers-perhaps more restraint than there may otherwise be. I am concerned about some other aspects of Mr Temby's speech, at least as they were reported in the newspapers, and in particular that he seems to indicate that he is still opposed to indemnities being granted to police officers. I am concerned particularly because the Director of Public Prosecutions has a part to play in the granting of indemnities, at least according to the procedure set out in the Senate by the once and future Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, the other day. I am concerned that the Director of Public Prosecutions seems to have expressed, almost in a sense of some pre-judgment, that he still holds the view that indemnities should not be granted to New South Wales police concerned with phone tapping. I suppose that there will be another occasion on which that matter can be aired and advanced further. In this case, two substantial amendments are proposed by the Government. As I have said, the Opposition will support those amendments, despite the fact that the manner in which they have been brought into the House and the basis upon which they have been expected to be debated are thoroughly unsatisfactory. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.13) —I appreciate the concern of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). I do not think it is altogether proper that we have to deal with this matter when he has had no chance to look at it. If he wishes to adjourn the debate on the next matter I will express no objection. I would like him to know that the Bills apparently have had a fair amount of discussion; in fact, they were introduced last year in the Senate. I have always taken the view that the House of Representatives ought to have some committees similar to those of the Senate. We have never been able to get such committees, despite the fact that we wanted them when we were in opposition. When the Senate was able to get its committees we could not get ours because of the attitude of the Government at the time, a government which the honourable member would have supported. In fairness to him, if he feels that he needs more time, we will let him have it. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been effective in its work, and it repeated what it did last year on these Bills. I remind the honourable member that both Senator Missen and Senator Durack are on that Committee. I would have thought that they would have been making some contribution on behalf of the Opposition, and not on any unilateral basis of which he was unaware. If he was not aware of what his colleagues were doing in scrutinising these Bills, he has made a fair comment. I understand that the House is anxious to get on with the business. When matters such as these come back from the Senate by way of a message it is normal for us to deal with that message. I do not think it was ever thought that we would want to deal with this matter on the basis that the honourable member was ambushed in any way. If he takes that view we will try to assist him. I assure him that these matters have been regurgitated for so long in so many places, particularly by the Senate Committee, and I think it has come up with a reasonable proposition. I think he agrees with that. Obviously members of that Committee who had a leading role in preparing these amendments were members of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, paragraph 4 (a), after proposed sub-section (1A), insert the following sub-section: '' '(1B) If, after the commencement of this sub-section, an extradition treaty comes into force between Australia and a foreign state specified in the Schedule, this Act has effect as if the reference in the Schedule to that foreign state were omitted.'; and''. No. 2-Pages 4 and 5, paragraph 7 (b), line 26 (page 4) to line 2 (page 5), leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Page 5, after clause 7, insert the following new clause: ''7A. After section 16 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '16A. (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 16 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of the person relates; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '16B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of a person relates or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as a result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officers finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize that article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 16A.'.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.15) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments have come about as a result of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills making recommendations for amendment. We have just dealt with the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. We are now dealing with the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill. In my previous speech on the first mentioned Bill I said that the Government accepted those amendments which relate to powers of entry, search and seizure. The amendments were prompted by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The idea was to ensure that there would be warrants issued not only on the question of search, but also if there was going to be search and seizure of property. In other words, further warrants had to be obtained. That applies to this Bill. Accordingly, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said; it is the same principle and we are prepared to accept it. However, there is an additional factor in this amending Bill. The Senate amended the Bill on the basis that clause 4 inserts new section 9 (1A), which creates a Schedule listing the countries to which the Act applies by virtue of the existence of an inherited treaty. The amendment simply provides for a further new section 9 (1B) to the effect that where one of the inherited treaties is replaced by a modern treaty, the reference in the Schedule to the relevant country shall be omitted. The amendment thereby removes the need to amend the Schedule in the Act whenever a modern treaty replaces an inherited treaty. The amendment is, accordingly, of a minor formal nature. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.19) —On behalf of Senator Messner, who is the shadow Minister for Community Services, I indicate that the Opposition supports the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. But we feel that certain safeguards are required as far as the Parliament and the Government, particularly the Parliament, are concerned. We will move amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill follows the 1984 Budget announcement of the establishment of a co-ordinated supported accommodation assistance scheme. This Bill establishes that program for four and a half years, commencing on 1 January 1985. Basically, for that reason, we say that we support the Bill because, as the appropriation is made under the Bill, we appreciate that there will be confusion if we do not allow it to pass at this stage. The Bill includes a general supported accommodation sub-program for men and women and their dependants who are permanently or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis and who need support towards independent living where possible and appropriate. It also includes a women's emergency services sub-program for women and women with dependent children who are escaping from intolerable domestic circumstances or other crisis situations and who need support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. It also includes a youth supported accommodation sub-program for persons 12 to 25 years of age and their dependants who are homeless as a result of crisis and who need support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. The assistance will be provided through non-government organisations and local government. The Commonwealth will guarantee a minimum level of financial assistance. The other proviso is that the States and the Northern Territory will be required to match this in part and as applicable. As far as I know, the extent of that funding has not yet been determined. The agreement of the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory is required to approve funding for particular services under the SAAP. The agreement is detailed in the Schedule and this is where we feel there will need to be some amendment. The program will be administered by the States and the Northern Territory in accordance with jointly agreed national guidelines. As the Opposition's federalism policy is to restore to the States the services that are directly applicable to them, this accords with our policy in that regard. Non-government organisations and local government will be consulted and advice sought for the SAAP needs and priorities. I believe that the form of consultation has yet to be thought right through. I make the comment on this legislation that, as with the home and community care legislation, this degree of consultation will be absolutely necessary if these new programs, which supersede others in part, are to be successful. I have had requests from various community-based organisations that these consultative measures move towards what they require, and not the more rigid and flexible arrangements between the Commonwealth and State governments. I believe it is appropriate that that should be considered. The Bill appropriates a sum of $17m in this year and an amount of $27m-plus in a full year. It is intended that this funding will be maintained in real terms. But what concerns the Opposition is that, as the continuing review takes place, it will perhaps be necessary from time to time, if additional organisations are to be included within the SAAP program, for additional finance to be provided. The Bill will consolidate under one program the administration of a number of emergency relief services. One can pass on some of the comments of the organisations that will be affected about where they see a possible need for such consolidation. They argue whether better administration will take place if that consultation process is not maintained at the level of the client group. In theory, we do not oppose the co-ordination and certainly we do not oppose the consultation. As I have said, we agree to the co-ordination in the Bill. But we are concerned that the Parliament is being asked to approve legislation-as I said, the expenditure on a yearly basis is some $27.2m-without the full details of the scheme having yet been finalised. We understand that a review is going on before the guidelines are firmly established. While this Bill makes the appropriation and sets the agreements and the schedules in order, the later amendments or the guidelines will not necessarily be approved by the Parliament; they will be subject to agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. We are concerned about the status of a number of the organisations which, although originally to be included in the program, have been excluded and are subject to that ongoing review. I believe 67 of the more traditional and larger services that have been excluded from the SAAP will continue to receive funding from the homeless persons assistance program which was originally to be replaced by the SAAP. We believe that the Parliament should be involved in reviewing whether some of these organisations should be excluded. We do not blame the Government for this because we understand that it is an agreement with the States and that it was the recommendation of the States that these be excluded. But what worries the Opposition is that amongst that group of 67 are some fine organisations and institutions that have demonstrated that they are very reliable providers of the services which are funded by both the States and the Commonwealth. I mention the Wesley Central Mission, the Salvation Army with its many centres and the St Vincent de Paul Society. All of these organisations provide services at the moment within the States. I will demonstrate the services of those organisations in my own city of Mackay. I mention the Salvation Army which, through the Good Samaritan House, provides crisis accommodation for women and their children within the city of Mackay. If the original capital for that was not provided, certainly the ongoing maintenance of those services is provided by that organisation. Those functions are being performed on a first class basis. Also, the St Vincent de Paul Society has received funds under the old Act for homeless men and youth but that building has yet to be opened. These two organisations have demonstrated, not only within the city of Mackay but right through Australia, that they can spend the welfare dollar in a much better way than can the Commonwealth and the States. That is very important to remember. So many of these voluntary organisations work in the field. They have a greater expertise than any government can ever hope to achieve. They have experience that social welfare workers in the normal mainstream of life have not yet been able to emulate successfully. The proposition that we will be putting later will be that we hope that we can have a parliamentary review to monitor the review that is going on at the moment by the Government and the States to make sure that funds are provided for these organisations. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) who is at the table-I am sure that he is well aware of what is required-to ensure that this takes place. There are two programs, the SAAP program and the home and community care program. It appears to us that the HACC program is being delayed until the guidelines are fully developed. Hopefully, that legislation will come in as a total package. But that delay is still confusing the minds of the intended recipients or the past recipients of the old programs and those who might hope to be funded under the new one. I understand that the Minister took the opportunity at the end of March to go to meetings and seminars within the States to explain the home and community care scheme. While those meetings probably did calm a little the otherwise troubled waters, still no definite guidelines are being reached. As shadow Minister for Social Security I have been asked what will happen in the case of organisations such as the Blue Nursing Service which are providing some of these facilities at the moment and where will they stand in the future. I understand that under the program there has been a partial disbursement to the States and that some States have already taken up the partial disbursement under the departments of health, not under the departments of welfare. It concerns me that perhaps the guidelines are not as rigidly in place as they might be at this stage. The SAAP suffers another disadvantage, which is that while we have the Bill, the appropriation and the agreements, a review is still being undertaken as to what organisations will or will not be accepted and what the criteria for acceptance will be. I am reminded of a Senate Estimates committee meeting which took place on 15 April during which the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and the Department were queried about what might happen in the future and how relaxed the Department might be in connection with amending or monitoring the present situation. As I understand it, Senator Grimes announced that the larger organisations I have mentioned will be excluded at the moment but they would not be excluded from future funding on the basis that no government would want to wipe out those great institutions because of the work they do. Still nothing specific has been said in that regard. It is necessary that these big organisations have the satisfaction of knowing exactly where they stand in regard to these programs. So, while the Senate Estimates committee meeting expanded the present argument, no guarantees were given as to what the future guidelines would be. That is why I will move, during the Committee stage, the following amendment: Page 3, after clause 4, insert the following new clauses: Agreements between the Commonwealth and any State or States '4A. (1) In this section, 'agreement' means an agreement or a further agreement of the kinds referred to in section 4 between the Commonwealth and any State or States. '(2) An agreement shall be such that guidelines of the kind referred to in sub-clause 8 (2) of the form of agreement contained in the Schedule shall be required under the agreement. '(3) Section 48 (except paragraphs (1) (a) and (b)) and section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to guidelines approved under an agreement as if the references in those sections to regulations were references to guidelines and the references to the making of regulations were references to the approval of guidelines.'. What we are suggesting is that the Parliament, particularly the Senate, should have the benefit of being able to consider changes in guidelines as though they were regulations, subject to review of the relevant Senate committee. I believe that the Government should consider adopting our amendment. We offer it in the interests of parliamentary accounting more than as any criticism of the Bill because, as I said, we support it. I return to the home and community care program. I say to the Government that, in spite of the meetings and seminars that have been held, there is still considerable concern about the program that was announced late last year. An indication was given that $300m would be appropriated. Some of the organisations that have been assisted under previous programs have calculated that there is a gap of only $5m between the $300m and what is currently provided under those programs. They see no great financial improvement forthcoming in the crises in which they find themselves at times. So, while nothing specific is being given and the guidelines and the consultation process have not been worked out, many of the organisations have been left six months in doubt at this stage-by the time the legislation comes before this House they will probably be about nine months or 12 months in doubt-as to who is to be affected, who is to benefit and whether the gap of $5m will be appropriate to any new program or scheme. I stress that the funding required does not provide for any of the new programs because of funding limitations. If the amount had been $400m there would have been an obvious gap of $100m which would have been of benefit in one regard. However, if one indexes at the rate of inflation the $295m being provided under the present program, the $300m is no gift at all. It is no improvement whatsoever. In fact, in real terms it means that people could suffer. These complaints came to me not by way of canvassing for them. I have met with some organisations which say that they have a real concern about two areas. The first is that the funding provisions are no real improvement. They have doubts about where they will stand in the future. The Blue Nursing Service in Queensland has already been denied much of the funds that it requires to fund an expanded service. Even if the Service were to remain stagnant and the number of clients not increased, the funding on an inflation basis is not sufficient to cover the real needs of the Service at the moment. It will have to go out in the community more and more to raise the extra funds needed. What will happen if the Service expands its services, as it has been doing for years, and the funds are not expanded by the Commonwealth as a result? Who will pick it up? Will the States pick it up, or will the client organisations have to pick it up? That is the first complaint of the Service. The second complaint leads me to ask the Minister that the consultative process not stop with the States, that the States go to the client organisations so that the organisations feel fully involved. I believe that the Minister met a forum of these bodies yesterday. They feel that they can offer something to government and to us. I am sure that they can offer a lot to any arrangements that are necessary in this regard. I will not take the full length of time available to me on this subject because my speech was not intended to be an opportunity to lay down our definitive policies in this regard or in any other regard, except to say that we support the Bill because we realise that it accommodates many. At the moment that accommodation is a little hairy. The problem will not be overcome by a continuing review that does not come back to the House or the Senate for what is regarded as proper monitoring. We support the Bill but we give notice that we will be moving an amendment to it during the Committee stage. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.37) —As indicated by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) when the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill 1985 was introduced into this House, when this Government came to office in March 1983 homelessness was seen as a major priority for urgent attention, and well it might have been. My understanding is that when the former Liberal-National Party Government looked at a series of options that were available to combat this incredible problem in our society, pilot program after pilot program was put forward but there was no definitive effort to try to bring together some form of program that would enable supported accommodation to come to fruition. No clear cut policies or directions to remedy the problem of youth and old age homelessness existed when our Government came to power. There was no co-ordination of supported accommodation services for homeless women and their children. Therefore, I believe that it is to the great credit of the Hawke Government that these tragic circumstances have been identified and a program devised to overcome them. The supported accommodation assistance program has three basic aims: Firstly, providing improved and more equitable funding of approved services, funding new services in areas of high need and moving towards improved wages and conditions for workers; secondly, moving progressively during the program to improve the assessment of the need for services and distributing funds on the basis of improved assessment within each State and Territory; and, finally, facilitating the involvement of service providers in advising on program needs and priorities. The program itself will provide funds for recurrent and capital non-housing purposes to non-government organisations and local government authorities. Such bodies may provide assistance to those in need of supported accommodation in the short, medium or longer term. Supported accommodation includes services provided in refuges, hostels, half-way houses and other related support services. Services funded under the program would preferably seek to encourage self-help on a non-institutionalised basis. I believe that this is a progressive step. It is a laudable aim, because I am firmly of the view that projects in which people gain a sense of achievement and self-actualisation are sadly needed in society. Too many times organisations put their hands out for money and are not prepared to get in and do something for themselves. I believe that this Bill certainly achieves that laudable aim. Because the program recognises that there are different needs to be addressed by the services operating in a number of areas, three sub-programs have been catered for. I wish to speak briefly on each of those programs to illustrate how they have been effective in the past in my electorate. My electorate will certainly be crying out for the sorts of programs that will be offered. I turn first to the youth supported accommodation sub-program, which is designed to provide supported accommodation and related support services for young people aged between 12 and 25 years and, where applicable, to their dependants, who are homeless as a result of crisis and who need support in moving to more appropriate accommodation options, including independent living. There is a dire need for improved facilities for this group. As the figures that have been cited by the Minister for Community Services indicate, in 1980-81 15,000 young people requested help from refuges funded under the youth services scheme. More than half of these requests could not be met; yet a large majority of those young people were also unemployed. I will give an illustration from the Macarthur electorate. Within Wollongong, for example-at Woonona-Youth Housing Ltd has an emergency accommodation unit which caters for up to three people for a period of 12 months at a time. Certainly it is a start, but three people out of the large number of those who are homeless and also unemployed is really only the starting point. Within Wollongong a medium term youth house is about to open, and it will offer some relief for these people who are in dire need of accommodation. A youth refuge did exist in Wollongong but it was in a dilapidated property. It received some assistance from the local council in that it provided the property but any improvements had to be made by the people themselves. When looking at providing youth refuges, one is faced with added disadvantages in that they have to be provided close to central business districts of cities because it is there that the young people will have access to social security services, transportation of a public nature, and so on. These people that we are talking about do not have flash cars. They do not have jobs in many cases. They need to be located where they can have access to these support facilities and hence youth refuges have to be established in those areas. Funding is urgently required, particularly in areas where, over the last few years, the economic recession has been hardest felt. In no area has the recession been harder felt than in the electorate that I represent. In regard to some of the other areas, youth refuges exist in Macquarie Fields, Ruse, Minto and Ingleburn, which is in the adjoining electorate of Werriwa, where the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is the local member. I have been in contact with him regarding these problems and it is agreed that some form of uniform approach needs to be adopted. I will quote from the Macarthur Advertiser, a newspaper that is circulated in that electorate. Interesting statistics are revealed. It states: It has been claimed 51 people rang or notified the committee- The article is referring to a committee that has been set up to establish a women's refuge. Those people who rang the committee during a phone campaign were seeking some sort of support. It was also looking at youth refuge problems, the problems of homeless men, and so on. That phone-in survey covered a relatively small area and I believe that the response rate was quite significant. The second sub-program deals with what I consider to be a most timely proposal, that is the women's emergency service sub-program. It is designed to provide support accommodation and related support services for women and women with dependent children, escaping from intolerable domestic circumstances or other crisis situations, who need support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. It will incorporate women's refuges funded under the women's emergency services program in 1983-84, payments to child care workers in women's refuges previously funded under the homeless person's assistance program whose services are consistent with the purposes of this sub-program and a number of State-funded women's refuge programs will also be incorporated. Women's refuges will benefit from the program simply because it rationalises and co-ordinates supported accommodation services for women. It has the capacity to meet the needs of a broad range of women in crisis and also enables women's refuges to focus on services assisting women escaping from domestic violence and intolerable domestic circumstances. I believe that there is no more horrendous crime in society at the moment than that of domestic violence, particularly where it affects children. We read quite often of these sorts of things happening in a variety of urban areas around Australia. Women are bashed by their husbands and, more importantly, children, for one reason or another, are bashed by their parents. The provision of these refuges, where women can certainly seek advice and assistance, will go a long way to overcome one of the more reprehensible traits in Australian society at present. The scope of the women's emergency service sub-program has been extended to cover non-clinical community-based rape crisis centres and incest centres. Again, rape and incest are two major problems in Australian society. These refuges will offer residents the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skills they require to manage their own lives within the wider community, through self-help and mutual support provided for them after they have left the refuge. I think that that is also a laudable aim. I am sure that nothing can be worse than having one's private life torn asunder by a personal domestic crisis and not having any idea of what to do next. Within these women's refuges public awareness will be promoted so that health, housing, welfare and legal services can become more relevant to the needs of those women who seek help in women's refuges. Within the Macarthur electorate a refuge for women is situated temporarily in Corrimal, and will shortly move to premises in Keiraville. At present it can accommodate up to two families and one single person but the new premises will be able to take up to six families. By 'families' I mean women who, with their children, have been driven out of their normal domestic circumstances. They usually stay at the refuge for a period between six and eight weeks. I think it is to the credit of the New South Wales Government, particularly the Department of Youth and Community Services, that it has provided the funding for this women's refuge. Lifeline in Camden has a cottage for crisis accommodation, but it is now not functioning because of lack of staff. Apparently, when it was in operation it offered only overnight accommodation. I hope that funding that will be available under this sort of program will be allocated to these sorts of cottages and refuges, because there is obviously a desperate need for them. The Macarthur Crisis Centre in Eagle Vale in Campbelltown has to refer approximately five to six people elsewhere every day due to lack of facilities. If that is not an indictment of what is happening in some of these areas, I do not know what is. This centre also caters for homeless men, and I think that is an important part of this whole program. A women's housing program also is in the process of being established, designed to cater for women in the area between Bargo and Bankstown and offering 18 beds. To the great credit of the New South Wales Government, the Housing Commission also is about to set up 12 bedrooms for women's medium term crisis accommodation in Wollongong. Whilst something has been started, I believe it is appropriate for further funding to be made available now to support this very laudable aim Finally, I turn to the third sub-program, the general supported accommodation sub-program. It is designed to provide supported accommodation and related support services for men, women and their dependants who are permanently or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis and who need support to move towards independent living, where possible and appropriate. How many of us have seen these people in our society-the homeless men, who are often referred to as vagrants, drunks, and so on? They have a very low esteem in society, an esteem which is not necessarily deserved or earned. They are in these circumstances quite often because of the lack of compassion and commitment of communities and organisations within communities to try to do something about it. Certainly, church organisations have taken it upon themselves to improve the circumstances of these sorts of people, but it is incumbent also upon those of us in public office to do something about it. In my own electorate, there is an emergency accommodation program in Wollongong, associated with the Marriage and Family Centre. It has five or six houses and, interestingly enough, the statistic I was given is that it has one and half workers to look after the people who come into the houses. A housing information service is also available through the Wollongong City Council, in association with the Illawarra Housing Trust. It is interesting to note the statistics provided by that group. In March it received over 50 requests for housing assistance. Although most of these calls were from people facing eviction orders or living in premises which were to be sold, or who could not pay the rent, a goodly proportion of calls were from people in desperate need of assisted accommodation. The most difficult people to place in housing were those on low incomes with additional problems-for example, drug dependency, psychological problems, et ectera-because private housing for these sorts of people is just not forthcoming. Eighty-two per cent of the requests came from people living only on social security benefits. Those statistics speak for themselves. I believe that this piece of legislation is most timely, and I congratulate the Minister for his initiative in bringing it forward now. It is certainly long overdue. I again refer to what I said at the introduction of my speech today. The action of the former Government in introducing pilot programs one after the other with no firm commitment was reprehensible. This Government is fully involved in these various sub-programs. I commend the sub-programs and the Ministers involved in them, because they will overcome some of the difficulties we face in Australian society. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.53) —An examination of literature associated with the supported accommodation assistance program and other programs that have been promoted by the Government and by individual Ministers indicates quite clearly that there is a degree of deception being perpetrated by this Government in relation to these programs. I illustrate this to the House by quoting the words of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) when he talks about 'a major new program to help women, youth and families in urgent need of shelter and support'. I give a further quote from the Budget papers: The Government has decided to introduce, subject to agreement with the States and the Northern Territory, a new Supported Accommodation Assistance Program to operate from 1 January 1985 . . . My point is that these are not new programs; there is nothing innovative about them. I give credit to the Government for increasing funding in these areas, but these programs are not innovative. The Government is bringing under the one umbrella programs that have been in existence for many years. There has been an update and an increase in funding, and that is welcomed. I am not being critical of the Government in that regard, but merely pointing out that this is not an innovation of this Government but a continuation of schemes already in existence. There is a tendency to do this. If one examines the Budget papers, in that part of social security and welfare section dealing with the Home and Community Care program, which is also a move to bring under one umbrella a number of schemes that have been in operation for many years, it is stated: The Government has decided to restructure its support for home and community care services. It will introduce a new Home and Community Care Program . . . Again, this is not a new program, it is a dressing up of existing programs under new names. There is a well established need for accommodation of various types in our community, whether it be for homeless men, homeless youth, homeless women, or crisis centres for women and for women with dependent children. I pay tribute, as did the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in his remarks, to the expertise that has been developed over decades by such organisations as the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the City Mission, the Presbyterian Church, and Uniting Church, and other churches. As the honourable member for Dawson said in his address, the people in these organisations give better value for the welfare dollar. I believe they deliver services with care and compassion, which we do not see, and in my view will never see, from government departments and bureaucrats. They are dedicated people who have developed a degree of compassion after delivering services of this nature over so many years. I am pleased to see that the Government is supporting them. Mr Braithwaite —Very sincere people. Mr HODGES —They are very sincere people. When one examines the Senate Estimates Committee Hansard of 15 April, referred to by the honourable member for Dawson, one sees that the shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Messner, questioned a departmental official and the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, about 67 services being provided for homeless persons in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. The Minister and his official admitted that at this stage those services do not come under the umbrella of the supported accommodation assistance program. That concerns me deeply. I trust that the Government will not bypass these people for other groups or organisations that may wish to provide services. I say that in all sincerity. I refer to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, which is a short Bill with a very large Schedule, and particularly to section 4 of Part II of that schedule, where non-government organisations are defined as follows: (i) a religious organisation; (ii) an organisation the principal objects or purposes of which are charitable or benevolent; or (iii) any other organisation agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; To my mind, that leaves the field wide open for any individual or group of individuals to seek approval from this Government and a State government to set up a program. I do not believe that there is a lack of support amongst our religious and charitable organisations throughout the nation for this type of work. I would hope that they would not be bypassed for individuals or groups who do not have the credentials that are held by those religious and charitable organisations already in existence. It may well be that the intentions of these new people who might be considered are honourable; on the other hand, it may well be that they are not. I wish to draw particular attention to some of the radical groups that are operating women's refuges in certain parts of this nation. I have visited one of them and I was absolutely appalled at what I saw at that women's refuge. This is a receiving point for women who are in distress. Mr Hollis —You had no right going there. Mr HODGES —I will not bother answering those inane comments from the honourable member for Throsby. Of course every member of parliament has a right to be there. The honourable member should visit some of these places to see for himself first hand what is happening to his Government's money and to the people's money. It is a disgrace to think that he has not taken the time to visit one of these women's refuges or receiving points so he can see for himself some of the disgraceful goings on. I refer particularly to some of the individuals who are at those receiving points, at women's refuges. I refer to the scruffy nature of their dress and to the literature that they have on display. These are people who are being funded by the taxpayers to receive women and children in crisis. After I had left this particular centre I referred to the people running it as 'the overalls brigade' because they were scruffy females dressed in khaki overalls, some wearing thongs. Quite frankly, the literature that was on display was an absolute disgrace. I am not talking about just one or two pamphlets, but large racks of pamphlets on open display promoting such things as socialism, lesbianism and the like. Some of this literature was highly political, condemning the conservative side of politics and, frankly, I was appalled. Women's crisis centres are surely not for this purpose. They are centres designed for welfare purposes. The Minister's staff and the staff of the State departments working in conjunction with this Government for the provision of such services should be keeping a watchful eye on these centres to see that the people who run them are properly attired and doing the job correctly. They should also see that that sort of disgraceful literature that is on display is not there. I return to the actual programs themselves and the sub-programs in particular. There is a need for young people in particular to be protected. They are at risk, particularly if, as in many instances, they are required to attend a homeless persons refuge. In my view there is a need to segregate these people into groups-homeless men, homeless youths, women, and women with dependent children. When I read some of the appalling reports about young people glue-sniffing and young girls who turn to prostitution, drugs and alcohol, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a real need in the community for a separation in the provision of various homes and services for people in need. I want to refer to what I believe is an important link between young unmarrieds with dependent children in our community receiving assistance by way of the supporting parents benefits and allowances scheme and women's crisis centres. If this Government could effect cutbacks in expenditure in supporting parents benefits, where huge expenditure is involved because payments are of an income maintenance nature, then more attention could be given to homeless men and youths and women's crisis centres. Indeed, if we had a return to more traditional family values, I believe we would see a reduction in expenditure on supporting parents benefits and allowances and, hopefully, the need for women's crisis centres would also be reduced. I refer to the supporting parents benefits scheme which has escalated at an alarming rate over the past four or five years. I draw the attention of the House to some of these figures. The supporting parents benefit and allowance expenditure was $412m in 1980-81 or 4.15 per cent of the total social security budget. This has gone up to $1,083m estimated in this financial year or 6 per cent of the social security and welfare budget. That means that in four years there has been a massive increase of $671m or 163 per cent. If one makes a comparison of supporting parents benefits and allowances with other what one might term fairly static benefits paid to age and widow pensioners, one sees that the results are also very alarming. In 1982-83 to 1983-84 there was a 22.7 per cent increase in supporting parents benefits and allowances. In this financial year there will be a further rise of 21.7 per cent. If one looks at the numbers that are listed in the Budget Papers at 30 June 1984, one sees that there were 153,600 supporting parent beneficiaries. It is estimated that the number will increase by 14,500 to 168,100 by 30 June this year. That indicates a very serious trend in the community. I wish to spend another minute or two highlighting those issues. We can identify two major concerns associated with the supporting parents benefit scheme. I emphasise that the benefit is necessary for genuine hardship cases. First, the cost to the taxpayer which, as I have just indicated to the House, is considerable. Secondly, and more importantly, is the destruction or the breakdown of our society. This, to me, is the most important concern associated with this scheme and illustrated by the figures that I have quoted to the House. It is the breakdown of our present society, a changing and lowering of our moral standards, the condoning and encouraging of a permissive society that is causing this rapid rise in numbers of beneficiaries in this area. I will further break this down into what I believe is the relieving of the male of the responsibility of honouring his commitments as a father. We have seen a dangerous drift in this country over the past decade or two where males live with young females and the young females have babies. If one talks to general practitioners in our community one finds that these females often have a second, third or a fourth baby and sometimes with different fathers. That is an appalling state of affairs in my view. What have successive governments done? They have supported those unmarried mothers and their babies when, in my view, the babies should have been adopted out. In our community there are tens of thousands of people who would give love, care and attention to those babies, people who are childless themselves and who want babies. I do not subscribe to the view that a baby must necessarily be with its natural mother. If it is the desire of the natural mother to keep that baby, then I believe she should be allowed to do so, but not at the expense of the public purse. What we are doing here is encouraging young women to have children in an unmarried situation. The fathers go off, do not honour their responsibilities and do not have to pay maintenance for those children. This is a very serious situation which wants addressing because it is escalating at a rapid rate. The male must be responsible. In ordinary marriages, in proper relationships, he is responsible. While this Government, like its predecessors allows this situation to develop, we will see males opting out of their responsibilities. It is that permissive society that worries me. I get back from that aspect of our welfare program to the need for women's crisis centres. That is not to say that there is not a need in ordinary marriage situations, because there is such a need; but I believe that with encouragement-that is really what we are doing-of young women to live in de facto relationships and have babies, unstable situations develop at a far greater rate than they develop in the normal marriage situation, and there is then a greater need in our communities for women's crisis centres. I support the general thrust of this supported accommodation assistance program. I emphasise again that it is an up-dating; it is not a new program, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Government would have the population believe. That is a further attempt by the Government to paint the Liberal Party and the National Party, in government or in opposition, as being less caring than a Labor government. Mr Hollis —They were. Mr HODGES —That is a lot of nonsense. Mr Hollis —Your speech has proved it. Mr HODGES —It is not proven at all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Throsby will cease interjecting. Mr HODGES —If the honourable member looks through the Budget Papers at all of the programs in the social welfare area, he will find that the great majority of those programs have been instituted by Liberal governments. Labor governments, in some instances, have extended those programs. But there is not much innovation when it comes to a Labor government. That point should be made very clearly, because there is a deliberate attempt on the part of Labor governments to paint Liberal and National Party coalition governments as being non-compassionate and non-caring for the less fortunate people in our community. We believe in the philosophy of people primarily looking after themselves. We do not believe that they ought to be mollycoddled. We do not believe that taxpayers' money should be expended indiscriminately at will by people who will tend to take handouts and not fend for themselves. But we do believe in expending the taxpayers' dollar, the welfare dollar, wisely on people who are in need. I support the thrust of the Bill. As the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), mentioned earlier, we are concerned about the possibility of non-adherence to the traditional deliverers of welfare, such as the religious and charitable organisations I mentioned previously. I sincerely hope that the Government does not allow individuals or groups of individuals without the credentials that I believe are necessary, without the track record, to come forward and receive government funding for expenditure in these areas. I realise that there is some check in terms of a co-ordinating committee with the States, and that the States have an important part to play as well as funding and a say as to what happens in this area. But I sincerely trust that we will abide by our previous traditional deliverers of these services and ensure that they are the people who receive the money and not others without the credentials. Ms FATIN(Brand)(11.13) —I was rather saddened to hear some of the comments made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), so before I address myself to what I have planned to say I should like to respond to three of his statements. His suggestion that by cutting back the supporting parent's benefits to some groups of recipients the Government would be able to fund fewer crisis centres absolutely astonishes me. He himself said that he has visited centres. So have I, over many years. What one sees in many of the women's refuges is a very large number of married women who find themselves in crisis. It was only yesterday that I was told that domestic violence is at last being recognised as growing at such a rate that the demands on these centres will undoubtedly grow still further, until we as a society can do something about lessening the level of domestic violence. I refute the suggestion that the single parent's benefit somehow or other helps to fill up our refuges. The supporting parent's benefit goes mostly to separated and divorced women and women who are not able to gain support from a spouse. Also, the honourable member referred insultingly to the women who work in the women's refuges in Australia. Back in the mid-70s, I was fortunate in being able to visit one of the first women's refuges in Australia, if not the first, run by a collective. That was the Elsie Women's Refuge in Sydney. From that day to this, I have never ceased to be impressed by the amazing dedication of women who work in refuges. Also, I have seen many other refuges that are being run by churches, migrant groups, youth workers and others. The dedication of refuge workers is something that most of us never realise until we visit a centre. I also think that the distress that the women and the children, men and the young people, experience when they go into refuges is not understood by many of us. May I finally comment on just one other area to which the honourable member for Petrie addressed himself. He referred to some projects that were not being funded under this scheme. I know that the projects which the Western Australian committee has rejected for inclusion under this program are being funded at supported accommodation assistance program levels, by the Commonwealth. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill represents the first concerted attempt by a Commonwealth government to rationalise and improve the many schemes and programs which exist throughout Australia to help people without homes. The Bill is the outcome of nearly 18 months of consultation with the States and the Northern Territory, non-government organisations, advisory bodies and the providers of services to homeless people. I should like to start by congratulating the Hon. Keith Wilson, the Western Australian Minister for Community Services, and all the other people who have been involved in devising the program in Western Australia, my home State, for the constructive and co-operative attitude they have shown during the negotiations. The Commonwealth has been involved in the provision of assistance to homeless people since 1974. Programs have included the youth services scheme, the family support services scheme, the children's services program, the crisis accommodation for families in distress program, and the homeless persons assistance program. Some of these schemes were administered by the Commonwealth, and others by the States. At the same time, the States were also funding and running other similar schemes. The result was a hotchpotch of legislation in which financial and physical resources were in grave danger of missing their most appropriate and effective mark. In 1982, the Federal and State Welfare Ministers agreed on the need to review all the Commonwealth and Commonwealth-State programs with the aim or rationalising the co-ordination, the delivery and the general standard of services to the homeless. The review, as the House has already heard from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), was finally set in motion by this Government early in its first term. It came to be known as the Review of Crisis and Youth Accommodation and was carried out under the auspices of the Departments of Social Security, Housing and Construction, and Education and Youth Affairs. The review found that the existing system was inadequate and illogical, unco-ordinated, complex and poorly funded. It is the recommended remedy to this situation that we are discussing here today. The Minister's second reading speech contains a concise account of the details of the new arrangements, but I would still like to draw attention to some of the particularly noteworthy points. The key elements of the legislation is its flexibility, and I am pleased to see that this has been acknowledged with approval by the Opposition. The aim is to provide homeless people-that is, people who lack adequate shelter or support from both family and the community-with help in the short, medium and even longer term. The legislation recognises that homeless people have various requirements, from emergency accommodation in a crisis to help with child and health care and financial counselling. Some people need immediate access to short term accommodation and intensive support services such as those found in refuges for women and youths. Others need a less intensive level of support and might be helped by spending time in a halfway house or a hostel. The three sub-programs which make up the Bill give a clear indication of the breadth of the new arrangements. The first section deals with youth supported accommodation and aims to provide services for young people between the ages of 12 and 25. This area has already been allocated $830,000 in the 1984-85 financial year to cover the first six months of the program. In the 1985-86 full financial year it will attract $1.66m. The second section involves the women's emergency services program, which was first established by this Government in 1983 with an allocation of $4m. This program will continue to cater for women with and without dependants who need to get out of violent or threatening domestic situations. I will be addressing myself to this section of the Bill a little later. The third section of the Bill deals with the general supported accommodation program which provides for services to those men, women and children who are permanently or temporarily homeless but who do not fit clearly or practically within the youth or women's supported accommodation program. One of the points which the Minister has stressed about the applicability of this Bill is that the three broad sub-programs extend the range of the program rather than limit it. Women, for instance, may be assisted under any one of the three different sections, depending on the specific needs and problems being catered for. Likewise, services for young people could be eligible for funding under either the women's emergency services program, the youth supported accommodation program, or even, in special circumstances, the general program. As a Western Australian, I am particularly pleased to be able to report to the House that the Western Australian State Government has accepted the terms and conditions contained in this Bill, and a supported accommodation assistance program began on 1 January this year. The State Minister, Mr Wilson, has also agreed that Western Australia will operate under the national guidelines, and will shortly be advising this Government's Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) about Western Australia's advisory structures. A proposal to allocate $700,000 worth of Commonwealth funds is currently being examined by the Western Australian Commonwealth-State joint committee, and the Federal Government has agreed to continue funding, at levels equivalent to the new program, the eight homeless persons assistance program projects which the State excluded from funding under the new arrangements. Western Australia has also agreed to meet Commonwealth matching requirements by 1988-89. We already have 15 services approved under the youth section programs, 14 approved as women's emergency services and 22 services approved under the general sub-program. New services are currently under consideration for inclusion in all three sub-programs. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. However, I do want to return briefly to the women's emergency services sub-program, and acknowledge some of the work which has been done in this area. As I commented earlier, the Commonwealth has been involved in the provision of assistance to homeless people since 1974, and it was at this time that I first got to know some of the women around this country who were organising refuges for women. Many of them are still involved in refuge work-so their credentials and track records referred to by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Petrie, have truly been set down and established-having spent more than 10 years without adequate funding, without any organisational back-up, and without the human and capital resources so desperately needed. I want to pay tribute to these women, and particularly to the Western Australian refuge workers who have had to battle the odds with hostile conservative State governments as well as cope with all the other difficulties. No-one is suggesting that the supported accommodation assistance program will solve all the funding problems faced by women's refuges. Nevertheless, the proposals are a vast improvement on the old system. We will have security of funding, with a legislative base. There will be the flexibility for women's refuges to choose the sub-program which best suits their specific needs. There will be co-ordination and all supported accommodation for women, including child care in women's refuges. We will have the scope to cater for a broad range of women in crisis, whether they are chronically homeless or in a temporary crisis, and refuges will be able to focus more on services assisting women escaping violent or otherwise intolerable domestic situations. Funds have been provided this financial year for improving salaries and operating subsidies. More money has been promised for 1985-86 for new services and increased staffing. For the first time we have guaranteed indexed increases in the salary component or grants to reflect the growth of wages. We have funds for program evaluation and a whole new approach to the development of a needs based system which recognises the importance of involving the service providers in planning for needs and priorities. A particularly significant point is that the new legislation will, for the first time, bring community based rape and incest crisis centres under the umbrella of Commonwealth assistance. The Bill and the complementary crisis accommodation program provide both for capital and recurrent funding, and the major component of recurrent costs-that is, an estimated 80 per cent of all SAAP funds-will be for salary subsidies to workers who provide support services such as counselling, information, referral and follow-up. Support services under the women's sub-program will extend to advice, assistance and advocacy in regard to legal problems, housing, health, child care and income support. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to end on a cautionary note. As workers in the field know, one of the major causes of women needing refuges is domestic violence-now recognised as a major problem with grave social implications-which in turn is all too often a factor in family proverty. The problems are not going to diminish quickly. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has just found that there were about 382,000 families, with three-quarters of a million children, living in poverty in 1982. I suggest that a number of those would be on supporting parents benefits and the thought of cutting them off is quite horrifying. There is no room for complacency over the new provisions under discussion here today, as I know the Minister would be the first to agree. The Bill represents an important first step, particularly in an administrative sense, but I would urge continuing vigilance on the part of the service providers, the funding administrators and all the Ministers concerned. With this legislation in place, Australia at last has the chance to develop a supported accommodation program which will provide effective and appropriate assistance to the homeless. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.28) —I thank the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), for allowing me a few minutes to air a couple of views. I support the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill and believe it should be the subject of a bipartisan debate. Of course, one always has reservations about how the tax dollar will be spent as there are many areas that one could look at and say that it is being wasted. I believe we have a massive problem on our hands which should be the subject of a major debate in this Parliament. I have been a member for 10 years now for a very marginal electorate which has a multiplicity of problems. One of the problems I have been confronted with is that many people do not have a place in which to live. There are many reasons for this. I applaud the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) for his very well constructed speech, a speech with a lot of thought given to it and a speech with a bit of fortitude, because he attacked some of the problems we have and offered a solution as to how we can overcome them. But we do have these problems, and we have them for many reasons. A lot of young people come to see me to tell me that they do not have a place in which to live. A lot of single mothers with children come to me and I believe that we, as politicians, have a moral obligation to help them. Whether we agree or disagree with what has occurred, little children are the ones who will make this nation in the long run, so we have an obligation to look after them. Mr Staples —It was different when you were in government. Mr GOODLUCK —That is the sort of remark that disgusts me. The honourable member does not have much knowledge of what occurred in Parliament when we were in government. He does not have much knowledge of what I have done because, as many would know, I fought very hard for benefits for single fathers as well as single mothers. I am very compassionate towards their cause. There are reasons for my compassion. When one looks at these single mothers and thinks about the children, one feels disgusted about some of the men who have walked away and left those children destitute. I go one step further. There is an obligation on the parents to look after those young children, to give them homes. We are all messed up at the moment by selfish, rotten people who say to themselves: 'We don't care about the young children, we don't care about the young girls and the young boys; we will leave them to fend for themselves'. Then we get all these well-intentioned people attacking from all sides, confusing everybody and making a mess of the whole situation. That is why I speak briefly on this matter. I support the Bill because it is a move to helping, but we need to attack some of the things occurring in our society. The honourable member for Petrie mentioned some of the refuges. I am the first one to support people helping others in order that they make a better world, but we need to take a very good look at some of these refuges, particularly in Hobart. I know that the Minister for Social Security will agree that if they are not operating in the best way to help young people, if they are not operating in a way that will make their future a little better, they need looking at. If money is being wasted, the people involved should be tipped out and we need to bring in other people who will make life better for young people at a crisis point in their lives if they are not getting the best attention. We need also to look at some of the other problems such as the rotten, selfish parents who tip their young girls and boys out on the streets because they cannot face up to the responsibility. We need to have a good look at them. We need to have a good look at some of those rotten husbands who leave their wives and young children in a pitiful penniless situation. We need to have a good look at the Bill and at this problem. It is a massive problem and we need to have a decent, respectable debate on it in this Parliament. Instead of having these well intentioned go-getters in society trying to assist, we need to talk about it in this Parliament. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.33) —in reply-First of all, I thank the various honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. The Government is pleased that the Opposition is supporting this legislation. I was a bit surprised to hear the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) suggest that there was nothing innovative about it. I think that is a little unfair. For some time the need has been recognised for a co-ordinated program to tackle what is accepted to be a growing problem within the Australian community. The supported accommodation assistance program has arisen from discussions between the Commonwealth and the States. Those discussions have included not only people from government but also officials and other people involved in the voluntary sector. With its three sub-programs the program will draw together three extraordinarily important areas and will help to develop services on a much more rational basis with what is conceded to be significantly increased levels of funding. That does suggest that the Government's legislation certainly is quite innovative in the sense that it provides for a much greater degree of co-ordination and a much more rational approach to the administration of an area that has suffered from a lack of policy direction and a great deal of fragmentation. I also take issue with the honourable member for Petrie on the question of compassion. Anyone who has worked in the area covered by this Bill-that of homelessness, whether involving women in crisis, young people or homeless people who suffer isolation in association with alcoholism and its related problems-knows that a great deal of dedicated work is done. On the basis of my experience of working in this area, I would not try to make distinctions between people who work in the relevant departments, whether at the Federal or State level, and people who work within the various voluntary agencies. As one who led a voluntary agency for many years, in my experience with public servants I found that there was no lack of compassion or understanding simply because they happened to be on the public sector side of the fence. It seems to me that it does no service to the Public Service in this country to make that kind of comparison. It is not based on fact; it is based on sheer prejudice. It suggests that just because someone works for the Public Service somehow he or she lacks a little more feeling and understanding than someone who works in the private sector. A number of issues were raised by the honourable member for Petrie and then by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who always expresses his views with some passion although not always with the most sensitive understanding. I say to the honourable member for Petrie and the honourable member for Franklin that moralising does not help us a great deal when we try to grapple with what everyone recognises are fundamental social problems. As the honourable member for Petrie suggested, it is true that there has been a significant increase in the number of people being assisted by the supporting parents benefit and other government programs. It is true that sociological changes have occurred within our community. Talking so easily, as the honourable member for Petrie did, of the so-called average or normal family within the Australian community raises some real questions. There is no doubt that changes are occurring. Changes are occurring in society because of a whole range of pressures, most of which are quite unrelated to what governments are or are not doing. Pressures are placed on people, and I do not think members of this Parliament are in a position to get on the soap box on the question of normal families, claiming the high ground of morality in terms of family relationships. We all know that we live in a peculiar environment which generates enormous pressures. It has been conceded many times in the past that these pressures have a very detrimental effect on the family life of members of this Parliament. One does not need to spend too much time looking at, for example, the manufacturing industry in this country to see the appalling conditions under which people often work or the pressures which are generated by various kinds of work. Let me take just one example which is not related only to the manufacturing industry. I refer to the whole question of shift work. Whether it concerns people working in service professions or people working in manufacturing industry, there is no doubt that the broken work patterns and hours that are involved in shift work have a serious impact on family life. So it concerns me when people moralise in areas which certainly require analysis and understanding. Some of the roles that the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) suggested that the Institute of Family Studies should look at are: What changes are occurring in our society, what some of the pressures are that are associated with those changes and what the implications are in terms of social policy. I think the responsibility of the Government, in terms of social policy, is fundamentally to respond to situations of need. That is what this Government is about. That is why this legislation has been introduced. It is believed that this co-ordinated program will help to support people in need. I just want to make a point in terms of those people who are providing the assistance. This goes to an extent to some of the points made by the honourable member for Franklin and also the honourable member for Petrie. The people who are involved in providing services are in the voluntary sector, which is very largely what this Bill is about. They are people who will have quite a range of values and attitudes. Their politics will not always be politics that are sympathetic to the views that we might espouse, whether on this side of the House or the other. They will be people who may not dress in the same way as we do. They may be people who read different literature and propagate different literature. But fundamentally, it seems to me, in terms of my experience, that people who are working in the various types of services that are provided are very dedicated and very compassionate people. Prior to the introduction of this Bill they were working under appalling awards, conditions and levels of pay and with little support, very often giving the kind of service, in terms of hours, that might even put us to shame, and I think it is understood that we work very long hours. Again, we have to be careful in making judgments in a general sense. A lot of what is said by way of rhetoric in this Parliament I have never found to be true when I have worked with particular people and institutions on a face to face basis. When one gets to know people and to understand what they are about one realises that there is a great deal to admire in terms of the services that are being provided in this area. A number of honourable members have made several points that I think are important to place on the record. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) referred to the importance of the services, as he understood them, in his electorate. It has been suggested by the honourable member for Brand that the fundamental principles that are encased in this legislation represent a further stage in the progress of reform. I will leave the matter there. There is the question of the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment. Perhaps that can be dealt with in the Committee stage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.44) —I move: Page 3, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: Agreements between the Commonwealth and any State or States '4A. (1) In this section, 'agreement' means an agreement or a further agreement of the kinds referred to in section 4 between the Commonwealth and any State or States. '(2) An agreement shall be such that guidelines of the kind referred to in sub-clause 8 (2) of the form of agreement contained in the Schedule shall be required under the agreement. '(3) Section 48 (except paragraphs (1) (a) and (b)) and section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to guidelines approved under an agreement as if the references in those sections to regulations were references to guidelines and the references to the making of regulations were references to the approval of guidelines.'. In speaking to the amendment I refer to the legislation which already provides within it quite a few of the safeguards that we are trying to protect further with the amendment that is being suggested. The amendment seeks to insert new section 4A. Clause 4 (2) already provides that, where there is a change in agreement, a further agreement will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I think basically that is safeguard enough. I appreciate that the Schedule described the agreement as being almost the approximate of the type of agreement that will be entered into and agreed to without coming back to both Houses of Parliament. But where there is an amendment to any of those agreements it will be laid before both Houses of the Parliament. I refer particularly to section 8 (2) of the Schedule: A program shall be administered in accordance with guidelines from time to time jointly approved by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Ministers and published in the Commonwealth Gazette. We believe that these guidelines are just as important as a change to the basic clauses of the agreement, which already provide for it to come before both Houses of Parliament. The effect of the amendment will be that any changes to agreements will come back for parliamentary accounting and scrutiny. This is basically what we are doing in so many other parts of the legislation. Agreements are referred back to the Parliament and, as I understand it, the Senate or the House of Representatives can refuse to accept the regulations. We are suggesting that the guidelines be treated as regulations so that they can come back to the House of Representatives or the Senate. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.48) —The Government will not accept the amendment. Basically, it does have regard to section 8 (2) of the Schedule, which states: A program shall be administered in accordance with guidelines from time to time jointly approved by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Ministers and published in the Commonwealth Gazette. I think the realities are that the Commonwealth, in terms of achieving guidelines, is involved in negotiating with a number of States. Those negotiations are not easily achieved. Very often the attitudes and so on of the various States are likely to differ, so there are likely to be quite lengthy periods, often in terms of getting agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, in relation to any change in guidelines. I think the Opposition would recognise that these things are not easy. Given that, the Commonwealth basically needs to make a decision. The Commonwealth needs to make clear to interested parties that a decision has been agreed to in terms of the guidelines and perhaps changes in guidelines. There is an undertaking in the legislation that those guidelines will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. So there is no question of any secrecy and of people not knowing where changes have occurred. The Government would further be prepared to undertake to table guidelines when they are finalised within the Parliament. Again, the Parliament would have the opportunity to observe the guidelines. The nub of the question raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) is the possibility of disallowance by the Senate as a result of moving in the direction of the Opposition's amendment. That would mean very significant delays before the matter could be reconsidered by the Parliament. If one adds to the very complicated process of achieving agreement with respect to the guidelines between the Commonwealth and the States, it could result in the possibility of very substantial delays and interruptions to the Government. We believe, in terms of what is already contained in the Bill and the Schedule, that the Commonwealth has gone as far as it feels it can go at this time. On behalf of the Government I indicate that, although we are very sympathetic with what the Opposition is seeking to achieve with the amendment, we believe that what is substantially in the Bill at present goes a long way towards meeting the concerns that the honourable member for Dawson raised. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.52) —We are not disputing at all that there will be full disclosure of the guidelines in some form or another. We welcome the opportunity of having them tabled in the Houses of Parliament so that they can be further observed in that regard. But the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette is not the compulsory reading of every parliamentarian who sits in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It is only those very close watchers and observers of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette who would read it. Mr Howe —Students. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I think that is more to the point, and paid students at that. The question is not about disclosure; the question is about certain guidelines that have been formulated whereby the States have excluded 67 bodies that might have been included already in the new program. That might have some support among those client organisations; I am not sure. Difficult as it is to get State and Commonwealth approval-I do not dispute that-there could be a situation in which there was the inclusion of a body that did not really have the support of most parliamentarians or the exclusion of some bodies might continue, which we feel could be a loss. There is to be a review by the States and the Commonwealth. We realise that they are the only bodies involved. I did make a suggestion during the second reading debate that consultation with the people outside, the voluntary organisations, is absolutely essential under this program and also under the home and community care program. We feel that we are asking for little more than what is normally observed with most Bills-that is, that regulations do come back before the House. We consider the guidelines to be such a regulatory force. I believe the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is overemphasising the ease with which the Senate would disallow such a guideline as a regulation. I believe the history of the Senate shows that it is not so disposed. The point is that the amendment can only improve the Bill and give it better parliamentary scrutiny. We believe the amendment should be carried. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.56) —In my reply to the second reading debate I neglected, I concede, to discuss the question of the exclusion of organisations and institutions from this program at present. That, of course, does not mean, as the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) made clear at the Senate Estimates Committee meeting, that there is any lack of commitment on the part of the Government to these organisations for continued funding. Certainly the funding is guaranteed overall. There is no question of that. I do not think there is any question of particular organisations being singled out. We are, after all, talking about guidelines; we are not talking about the singling out of any of those organisations. The Government is well aware of the extraordinarily important contribution being made by major institutions. While the programs under this Bill concern mainly the smaller organisations and accommodation services, it is not our intention in any way to deprecate the work that is done by organisations such as the Mathew Talbot Hostel in Sydney, the Gilbert Memorial in Melbourne or whatever the equivalents are. Those organisations are large institutions that provide a service that will continue to need to be provided for accommodation for quite large groups of homeless people in the inner areas of the great cities. It is not intended to deprecate this work in any way; it is simply a matter of continuing discussions between the Commonwealth and the States about the levels and basis of funding and the guidelines that the Government will apply in relation to funding. Those organisations are covered in terms of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act and they will continue to be covered. There is no question of any threat to their funding. I simply repeat that the Government believes that members of parliament ought to be aware of changes in the guidelines, so that in addition to the the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, which may be a somewhat obscure journal to ordinary people and even to parliamentarians, we will table the guidelines in the Parliament so that the Parliament is aware of them. It seems to me that to open up the possibilities of having guidelines unscrambled and to go back to complicated negotiations with the States is not warranted. For that reason, we reject the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Braithwaite's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. 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.Jakobsen, C. A. Dobie, J. D. M. Darling, E. E.Carlton, J. J. Jones, BarryLloyd, B. Hurford, C. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 April, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(12.09) —As I was saying last night when I was interrupted by the adjournment debate, nothing contained in any of the recent Queensland industrial legislation restricts or penalises peaceful picketing. Both the picketing against which the legislation is aimed, and the conduct which was occurring prior to its introduction, have not been peaceful. We have had the incredible situation of an Australian Labor Party senator deliberately provoking arrest at pickets on many occasions. The State President of the ALP, Mr McLean, a member of the Socialist Left faction, has urged members of Parliament to join the pickets and be arrested. Is this the respect for the law mentioned yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? With regard to union picket lines, the legislation does not go so far as does the Great Britain Trades Union Congress on such activity, which limits trade union pickets to no more than six persons and forbids shouting or harassment. The Queensland Government's legislation simply provides that, if an employee opts to go on strike, the employer may dismiss him and have his job performed by a similarly qualified person. Unions, particularly those involved in essential services, must realise that the right to strike is not absolute. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for his support and welcome him back to this chamber. Unionism has no divine right to force its might on anyone. Too often union leaders seek to have the rule of might upheld against the rule of right. Stands such as that taken by the Queensland State Government are thus branded as provocative and are considered by some to be unfair intervention in the so-called right of unions to do as they please. What is disturbing from an Australian point of view is that a Federal government is being seen to take the side of unions in action against a democratically elected State government. Mr Halverson —Disgraceful. Mr SLIPPER —It is a wicked situation. It is as if the people of Queensland do not have a right to protect themselves against the unjust aims of aggressive union leaders. The legislation has also abolished compulsory unionism for electricity industry employees. The union insistence that a worker is under a inescapable obligation to join a trade union denies a natural right of the individual. It is also a direct denial of the right of freedom of association affirmed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of association means the freedom to join or not to join a union. The right to work is an individual's choice, not a privilege attached to union membership. To be consistent, honourable members opposite who profess to support civil liberties must agree with the abolition of compulsory unionism. If they do, let them stand up and be counted on this great issue. Mr Reith —It is not one of their strong points. Mr SLIPPER —Consistency is certainly not one of their strong points. The Queensland legislation also prevents past situations, whereby union leaders have been able to thumb their noses at State Industrial Commission orders, from recurring. It requires unions to comply with Commission orders and makes a provision for deregistration if such action is warranted. All Australians have to live by the laws of the land. It is not unreasonable to expect union leaders to do likewise through the Industrial Commission. Similarly, the establishment of a special tribunal to handle disputes in the electricity industry has none of the sinister overtones being attached to it by the Federal Government and union spokesmen. There are ample precedents for such action. The Coal Industry Tribunal is one that operates in the State sphere. In the Commonwealth arena there is a Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and a body covering maritime employees. The legislation also outlines avenues through which people, including employers, can take legal action to recoup losses caused by irresponsible union activities. Previously in this regard, unions that inflicted damage through industrial action had an advantage which was not tolerated in any other area of law. The Queensland Government therefore has provided the framework through which the Government, acting for the community as a whole, or employers, acting by themselves, can seek compensation for the effects of irresponsible strike action. Just as individuals or companies are legally responsible for their actions, so must unions and unionists be accountable for their industrial activities. Much media attention has been given to the role for reported statements being recognised as admissible evidence in court action against unions. Also, much has been made of the right of journalists to cover industrial activities such as picket lines. Recent Press and television coverage should indicate that there is absolutely no threat to such coverage and that talk about freedom of the Press being infringed is simply not true. Companies which have no input into or influence on the actions of the Queensland Government are being singled out for discriminatory union action. Mr McVeigh —Gestapo tactics. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for entering this debate. Gestapo tactics are being used by the Australian Labor Party and the trade unions. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in this place yesterday that some companies on the Australian Council of Trade Unions hit list-a hit list is exactly what it is-do not support the Premier and his Government. If that is the case, why are they on the hit list? Is that the sort of justice the community can expect from extremist trade unions? I support the Queensland Government's insistence that no amount of union thuggery, blackmail, scare tactics or industrial action will in any way alter the legislative course that has been adopted. What utter nonsense it is for the Prime Minister to suggest that the laws can remain on the statute books but not be invoked for the good of the people. The sacked employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board had the opportunity to re-apply for jobs on generous new contract conditions. Many have done so. Those who chose not to seek re-employment did so in the full knowledge that the Government would replace them eventually with new recruits or contract labour. The current campaign by the ACTU is an attempted face-saver by the trade union movement. It has no chance of success, no chance of changing in any way what has been done in the area of legislation and no chance of having sacked employees re-instated. All that the ACTU campaign will achieve will be the highlighting of the utter irresponsibility of some trade unions and the Labor Government. It will contribute only to more loss of jobs, more loss of revenue and more loss of productivity at a time when none of the States or the nation as a whole can afford such irresponsible action. The worst aspect of the ACTU's illegal blockade is that individual workers who are not involved in the power dispute will be made to pay again for the recent unjust actions of their Electrical Trades Union colleagues. I now wish to mention again the blockade of Queensland by the national transport workers unions, aided and abetted by the ACTU and the Federal Government. Section 45D (1A) of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act provides that a person shall not, in concert with another, engage in conduct which hinders a third person from engaging in trade or commerce between the States. Section 80 of that Act empowers the Commonwealth Minister for Industry and Commerce to obtain an injunction restraining such conduct. Other provisions entitle the Minister to recover substantial pecuniary penalties against the parties involved. Mr McVeigh —I hope he does, too. Mr SLIPPER —He should but he won't. It is quite clear that this blockade will involve a contravention of the Trade Practices Act. The Federal Government has announced that it will allow the law of the land to be flouted with impunity. It is publicly condoning illegal acts under the law of the Commonwealth to its eternal shame. Blockade day-today-is Labor's day of illegality- Mr McGauran —Day of shame! Mr SLIPPER —It is its day of shame. It is the unions' 'last hurrah'. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —If any vindication were needed of the Queensland Government's firm legislative action, the activities of the political terrorists in some extremist trade unions, both during the power dispute and afterwards, have provided it. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Gippsland once again for his support. I conclude by quoting the words of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as published in today's edition of the Australian: The industrial movement has become a dinosaur. It has grown too big and now it will go into extinction. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(12.18) —If there is a failing of the Hawke Labor Government it is that it does not remind the Australian people enough of the monstrous injustices and maladministration of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government and its coalition predecessors. The wasted opportunities, the narrow, short-sighted, quick fix and the patronage of decaying social and economic structures are all well-established hallmarks of Liberal-National Party policy in government. If this country is suffering from unemployment, we must look at those who ran this country for 31 of the last 36 years, or nearly nine out of every ten years in that time. It is the ineptitude of these former conservative governments which allowed our factories to turn into industrial museums and which, with the ordinary taxpayers' money, through investment allowances and other ineptitudes, sent billions of dollars of work and industrial development to the United States of America, Germany, Britain and Japan. It was the former Ministers of these Liberal-National Party governments who now criticise this Government's short period of office, which is still spoken of in months and not years. It is the Liberal-National Party governments which have led this country into the economic quicksand. The billions of dollars of interest on overseas borrowings that the taxpayer must now bear are a direct result of the gross ineptitude of the Fraser Government and its Ministers, many of whom now sit on the Opposition front and back benches pretending to be economic saints and gurus. The Hawke Government, by any comparison, has achieved an economic recovery unparalleled in the Australian post-war experience. In a mere 22 months, 341,000 jobs have been created because of direct government involvement in programs such as the community employment program, through the success of the prices and income accord, through the consultation and consensus processes of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Business Council of Australia and the now mostly forgotten but underestimated success of the National Economic Summit Conference. It took the Fraser Government seven years to achieve the same thing while it was trying to fight inflation first. What a joke! While it was fighting inflation first by putting people out of work and raking up massive overseas borrowings for future generations to support, the inflation rate kept going up and up and the unemployment figures kept going up and up until they exceeded three-quarters of a million people, with many hundreds of thousands more in hidden unemployment. Even with such job growth and economic growth, industrial disputation, except in neo-fascist governed States such as Queensland, is at a record low in Australia today. I will not go through all the economic comparisons now. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), during Question Time this week, has already magnificently exposed the glaring comparison by any standards between the success achieved by this Government and the failure of the former Liberal-National Party Government and its remnants sitting opposite. If one really stretched mercy one could begin to forgive those opposite for their gross ineptitude, but what they have done to the lives of millions of Australians today is quite unforgivable because it was done with their full knowledge while in government. Up to three million people in Australia now live in poverty. The life of one person in every five is restricted in opportunity, basic comfort, security, nutrition, health and justice. Every time the issue of poverty is raised by a member of the Government, those on the other side, in their arrogance, smirk. Those same people who so sanctimoniously took their Christian Bible in their hands for the swearing in ceremony in this House as a badge of their righteousness deny the first principles of Christianity-care for your fellow human beings, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Their golden rule is not 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'; the golden rule of the members of the Liberal and National parties is 'Whoever has the gold makes the rules'. Poverty is the greatest blight and restriction upon this country. It affects us all, directly or indirectly, whether rich or poor. Before those opposite chortle 'Why doesn't the Government not do something', let us look at the extent of poverty as it grew under their patronage. In 1968 the top 10 per cent of income earners in Australia had 10 times the income of the bottom 10 per cent. By 1982, a mere 14 years later, for every $1,000 paid to the poor, the rich received $56,000. Apart from three years under the Whitlam Government, when there were significant steps to reduce poverty in this country, the onus for this regressive redistribution of wealth lies upon those opposite. They cannot get away from it. One has only to go back to the beginning of this week to see that they are not prepared even to admit their mistakes or to redress any of the injustices they have caused. Five times in two years and, as late as the beginning of this week, they have voted against the bottom of the harbour Bills which are designed, as they know only too well, to recoup the tax revenue kept from the people of Australia by those opposite because of their inability or unwillingness to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion. Honourable members opposite are always saying how concerned they are about the Australian family. The tax avoidance and evasion that they presided over costs the average Australian family about $43 a week, but the Opposition in this House does not care. I return to the figures I mentioned earlier. In 1968 the top 10 per cent of income earners had 10 times the income of the bottom 10 per cent. By 1982, for every $1,000 paid to the poor, the rich received $56,000. To put it another way, the wealthiest 2,500 Australians now own as much of this country's wealth as the poorest two and a half million. Nearly 800,000 children are included amongst the poorest two and a half million people in this country. To gain an idea of the magnitude of the maldistribution of this common wealth of Australia that has occurred under those opposite, if those two and a half million poorest Australians stood hand in hand the line would stretch from Sydney to Perth. I ask honourable members to think about that. A line of people over 3,000 kilometres long would stretch all the way from Sydney to Perth. If the wealthiest 2,500 Australians, who own as much wealth as those two and a half million Australians at the bottom end of the income scale, stood hand in hand they would be lucky to reach a distance of three kilometres, the distance between a couple of average suburban railway stations. That is the extent of the maldistribution of wealth in this country. Those opposite, the protectors, the puppets of the greedy tax avoiders and evaders, have deliberately ignored the plight of those in poverty in Australia today. Mr Hand —The honourable member for Denison is laughing. Mr STAPLES —Is he? I hope he is not laughing because it is a very serious matter. Information released by the Institute of Family Studies- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Once again I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Melbourne. I ask that he withdraw his remark forthwith. I was not laughing. I was listening carefully to the honourable member for Jagajaga, and the honourable member for Melbourne totally misrepresented me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The point is taken, and I think that the honourable member for Melbourne has indicated that he has withdrawn. Mr STAPLES —Information released this week by the Institute of Family Studies shows that between 1979 and 1982 there has been a 54.4 per cent increase in the number of two-parent families and a 38.6 per cent increase in one-parent families living below the poverty line. In those three years there has been a monstrous increase in the number of both two-parent and single parent families living below the poverty line in Australia. In my electorate of Jagajaga, more than $190,000 was distributed in emergency relief last year. On average, each applicant received $30 on four occasions throughout the year. That means that nearly 2,000 families are living on the poor box poverty line. One cannot get much lower than that if one has to ask not just for a pension or a benefit, which one is entitled to, but for a handout from the poor box. Can honourable members imagine the degradation and the extent of the poverty that people in this situation have to face? It is deplorable and it is the duty of this House and of everybody else to ensure that the load is lifted from the poor of this country and shared more evenly. Today thousands of Australian children will go to bed hungry. That is a fact. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) well knows the extent of poverty in his electorate and the problems that mothers have to go through. As he has told me at other times, women have had to sell themselves into prostitution to get food for their children. It is just not good enough. Because of the extremes of poverty many parents of young people will expose themselves to great risks in this country today, tomorrow and for years to come unless we do something. Poverty is a fact of life. Where the next meal will come from, where the next piece of clothing will come from, are problems that affect many people in Australia today. It is our national responsibility to address poverty, its causes and effects, right now. It is not just the job of this Government, a job which is well under way; it is the job of the Opposition, both Houses of Parliament, and the community of Australia to recognise the needs that exist today of those millions of our fellow citizens in poverty. In less than one thousand days we will celebrate the bicentenary of European settlement in this country. Leading up to our bicentennial year in 1988 is the International Year of the Homeless in 1987. I, for one, welcome the passage through this House of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, after years of token pilot schemes for the homeless under Liberal-National Party governments. The Year of the Homeless in 1987 should remind us that if we do not effectively address ourselves to attaching the highest priority to the issue of poverty over the next thousand days, we will have little of real value to celebrate. Taxation reform is the obvious and most powerful vehicle to address this issue. As my good colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), with his usual eloquence, pointed out only last night in this debate, the facts are clear. The pay-as-you-earn taxpayer has been copping it in the neck, and those on the lowest incomes are affected the most because of the limitations of their disposable incomes. In various ways these Appropriation Bills address aspects of poverty, but today the duty is upon us all on both sides of this House, in the other place, in parliaments throughout Australia, in local councils, communities and families and as individual Australians to act now to stop the poverty that exists in this country, otherwise our bicentenary year will be a very hollow affair despite all the crackers, fireworks, television jingles, and so on. Poverty should be a political issue in this country, an issue which governments can quite comfortably go to the electorate on and speak strongly on. Voters not in poverty should show concern for their friends and neighbours and those people they do not know who are in great poverty in this country. To assist in raising poverty as an election issue, a real political issue, in this House and in the community, I will be organising a poverty summit in my electorate, starting on 28 April, to look at different facets of poverty. The poverty summit will continue throughout the year. The first session, on Sunday, 28 April, will focus on poverty and tax reform. I invite all honourable and members of the community to attend that poverty summit, because true tax reform will do more to alleviate poverty in this country and to share the common wealth of Australia. People should think of the words 'Commonwealth of Australia' as meaning to share the common wealth of Australia more equitably. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.31) —It is the fundamental duty of the government of any nation to protect its population and territorial integrity against armed aggression and occupation by an aggressor. That should be the prime obligation of any government, including the present Government. All the welfare programs that can be dreamt up are worthless and will become meaningless if this country is not in a position to defend its territory and defend all Australians. Territorial defence must also, of necessity, include our ability to keep open sea lanes and maintain an ability to trade and resupply. Events over the past six months have brought into sharp focus the shortcomings of the present Government, along with the most serious consequences for any Australian Government, present or future, in its failure farsightedly to plan the future defence posture of this country. Minority interest factions within the Australian Labor Party have, deliberately or otherwise, managed to reduce contemporary debate on issues affecting the security of our region to narrow, and in many ways irrelevant, dimensions. Planning for defence against possible future threats has been consumed by the need to justify our traditional alliances rather than concentrating on the best and most affordable defence for Australia over the next 15 years and well into the next century. The plight of our defence forces has been adequately covered by my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and others on this side and I do not intend to dwell on our present state of unreadiness. Of immediate concern to many is our alliance with the only great military power and hitherto reliable military ally to which we might turn in the event of a threat to our national integrity. That very great country is, of course, the United States of America. Our relationship with this politically stable friend and ally has deteriorated rapidly in recent times under this apology for a government. Integral to our approach to defence of this country should be an awareness of the fact that it takes an unprepared democracy a great deal of time to react to threats, real or perceived. It is therefore a delusion-a potentially disastrous delusion-to be as soft on defence as the present Government, or to rely on an absence of identifiable, real or perceived threats for the time being. Most Australians must deplore the Government's weak-kneed reactionary stances to what under a coalition government would have been normal, everyday exchanges and co-operation with our United States ally. The MX missile testing crisis could have occurred only under this Government. The actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government during that episode are well reported, and the fact that he had to be bailed out by the United States Administration, because of internal Labor Party faction fighting, brought no credit to him or his Government. Strains on ANZUS, although initiated by the New Zealand Government, have reached, or possibly gone beyond, breaking point because of the ineptitude of this socialist Prime Minister and his Government. Australia's role in rail-gun research, where we have led the world, is under threat. Our participation in some of the research for the United States strategic defence initiative is not just under threat but has been abandoned to other nations in the free world, to our eternal shame. That abandonment is not the outcome of reasoned debate, but because one or more factions of the Labor Party would not have a bar of it. Under the present Government, Australia has clearly signalled that it is unable to take its place alongside its allies in assuming responsibility for the future defence of our region, and has seriously cast doubt upon our resolve to be able to defend our own people. For the first time in decades, debate on defence is newsworthy, albeit for the wrong reasons. To the extent that the Government has been tested in this context in public forums, it has failed miserably. Meanwhile, accepting the responsibility thrust on it by the Western alliance, the United States is maintaining major naval and military bases in Japan, the Philippines and Diego Garcia, which enable it to sustain a very considerable deterrence against aggression in our region, in particular the western Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean regions. Political instablity in the Philippines and the expiration of the lease for Subic Bay in 1991, just six years hence, have monumental implications for our region and our security. While there may be no identifiable threat in our region for the time being, it is not implausible to come to the conclusion that that state of affairs exists because of the deterrence provided by the substantial United States presence and our alliance with that country. Planning for the 1990s and beyond must surely take into account the contingency that the United States will no longer be able to operate from Clark Base and Subic Bay in the Philippines. In that unthinkable event, the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay will be of even more critical significance. It must be a serious possibility that United States facilities which will enable it to operate naval and air forces in the southern Pacific may have to contract to Guam and Hawaii. Given that possible scenario, and the fact that the nearest United States naval and air base is limited to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, outright defence of our shipping lanes and eastern and western seaboards will become even more the responsibility of Australia. The great tragedy, for those of us who regard our defences as of both paramount importance and inseparable from a workable alliance with the United States, is this socialist Government's capitulation to those who vociferously advocate the removal of all joint Australia-United States facilities on our soil. If that conclusion needs corroboration, we need look no further back than last weekend. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) made a virtue out of his Government's withdrawal of an offer by the coalition government to the United States to consider the use of naval facilities at Cockburn Sound in his own State of Western Australia. He did so in a particular context, of course; in a debate before school kids. Instead of showing leadership and farsightedness, he close the easy way and disqualified his Party and his Government from an option which could and should be explored before identifiable needs and threats arise. Regional and national defence history has shown that it can be fatal to wait until one's head is on the block before making plans and canvassing all conceivable options. The Minister, his Government and his Party have lost their heads, all because of a possible lack of electoral popularity in the face of the loss of a Senate seat to the Nuclear Disarmament Party and a Palm Sunday rally or two around the country. In employing the argument that the offer made by the coalition in government somehow detracts from a commitment to maximum self-reliance in defence, the Minister, of necessity, opens up to question the continued co-operation with the United States in joint facilities in this country. That may not have been the intention of the Minister in choosing the words he used last weekend, but it is at once the logical and undesirable consequences of those words. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, on the one hand, that joint facilities of one kind may remain and, on the other, that other and new joint facilities cannot even be discussed as being desirable for all time to come. If he thinks that is consistent in logic, he has given the mad Left of his Party a whole new line of argument. If he does not and his gloating over the withdrawal of future access to the Stirling naval base facilities is a one-off decision, the Minister for Defence is guilty of mortgaging the future of this country's defences by denying even the planning involved in making a joint naval facility on our western seaboard a goer. In a major conflict, regional defence will almost inevitably involve the United States, failing which, quite clearly, there will be no regional defence capable of meeting all future threats. In pandering to the Australian Labor Party's reactionaries who see evil in our enduring friendship with the United States, spanning 40 or more years, the Government is forgoing, or is on the brink on forgoing, any claim to the good will of the only democratic super-power of modern times. Above all, the Government is now in a position that prevents it from contingency planning for future United States military bases on Australian soil as may become essential for Australia's defence. In the context of a debate on defence and our defence posture, it is necessary to comment on our economic performance as a country. A sound economy is an indispensable prerequisite to our ability to defend our populace against possible external aggression. With Australia's defence efforts and planning being inhibited by poor economic performance and prospects under this Government, it is necessary to comment on that performance and those prospects. Time and again it has been necessary to restate the lack of certainty created in the private sector by the Government's inability to state its clear and firm intentions in relation to economic matters and taxation. All too often, this uncertainty is due to ad hockery and on the run economic decision making. Under pressure the Prime Minister has shown a propensity to make pronouncements which have not been thought through for their impact on decision taking in the wealth creating private sector. It is well known that the Prime Minister decided to hold a tax summit in July of this year following what was at best a throwaway comment by an unqualified radio commentator in Perth during the last election campaign. That decision served a useful purpose in that it got the Prime Minister and his Government off the hook in the absence of an ALP policy on tax in the runup to that election. Since then, of course, the sky has been darkened by kites being flown by the Prime Minister, other Ministers and ALP factions galore. In the eclipse-like gloom that exists as a result of the Prime Minister's tax summit folly, private decision takers are groping in the dark for want of certainty as to the direction of the Government on taxation policy. Let us look at some of the promised events in the next few months which are bound to exacerbate the profound uncertainty with which the wealth creating sector will have to grapple. As I have already mentioned, there is the tax summit. There is the prospect of another wage indexation hearing later in the year. There are likely to be across the board wage increases for increased productivity. There will almost certainly be an extension of employment deflating redundancy extravagance into even more and more awards. We are likely to be confronted with occupational safety imposts which are likely to break new and unexplored ground. We are almost certain to cop an extension of obligatory non-contributory superannuation funds at the prompting of and with the connivance of the Hawke Government, which will cost employers an additional $11 a week per employee. We certainly will have to face up to renegotiation of wage fixing guidelines between the Government and-guess who?-its masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all that that may mean. We will be confronted by new wage relativity claims of the type mentioned in the grievance debate yesterday. Then there will be observance of the aptly named trilogy. I say it is aptly named because the Concise Oxford Dictionary tells us that a trilogy is 'a set of three tragedies to be performed in immediate succession'. The Prime Minister's trilogy is surely about tragedies. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister been made aware of plans for further industrial action by the Australian Council of Trade Unions or individual unions following today's boycott? What steps has he taken to dissuade those involved from engaging in further industrial action? Will he tell the Australian people what those future industrial actions are so that they can make plans to protect themselves from the disruption of their activities? Mr WILLIS —I am, of course, aware, as the public is, of the intention for a continued campaign after today's blockade, but I have no detailed awareness of what that will involve. I am not even sure that there is any clear plan by the trade unions in that respect. Mr Peacock —Why don't you contact them? Mr WILLIS —They may not tell me. The reality, of course, is that, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to know those plans, he might phone the Australian Council of Trade Unions himself. He cannot expect me to know everything that is in the mind of the ACTU. It is a matter of concern to us that the industrial action is occurring today and that there is an intention for further industrial action to take place if there are no consultations by the Queensland Government. We have made clear our opposition to that course of events. We have done everything that we can to try to put events on a more conciliatory course and to bring about a situation in which such industrial confrontation will not occur. Of course, the resolution of this matter remains in the hands of the Queensland Government. It could stop the whole thing by consultations. It behoves the Queensland Government to start acting responsibly and to discuss these matters with the unions, because any industrial dispute must, in the end, be ended by some form of negotiations between the parties. Whilst the stand off attitude of the Queensland Government continues, I am afraid that there is nothing that the Federal Government can do to prevent further deterioration in the industrial situation. Ms McHUGH —Is the Minister for Health aware of reports that the Council of Procedural Specialists has voted to reject the terms of the offer by the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government to the medical profession? Is this outrageous attitude shared by the members of the medical profession as a whole? Has the confrontationist attitude of the Council of Procedural Specialists been greatly assisted by the strong support of the Federal Liberal Party and, in particular, the honourable member for Barker? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of newspaper reports that the procedural specialists are supposed to have rejected the package, but there are now internal reports that there is considerable disagreement and that some of the media reports emerging from the meeting do not give a fair account of what has taken place. More importantly, of course, we are seeing increasing evidence of the specialists voting with their feet in this matter. The Government very much welcomes the return to work in a number of New South Wales hospitals. We are also confident that there will be a strong endorsement of the peace package by members of the medical profession throughout the country. This Government appreciates the strong stand taken by the President of the Australian Medical Association in working to make this peace package effective. We also welcome the fact that nearly every major health care organisation in New South Wales has endorsed the peace proposals. Again, we are grateful that the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in New South Wales also urged the doctors to return to work under this package. Indeed, the only allies that the militant surgeons now have are those honourable members who sit on the Federal Opposition back benches. Those surgeons and the Federal Opposition deserve each other. When I was in Melbourne last Friday morning, I heard the dulcet tones of the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking on a discussion program with Derryn Hinch. I thought that he was disagreeing with the honourable member for Barker and some of the hard-line people on the Federal Opposition benches, because this is what I heard him saying-- Mr Porter —You are wrong again. What about the 20,000 in queues in Melbourne waiting for hospital beds? What are you doing about them? Dr BLEWETT —Honourable members opposite certainly do not like these statements. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said: You'll remember the hurt at the time, you'll remember the old people, and the young, who suffered because these people were not prepared to allow some private contractual work to be done-and they withdrew their services. I thought that he was talking about the surgeons-because this is what the surgeons have done. They have hurt old people. They have hurt the young. These people have suffered because of the withdrawal of their services. But of course, when I listened on, I realised that he was not talking about surgeons, who, at a minimum, earn $1,000 a week; he was talking about ordinary workers. They cannot withdraw essential services; they cannot harm the sick. But the surgeons are excluded. Opposition members clearly have double standards. In relation to the surgeons, they are prepared to support them; whatever the compromises offered, whatever the negotiations offered, whatever outrageous demand the surgeons make, they are prepared to back them. But for ordinary working men, they are not prepared to support negotiations or to support compromise; they are prepared simply to back those who put the boot in. That is a clear example of double standards. In this House we do not have a responsible Opposition; we have an organised hypocrisy. Mr SHACK —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to his answer to my question yesterday, when he said that he had consulted with some of the companies on the Australian Council of Trade Unions hit list. Did the Minister offer the companies government assistance against the ACTU industrial campaign? If so, what assistance did he offer? If not, why not? Mr WILLIS —In discussions that I had with the people involved, I simply said the kind of things that I have said in this House in terms of what the Government's attitudes were. I was not asked in any way to do anything more than we had already done. Mr FITZGIBBON —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of claims about the effects of the assets test? Mr Sinclair —He is deaf, dumb and blind if he isn't. Mr FITZGIBBON —Whilst there has been discussion in this House about those affected, will he tell the House whether any millionaires have been caught by the assets test? Mr HOWE —I heard the right honourable member for New England saying that he would be surprised if I were not aware of this. I have been somewhat surprised, given the bleating that occurs in this House, at the relatively small number of representations that I have received from individual honourable members on particular cases of hardship. That is indicative of a great deal of misrepresentation and falsification, both inside and outside the House, about the assets test. Indeed, I suppose that if we have learnt any lessons from the assets test, one is that it has shown the very large number of people with significant wealth who have been paid social security benefits in this country. Mr Cadman —How many? Mr HOWE —The figures show that at least 12 millionaires had their pensions cancelled as a result of the assets test-12 millionaires being funded out of the public purse, 12 people receiving income from the Government that might have been paid to the needy people of this country. The Opposition talks about needy people and the need to direct income to those most in need. If the members of the Opposition want some facts, I will give them some. There are 12 millionaires who are dependent on the public purse and who are receiving income security. Twelve millionaires are competing with the poorest people in this community for an additional dollar on their pension. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was pointing out, this exercise, along with that affecting the surgeons in New South Wales, indicates who the real interests are that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are serving. Essentially they are the wealthy and the most privileged people in the community. Members of the Opposition can bleat and go on, but so much of it is crocodile tears and hypocrisy. Let me illustrate the wealth the assets test has uncovered, the wealth the Opposition wants to protect. Two-thirds of the people who had their pensions cancelled did not even bother to complete the details on the form. They recognised that their wealth would not entitle them to receive a pension and they self-cancelled. Most of those who provided details and whose pensions were cancelled had assets in investments, some of them contrived to deliver an artificially low yield. I have referred to that before and I will go on to it again later this afternoon. More than half of them had assets returning a yield of 5 per cent or less. So we are talking about people with very substantial assets who are involved in minimising the income associated with those assets. The assets test has certainly cut off a number of people in the community from receiving a pension but it has saved $100m, which this Government will direct to the people who are most in need. Our priorities are clear. We know whom it is we are here to serve in this country. Let me say something about people who are on pensions because I do not think the Opposition is all that strong when it gets down to looking at the details. Something like 1.5 million pensioners in this country are receiving the full pension. Those 1.5 million are subject to an extraordinarily strict income test. If anyone thinks that income testing in this country is not strict, let me illustrate that it is. Those people receive a full pension because they have an income less than $30 a week. Members of the Opposition want to defend the rights of millionaires in this country to receive a $50 pension and invest their money in a way that will contribute nothing towards the well-being of this community and the production of wealth in this country. Very often they will put money into the hands of accountants and people who will benefit without contributing a jot to the wealth of the community as a whole. Mr HODGES —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him to his Press release of 16 April and his answer in this House yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition that talks he is proposing with this Government, the Queensland Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions would address the central issue of the re-employment of 900 linesmen of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in the Queensland power dispute. Is the Minister aware that all positions have been filled and therefore no vacancies exist with the employing authority, the South East Queensland Electricity Board? Does the Minister propose that the men now employed-including 600 continuing SEQEB employees, more than 200 who were previously employed by the authority and 100 new employees who were previously unemployed-be sacked? If not, how and where does he propose that the former employees be employed? Mr WILLIS —It is the case that the reinstatement of the employees is the most important issue in the settlement of this dispute and the prevention of further industrial action. That is a very important matter and one which I believe the Queensland Government should be addressing now. I do not accept the honourable member's basic premise that those jobs have all been filled. I understand it is the case that there is reliance on private contractors to a substantial degree. Those people are not full employees, they are private contractors working on a contractual basis. Of the original 1500, I understand that several hundred were never out of work in the first place, either because they did not go off the job, they were away on leave, or whatever. Of those who did go off, over 100 or so have come back-I think that was the figure used by the honourable member. The rest have not come back. Others have been employed who were not previously employed in the area, but as I understand it the number is relatively small. In the reinstatement of the dismissed employees the position of those currently employed would obviously be important in ensuring that there was employment for them, either in the electricity bodies or elsewhere, and that there were no recriminations against employees who had remained on the job or who had gone back to work. I believe those would be quite important factors in developing a reinstatement package, but it does not invalidate the process of saying that reinstatement is the basic issue. It is possible. If the Queensland Government really wants to settle the dispute it can, and its refusal to do so means that we are suffering an unnecessary confrontation which is going to become worse unless the Queensland Government faces reality. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Trade been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 15 April 1985 concerning steaming coal negotiations with Japan? Is it true that the Federal Government has come close to undermining the best chance that Australian steaming coal exporters have had in three years of winning a price increase? Mr DAWKINS —I have seen the article, which purports to relate to details involving the negotiation of steaming coal contracts with Japan. Of course these are very important negotiations involving, as they do, something like 11 million tonnes of steaming coal to Japan. Because the negotiations are at a delicate stage I do not intend to go into the substance of the matters which were covered by the report. However, I inform the House that the export controls I am administering are those which were introduced by Doug Anthony when he was Minister for Trade and Resources and decided to strengthen the controls previously put in place by the late Rex Connor. Doug Anthony did not think that Rex Connor's export controls were good enough or strong enough. Under the operation of those export controls the coking coal negotiations with Japan have been satisfactorily finalised. In relation to steaming coal, it has to be remembered that those contracts are written in Australian dollars whereas coal from our international competitors is expressed in United States dollars. What I will be doing in the administration of Doug Anthony's export controls is ensuring that we maximise the benefits for Australia as a whole. The arrangements which we have in place do ensure the closest possible consultation with the industry, particularly in regard to the way in which we arrive at the kind of price that ought to be aimed for during these negotiations. Of course it is not always possible to get a unanimous view out of the industry and there may sometimes be a temptation on the part of some companies within the industry to trail their coats publicly when they disagree with any decision that might be taken. Unfortunately it appears to be the case on this occasion that that temptation was not resisted, and one has to say that the appearance of this article could only have given comfort to our buyers. The commercial interests of coal companies are their own business but the national interest in these matters is my business, and I assure the House that I will always put the national interest first. I have nothing but contempt for those people who want to pursue their own private interests at the expense of the national interest. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask the Attorney whether he has seen this statement today by Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions: No amount of drug abuse . . . or official corruption can justify the inroads being made on . . . personal privacy, liberties and freedoms. Has he also seen Mr Temby's statement that decisions made at the drug summit on telephone interception powers for State police and the opening of mail were 'a matter of concern' and that it was 'appalling' that indemnities could be given to police officers engaging in phone tapping? Do Mr Temby's statements represent an accurate Government attitude to the fight against crime, and as the Director of Public Prosecutions Act requires Mr Temby to act subject to the directions and guidelines given to him by the Attorney-General, will the Attorney now direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to change his approach to the fight against organised crime, drug abuse and official corruption or otherwise resign? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will not ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to resign. He is entitled to express any views he wishes, which he did, as I note, when addressing graduates I think at Perth university or something of that nature. Mr Peacock —He disagrees with the Government's policy though. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree that in a free society if he expresses a view about a government policy-- Mr Peacock —He is the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me come to the point. Mr Speaker, we always have a series of interjections which in turn create another lot of questions. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Deputy Prime Minister not to respond to any of those questions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was hoping you would say that, Mr Speaker. It is important to look at the drug summit and the fact that the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union gave a view on what might be termed powers that ought to be given to law enforcement agencies. If we want to consider the other point of view, we must look at the balance of the public interest as against the rights of privacy. That is the big challenge in any society, particularly when we are dealing with a criminal element. It affects the questions of indemnities, of mail interception and of telephone interception. We have laws which prohibit that, naturally, but in the course of pursuing criminals we have to get a balance. Do we give law enforcement officers, under appropriate supervision-such as judicial warrants-the right to try to ascertain whether there are criminal activities that could be pursued? So in a society a balance has to be struck. Mr Temby has never disagreed with that. He is obviously disagreeing to some extent with Mr Costigan's recommendations. At the drug summit, as the honourable member may or may not know, it was indicated to the Premiers that they might wish to seek access to telephone interception under appropriate judicial warrants, because let us recognise that the problem of narcotics, in particular, is not solely the preserve of the Australian Federal Police. It is obvious, if we look at the State administration of law enforcement, that a lot of criminal activity relating to narcotics comes under State jurisdiction. So we can get a balance-I think a reasonable balance-between what Mr Costigan was about in regard to whether State governments might ask for that power. It was indicated that if they did ask the Government would consider the matter favourably. Let us make that clear. It is a question of what State Premiers want to ask for. This matter was left with them and I have no doubt that representations will be made. I think, if I assess it correctly, that the public opinion would be on the side of the Government if it said that, where the question of balance relates to the pursuit of criminals, particularly in the narcotics area, it would favour pursuing criminals as against opting for the right of privacy. Of course it has to have the balance brought about by the need for judicial warrant. I make the further point that Mr Temby, in the course of his appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions, has to have evidence which would warrant a prosecution. I have no doubt that if evidence were given to Mr Temby he would be able to pursue the prosecution. His opinion as to whether the evidence should be obtained one way or another is a personal one. The fact that the evidence is available obliges him to carry out his duties. Mr BILNEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I remind the Minister that I have written to him to draw attention to problems experienced by people in my electorate, many of whom are from the United Kingdom, because of the lack of a reciprocal health care agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. What progress has been made to give effect to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in his 1984 election policy speech that the operation of Medicare would be extended to include reciprocal health care arrangements with countries with which Australia has close social, cultural and economic ties, including the United Kingdom? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. Like the honourable member for Kingston, I have a very large number of people in my own electorate who have come from the United Kingdom and this issue has been raised with me. I would like to explain to the House where we are with these reciprocal agreements, which were promised during the election campaign. We have now had detailed negotiations in London and Rome with the governments concerned and it is our confident hope that we will be able this year to sign treaty arrangements with the United Kingdom and Italy respecting reciprocal agreements. We have had preliminary negotiations with the governments of Greece, Yugoslavia and Ireland but those negotiations are nowhere near as advanced as the agreements with Italy and Britain. We would hope to proceed with those negotiations. The point of these agreements is to cover reciprocal emergency treatment so that visitors from those countries in Australia for short terms will be covered by the Medicare arrangements and Australians visiting those countries for short periods would be covered by their health schemes. As I say, we hope to conclude agreements with Britain and Italy this year and we are processing agreements, though not at such a developed pace, with Greece, Yugoslavia and Ireland. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General, who will recall Senator Gareth Evans's remarks on the phone tapping legislation when he outlined the Cabinet guidelines to be followed in granting indemnities to New South Wales police officers and his statement: It may be that Mr Bowen, having read what I say now, will want to supplement this answer. The Attorney will also recall that Senator Evans's explanation of the guidelines was that after the police had given their evidence on oath to the Royal Commission and after-- Mr O'Keefe —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that the honourable member has invited the Attorney-General to supplement his answer; he is not asking a question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order but I do note that the honourable member for Menzies is giving a series of quotations. He is stretching things a bit; I hope he comes to the question. Mr N. A. BROWN —I will indeed, Mr Speaker. The Attorney-General will also recall that Senator Evans's explanation of the guidelines agreed upon by the Cabinet was that after the police had given their evidence on oath to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and after their full involvement in the telephone tapping had been revealed, the indemnities could be revoked and that the police will just have to contemplate the risk that they will be prosecuted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Menzies that there are limits to the amount of material he can put in. Mr N. A. BROWN —Certainly, Mr Speaker. With that in mind, will the Attorney-General now supplement Senator Evans's explanation of the guidelines and explain how it is that an indemnity that can be revoked after the witness has given evidence that he has committed a criminal offence is anything other than completely worthless? In any event, what are the full terms of the indemnities that the Government has agreed to grant? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman will recall that the appropriate legislation was first debated in this House. The matters which arose in the Senate obviously arose out of a series of questions that did not really relate to the legislation as the honourable gentleman himself found the legislation quite satisfactory and made no objection to it when it was before this House. Apparently, by way of some obiter dictum in the Senate discussions started to take place concerning the circumstances under which indemnities would be revoked. The guidelines concerning indemnities are very clear. Mr Justice Stewart has the opportunity of evaluating whether an indemnity will be granted. He made it very clear to the Government that an indemnity certainly would be sought when it would lead to a prosecution. Of course, we would always have the further advice from Mr Justice Stewart that if in certain circumstances which we do not envisage but which perhaps he envisages an indemnity is granted for a matter and some other matter is raised which is not covered by that indemnity he-I emphasise this-may be in the position of having to advise that the original indemnity should be revoked. I emphasise the point that the Government would not be doing it; it would be a question of a recommendation of Mr Justice Stewart, who would be recommending the indemnity in the first place, and if he felt that it had been recommended in circumstances that were not being maintained he may have to review it. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the significance for Australia and the Australian economy of the recent visit of the Chinese official, Mr Hu Yaobang? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question without notice. He never misses; he is consistent. Unfortunately, only 15 minutes of Question Time remain, which does not allow me to do justice to the very significant possibilities that have been opened up for Australia. I will content myself, very briefly, with making some observations. The first is based upon the fact that I still think it is the case that not enough people in this country and in other parts of the world appreciate the significance of what is occurring in China at present. As I have said, we are witnessing a quiet revolution in China, whereby the enormous initiative and enterprise of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are being released in a way in which they have not been in the last 40 years. Associated with that change in their economic approach to production and distribution, they are also opening their country to the West. It is extremely fortunate that, because of the initiative that was taken by Mr Whitlam and maintained, to his credit, under the Prime Ministership of Malcolm Fraser, we have been able, in recognising these changes that have taken place in China in recent years, to take advantage of the special relationship that I think is developing between Australia and China. There are so many areas in which this relationship has now been manifested that I cannot exhaustively deal with them all. Let me deal with some of the more obviously important ones. There is the iron and steel initiative, which itself is manifested in a number of ways. It is manifested in the increase in the exports of iron ore and semi-finished products to China, which increased by 53 per cent last year. There will be joint ventures in Australia and in China between enterprises of the two countries in the iron and steel industry. There will be the transfer of the very considerable advances in Australian technology in this field. There is also the significant increase in the export of manganese from Australia to China. I imagine that, within this year, we will see the finalisation of some very significant developments in Australia to which reference has already been made. In a period of some 14 or 15 months, those developments have been quite remarkable. It is a matter of great importance for Australia, an importance which will be understood and appreciated by my friends in one corner of the chamber- Dr Klugman —Cockies' corner. Mr HAWKE —It is referred to irreverently as cockies' corner. However it is described, I know it is appreciated because I had the opportunity of introducing some of those gentlemen to Hu Yaobang and I was appreciative of the opportunity of doing that. We are now replicating in the wool industry the concept and the approach that have been so successful in the iron and steel industry. That will be of great importance for Australia because we will now have extensive co-operation at all levels of the wool industry, from the export of raw wool and semi-finished products to our technology going to China to help it with the development of its textile industry and the development of its flocks. So we will have an enormous, extensive and comprehensive degree of co-operation between the two countries in the wool industry. I believe that we will also be able to do a great deal in the non-ferrous metal areas and, if I may so, in the agricultural industry generally. We have confirmed the extensive degree of co-operation that will take place in the areas of research and the application to China of so much of the development in agricultural and applied research that is occurring within Australia. I believe that one of the very significant areas of importance for China and, in a flow on sense, for Australia will be the acceptance by Mr Hu Yaobang of our offer to send an expert team to China to look at its transport needs. Sir Peter Abeles will head that team. I believe that there will be an opportunity to take to China the experience of Australia in transport economics, which is so important. We have had experience in the areas of rail, road, shipping and aviation in a very large country. I believe that we will be able to be of considerable assistance to China and there will be a very valuable spin-off for Australia. Having said all those things in the economic sphere, I want to tie it together, in conclusion, and say that what is tremendously important is the fact that we see emerging the capacity of two very important countries in the region of different social systems and different backgrounds to be able to work together constructively not only in the economic field but also in the cultural field. Ultimately, the great benefit of this will be not so much just in the economic field but I believe it will make a great contribution to the cause of regional peace and stability. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of widespread interest and concern, can the Prime Minister clarify whether or not the Government intends to advocate before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the discounting of wage increases for inflation caused by currency fluctuations? Mr HAWKE —Both the Treasurer and I have addressed ourselves to this matter at length. I content myself with saying these things: Firstly, it should be understood that the first case that will be coming before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be in approximately September which will cover the March and June quarters. There will be no impact of the devaluation in the March quarter figures. So all that will be before the Commission will be the figures in respect of the June quarter. It is the expectation that that will be a very low element in any move in the consumer price index figures for the combination of March and June. Nevertheless, the Government will be looking at these figures and will be formulating the position that we should put before the Commission at that time. What should be really understood is that it is 12 months away. It will be April of next year before this matter will be before the Commission in any possibly substantive way involving a reflection of the devaluation effect in the consumer price index. As I have said-I give the Australian community the reassurance that the Treasurer and I have given-this Government will not allow the very substantial benefits that will flow to the Australian economy from the current devaluation to be dissipated by an inflationary spiral. With respect to the wages area, that matter will not be substantially before the Commission for almost 12 months. While those on the other side, on their past record, have given no evidence of their capacity in economic management, I will just give them this lesson: It is an exercise in futility to make a decision about a situation, the elements of which one does not know, 12 months in advance. All the people of Australia need to know, and they will accept our assurance, is that when the time comes the appropriate decisions will be taken which will ensure that those benefits of devaluation will be maintained for the whole of the Australian people. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for the America's Cup. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Ms JAKOBSEN —I cannot call him anything else. I believe that is all I can call him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be out of order unless she names a Minister in the Ministry. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade in his capacity as Minister for the America's Cup. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should proceed with her question. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can the Minister advise the House whether any Federal Government funding is being made available for the Sorrento Marina in Western Australia? Where Federal money has been allocated to the Western Australian State Government for America's Cup related activities, what guidelines apply? What proportion or percentage of that total, if any, is earmarked to combat the social disruption to certain sectors of the community as a result of the Cup? Mr DAWKINS —I am not the Minister for the America's Cup, but I do assist the Prime Minister in dealings with the Western Australian Government on matters relating to the proper planning for the defence of the America's Cup which, of course, is- Mr Tuckey —With you at the helm, it will go straight to the bottom of the harbour. Mr DAWKINS —If I ever did, I think I would find you there already. The fact is that this is a fairly substantial undertaking. The Commonwealth has agreed to participate with the State governments and relevant local authorities in planning for it. What we are concerned with here is the prospect of probably many hundreds of thousands of people visiting Australia, particularly Western Australia, for the purposes of this substantial international event. Therefore, the Commonwealth has identified its commitment and has entered into serious and continuing discussions with all levels of government to ensure that that planning process proceeds well. The answer to the first specific question raised by the honourable member for Cowan about the Sorrento Marina is no, there are no Federal funds being provided for that particular project. In relation to the kinds of activities which are being supported, what we are attempting to do is to ensure that the substantial benefits which will flow from the holding of the event in Western Australia will be maximised for the whole community. We will ensure that the detrimental effects suffered by any members of the community will be minimised and, more importantly, that any contribution that the Commonwealth makes will be for the lasting benefit of the whole community. No specific percentage of funds has been earmarked for any particular activity, but I might mention that already the three levels of government have agreed that some funds are being made available for such matters as relieving the potential problem of housing which may develop in some areas of the Perth metropolitan area. As time goes by more of these priority projects will be identified and funded jointly. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report by the Human Rights Commission on the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a message about farm costs from Australia's farmers who are still suffering from the economic mismanagement of the irresponsible Fraser-Anthony Liberal-National Party Government. Mr Donald Cameron —Is that written in the Standing Orders? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton raises a question. There have been precedents for massive petitions being presented before. I understand that on one occasion there were two trolleys of petitions. I did check earlier. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation on the basis that he has been personally misrepresented. The honourable member may proceed. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Tony Messner, has issued a Press release to all the media in Parliament House. To get the context, I will need to read a paragraph. It states: Senator Tony Messner-the Shadow Minister for Community Services-was referring to comments made by Mr Cunningham MP to a S.A. farmer and reported in Friday's edition of the Border Watch. (copy attached) A copy of that news article relates to a public protest meeting which a group was trying to mobilise in Penola, South Australia. I received a call from a person representing a farmer organisation in South Australia who invited either me or a member of my Committee-that is, the Primary Industry Committee-to go to that meeting. I informed him at the time that the Committee was meeting in Canberra on that day and it would not be possible. However, this Press report-- Mr Porter —I went from Canberra. Mr Robert Brown —You were not at the meeting. Keep quiet. Mr Porter —I was there too. Mr Robert Brown —The meeting in Canberra-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Charlton and the honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. The honourable member for McMillan is explaining where he was misrepresented. He is entitled to be allowed to do that, and do it quickly. Mr CUNNINGHAM —This Press report then continues to say that a Mr Carter quoted what I am alleged to have said to him. I wish to deny everything that that Mr Carter reported third hand to that newspaper. I deny the article that has been reported. I also want to make it known to the honourable member for Wannon who used the article in the House on the adjournment last night that I deny the allegations made in that speech. The articles that have been put out are totally incorrect and further action will be taken. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton has sought my indulgence. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during a rather difficult period in the proceeding of the Parliament, I made a reference to your handling of the chair. I wish, completely of my own volition and under no threat whatsoever, to request that I be allowed to withdraw that comment and also to apologise to you personally. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his apology. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-On 9 October, the Parliamentary Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee tabled its report entitled 'Australia and ASEAN-Challenges and Opportunities'. It is my task today, on behalf of the Government, to respond to that report. Allow me first, however, to pay a tribute to the former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, Bill Morrison, who presented the report to the House and whose personal stamp is, I believe, very clearly on it. As honourable members will know, Bill Morrison will shortly be in a position, as Ambassador to Indonesia, to contribute further to the development of Australia's interests in the region. The Government looks forward to a continuation of his vigorous and constructive advice on the development of Australia's interests. The report is a most welcome review of developments in the Association of South East Asian Nations region of interest to Australia, of Australia's policies towards the region and of our future prospects there. It is constructive in tone and makes a number of thoughtful and helpful suggestions about how our relations may be developed further. I should like to address briefly the report's major themes. I shall then seek leave to have a schedule of responses to the Committee's individual recommendations incorporated in Hansard. The Government fully shares the Committee's view that 'no other part of the world promises to be of more consistent importance to Australia than the region of East and South East Asia, and that the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations form a significant part of this most economically dynamic region'. The Government's policies have been consistently developed upon that recognition. The development of our relations with the countries of ASEAN will continue to be given very high priority under this Government. The Committee has identified quite comprehensively the range of national interest-political, defence and strategic, economic, immigration and cultural-that Australia has in its near region, in particular in ASEAN. These matters constitute an intricate web of interlocking interests and concerns that link Australia and ASEAN. These elements are usually best not dealt with in isolation, as a change in one element can significantly affect other parts of the whole but, for ease of presentation today, I should like to single out a number of strands which will serve to outline our policies to this point, and our future intentions. It is well known that this Government has given very high priority to security matters in the region, most notably in seeking to contribute to a settlement in Cambodia. Much has been said lately against the Government's efforts in this direction. We have never said it would be easy or quick. But it is undeniable that a negotiated settlement, while still sadly a possibility rather than an imminent reality, would be the single greatest contribution to the stability of a region of prime strategic importance to Australia. As I have said before, the longer the Cambodian conflict continues, the more likely it is that there will come about that which we fear most-the intrusions of great power tensions into our immediate region through the increasing presence of external military forces and the exercise of force through proxies. Cambodia remains the greatest source of unresolved tension and instability in our region. The Australian Government therefore has a responsibility to continue to pursue the means by which a just solution might be found and the daily suffering of the Cambodian people brought to an end. The Committee has quite cogently pointed out that we are in general agreement with the ASEAN states over Cambodia. ASEAN, like Australia, has always condemned the violation of Cambodia's sovereignty and called for the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces. We share a concern at the dangers of regional instability and heightened great power competition and tensions caused by the conflict in Cambodia. We also share a common concern at the burdens on the Cambodian people and their neighbours consequent upon the movement of refugees and displaced persons from and within Indo-China. Indeed, our concern as a major donor and country of asylum is direct and beyond dispute. Beyond these shared concerns, the Committee notes that Australia has striven to make clear other implications of the situation which we would be unwise to ignore. In particular, we are concerned that the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, remains the largest and most effective component of the resistance coalition. We believe that to champion Pol Pot, however indirectly, is to place, not remove, obstacles to a just settlement. We have consistently warned of the dangers inherent in the present situation of recurring violence, which results in a continuation of suffering in Cambodia. It increases prospects of a widening conflict; it encourages tendencies towards a regional arms race; and it exacerbates the long term problems arising from Vietnam's international isolation and dependence on the Soviet Union. The Committee observes that our regional policies have not been fully understood by ASEAN and that consultation is of prime importance. I would observe, in turn, that it is true that our policies on Cambodia have on occasion been misunderstood or perhaps misconstrued, but I would suggest that our clear and consistent enunciation of our concerns and the rationale behind them since 1983 have greatly improved the acceptance of our approach with ASEAN. Our role has been modest but it has been persistent. The single thread which unites all our efforts over the past two years has been the call for dialogue and compromise. It is to this end that I have spoken to leaders on all sides and at all distances from Cambodia. The Committee has made balanced and comprehensive judgments on the regional issues facing Australia, and I undertake that the Government will continue its efforts to search for a just Cambodian settlement and the development of Australia's relations with Vietnam in the cautious terms supported in the report. It is not in our own interests or those of our region for us to place barriers between ourselves and the countries of Indo-China. As I mentioned earlier, the Government fully recognises the importance of close consultation with the ASEAN countries. I have taken many opportunities to consult with ASEAN leaders. I greatly value their views and will continue to seek them. I am sensitive to the vital importance of the situation in Cambodia to them and most especially to Thailand. There have been a number of points during our efforts on Cambodia at which we have reassured Thailand of our continuing friendship and our commitment to its security and well-being. I shall continue to provide these assurances unhesitatingly. I look forward to discussions with all of my ASEAN colleagues during the post ministerial conference to be held this year in Kuala Lumpur. I have no doubt that the matter of Cambodia will again be high on the agenda. The Government is very much aware of the profound economic changes identified by the Committee that are taking place in the ASEAN region. While the ASEAN countries continue to face major economic challenges resulting from factors such as population size and growth rate and the associated crises of employment and poverty, and also structural weaknesses which make them vulnerable to trends in the international market, the weight of evidence suggests that most of the ASEAN economies have performed well so far and promise to perform well in the years ahead. These changes in the ASEAN region have important implications for us and the future economic health of Australia. The key question is that of our economic relevance to the ASEAN countries and indeed, the broader region. I have previously drawn attention to the fact that the years ahead will call for flexibility and innovation on the part of Australian business and labour, matched by vision and determination on the part of government. The rest of the world does not owe us a living, nor particularly do the countries of the region, including the ASEAN states, few of whom have been endowed with the bounty of natural resources comparable to those we have in Australia. It is up to Australians, individually and collectively-politicians, business and employees-to provide the initiative and skills which will enable us to seize the economic opportunities in our region and, in so doing, contribute to and benefit from growth in the region. The bottom line for Australia is that, while the ASEAN countries will probably continue to offer expanding economic opportunities for non-ASEAN countries, we have no mortgage on these opportunities and will have to work hard to take advantage of them. If Australia is seriously intent on demonstrating its regional credentials it should have, or be able to develop, advantages of proximity and familiarity. It will be vitally important for the future of Australia that there is growing awareness of and discussion within the broader community of Australia's future economic directions. The Government will do what it can to facilitate this process. Indeed, the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is a very worthy contribution to this. But we also look to the universities, the media, and the business and union groupings to contribute to this process. The Committee commented on discussions held on concepts of economic co-operation in the Pacific region. The Government's interest in promoting discussion of the economic changes in our region and exploring the processes of Pacific economic co-operation was reflected in our decision in mid-1984 to establish a National Pacific Co-operation Committee. The main activities of this Committee are to examine Australia's interests in possible paths towards economic co-operation with its neighbours in Asia and the Pacific and to co-ordinate future Australian participation in the Pacific economic co-operation process. Its membership is drawn from a cross-section of the Australian community and includes senior representatives of business, the unions, academic and the Public Service. As I noted last year, the Committee is a concrete expression of the Government's determination to stimulate community awareness of the economic importance to Australia of the Asia-Pacific region. We have continually emphasised the need for Australia to come to terms with and be involved in the possibilities and challenges offered by the fastest-growing region in the world. Australia has initiated consultations with regional countries, including the ASEAN countries, to encourage co-operative and mutually supportive approaches to multilateral trade problems. Progress has been pleasing and a frank and open exchange on issues of concern has developed. Another major theme of the report is that of the distinctive identity of Australians in this region of the world, and the related necessity for developing human contacts between Australians and citizens of the ASEAN countries. I agree with the Committee that co-operation with ASEAN should be based on the recognition that 'Australia's political culture and processes are substantially different from those of the ASEAN states and that these differences are unlikely to diminish'. These differences are real but they do not diminish nor disguise our responsibilities and place in the region. It is our home. We cannot ignore the implications of our geographical position, nor the desire of our people to live in a region of harmony and rewarding international relationships. We are directly affected if the rivalry of great powers threatens peace in our region. We are directly concerned if our friends and neighbours are destabilised because of continuing tensions. We also bear many of the direct consequences of tensions and conflict in the region. Our long-standing and close association with ASEAN and the host of common interests which we share with our ASEAN neighbours compel us to work at further development of mutual awareness and understanding at all levels. The promotion of mutual awareness and common interests is an area in which the Government's record is very strong. Australia's successful and extensive immigration and refugee programs have helped foster an interchange on the most personal level between Australia and ASEAN. The migrants who come from ASEAN countries make a significant contribution to Australia's increasingly cosmopolitan society. The Government has stressed the importance of people-to-people contacts between Australia and ASEAN. To that end, this Government has broadened the range of sponsored visitor and exchange schemes through which social, technical, and cultural exchanges are fostered. Another important aspect of the Government's policies to promote mutual awareness is Australia's commitment to Asian studies. Australia already ranks among the best centres for Asian studies in the world, particularly with regard to Indonesia. There is, however, always room for improvement and I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and I have agreed to the establishment of a working party to examine the concept of the formation of an Asian studies council, as recommended by the Committee. The Government's private overseas student policy also plays a major role, reflected in the high proportion of students from ASEAN countries. As well as serving the development needs of their own countries, overseas students also take home with them an intimate understanding of Australia which helps to improve knowledge of Australia in the ASEAN countries. This Government is convinced of the value of fostering mutual awareness and common interests with the people of the ASEAN countries, and our record is testimony to our dedication in this respect. That dedication will not diminish under this Government. In conclusion, I again thank the Committee for its detailed and thoughtful contribution on the subject of ASEAN-Australia relations. As will be evident from the schedule which I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard, a good deal of detailed consideration has already been given to the Committee's recommendations and much more is to follow. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE JFADC REPORT AUSTRALIA AND ASEAN: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AUSTRALIA, ASEAN AND CONFLICTS IN INDO-CHINA Recommendation 3. (d) 'That some uncertainty has arisen in ASEAN suggests to the Committee that Australia's regional policies have not been consistently propounded and explained as extensively as might be desirable. This makes consultation of prime importance. It is in both Australia's and ASEAN's interest to avoid major discord between them over policies towards regional security issues. This should not preclude Australia drawing attention to points of principle which it holds strongly (for example, Australia's concern at the continuing role in the Coalition of the Khmer Rouge forces). The evidence does suggest, however, that if Australia wishes to take a consistent interest in the security of the Southeast Asian region overall, it will need to emphasise very clearly that in seeking to explore ways of enhancing prospects for regional security the cautious development of policies towards Indo-China will not be pursued at the expense of long-term relations with ASEAN'. Response This Government has clearly and consistently enunciated its concerns and intentions over Cambodia and regional security issues since 1983. There is in fact no practical difference between Australia and ASEAN on the principal elements of the problem. ASEAN, like Australia, has always condemned the violation of Cambodia's sovereignty and called for the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces. We share concerns at the dangers of regional instability and heightened great power competition. We also share concerns at the burdens posed by the movement of peoples from and within Indo-China. Our position as a major donor and country of resettlement is beyond dispute. Beyond these shared concerns, Australia has drawn attention to questions of principle and to the implications inherent in the present situation in Cambodia and Indo-China as a whole, concerns which the Government believes would be unwise to ignore. In particular, we are concerned that the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, remains the largest and most effective component of the resistance coalition and the Government contends that to champion Pol Pot, however indirectly, is to place, not remove, obstacles to a just settlement. The Government has consistently warned of the dangers inherent in the present regional situation which increases the prospect of a widening conflict, encourages tendencies towards a regional arms race, and exacerbates the long-term problems arising from Vietnam's international isolation and dependance upon the Soviet Union. The Government's approach in all this has been modest but persistent. The single thread which unites all the Government's efforts since 1983, and which typifies its approach, has been the call for dialogue and compromise. To this end, members of the government, principally the Prime Minister and myself, have held discussions with the leaders of all parties concerned with Cambodia. Australia's relationship with ASEAN on matters of regional security and the problem of Cambodia has firmed and matured over the past two years. Indeed, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister stated that the importance of Australia's role lay in our ability to talk to all parties. The Government has always been mindful of Australia's fundamental and close ties with ASEAN, and of the importance of consultation with them. AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INTERESTS AND THE ASEAN REGION Recommendation 4. ''The Committee considers that there is value in continuing defence co-operation programs, provided they are monitored regularly to ensure that they serve Australia's interest and fulfil valid local defence requirements. The Committee notes the reservations expressed by some witnesses as to the continuing utility and relevance of the Five Power Defence Arrangement and Australia's RAAF involvement. Re-evaluation of Australian involvement may be desirable, but any rapid contraction of Australia's involvement in FPDA might lead to concerns in some ASEAN countries about Australia's commitment to regional security at a time when it would appear to be in our interests to underline our continuing strong commitment to the security of ASEAN.'' Response The Government agrees with the Committee that there is value in continuing Australia's Defence Co-operation Program with ASEAN countries. It is satisfied that the program serves Australia's interests as well as helping to meet valid local needs. The regular monitoring of the program which the Committee advocates is already carried out and will continue. The Government's view is that the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and the RAAF presence at Butterworth, give concrete expression to a valuable defence relationship linking Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom in an area of primary strategic interest to Australia. A significant range of practical defence activities in the region takes place within the FPDA framework. The arrangements are valuable in terms of our defence relations with Malaysia and Singapore, as well as their own defence co-operation with each other. While Malaysia and Singapore, in particular, continue to support the Five Power Arrangements, Australia will maintain its efforts to make a positive contribution to regional security through its participation in the Arrangements. MIGRATION Recommendations 5. (c) ''The migration of ASEAN nationals has, by comparison (to refugee entry), attracted much less attention, no doubt because of the success of most migrants from ASEAN countries in settling in Australia and because of the limited numbers involved. The Committee considers that the immigration which has so far taken place from the ASEAN region has helped both promote Australian contacts with the ASEAN states and allay the image of Australia as a country practising discriminatory policies in this area.'' 5. (d) ''The Committee concludes that Australia's immigration and refugee policies are an important part of our relations with ASEAN. The adoption and maintenance of non-discriminatory immigration policies have contributed towards overcoming the formerly hostile perception of a White Australia. Australia's immigration and refugee policies in relation to the ASEAN region need to try to accommodate at least two important sets of interests: (i) the capacity and willingness of the Australian community to welcome and accept immigrants and refugees arriving into Australian society, bearing in mind that the rate and volume of intake should be seen as being at the discretion of the recipient country. (ii) the interests of Australia's ASEAN neighbours, who wish to continue the process of regional and international co-operation pursued since 1978 which has helped substantially to alleviate the burdens imposed on the countries of ASEAN.'' 5. (f) ''Efforts should also be made in Australia to promote awareness of the importance of Australia's immigration and refugee policies in Australia-ASEAN relations. Additional efforts may also be required within Australia to help refugees and immigrants arriving from ASEAN countries adapt into the Australian community and to promote community acceptance.'' Response The Government welcomes the Committee's recommendation that greater efforts be made to promote awareness of the importance of Australia's immigration and refugee policies and the significance of our immigration and refugee policies in our relations with ASEAN. These policies are fundamental to the way we are perceived by our neighbours in the region. The Government has allocated and will continue to allocate substantial resources to facilitate the settlement of refugees and other immigrants in Australian society and to promote community acceptance of its immigration policies. The successful settlement of ASEAN nationals who have migrated to Australia has strengthened and reinforced Australia's ties within our region. The criticism raised last year against immigration from Asia was an unwelcome development but the widespread support offered to Asian migrants by numerous Australian organisations, including associations representing other migrant groups, were evidence of public support for and the reaffirmation of migration policies based on non-discriminatory criteria. The entry of Asians to Australia since the 1960s, as students, refugees, migrants, and visitors, has gone far towards demonstrating in practical terms that White Australia no longer exists. Regional co-operation will continue to be a priority in the Government's immigration policies and programs, reflected particularly but by not means only in our refugee resettlement efforts. At the same time a cornerstone of Australian immigration is that the right to determine who enters Australia is vested in the state. In the determination of our immigration programs, in the South East Asian context and world-wide, a high priority will continue to be placed on family reunion and refugee resettlement. REFUGEES Recommendations 5. (a) ''The refugee situation in the region at present is substantially less serious than it was in 1978-1979, but the Committee notes that major problems persist for the ASEAN states. Australian policies towards Indochinese refugees (including resettlement) have undoubtedly been an area of extensive and successful co-operation with ASEAN and its member states. Because of declining rates of refugee acceptance by other major resettlement countries, Australia's role, on a proportional basis, has recently increased in significance.'' 5. (b) ''The Committee notes the reiterations by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers that their countries' willingness to grant temporary asylum to arriving refugees is conditional on continuing commitments by third countries to resettlement. The Committee also notes the statements by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that 'The resolution of problems associated with displaced people in the Indochinese region will . . . be an important element in Australia's relations with ASEAN (and concurrently the countries of Indochina) in the foreseeable future.'' 5. (e) ''It is in both Australia's and ASEAN's interests that efforts be continued to alleviate the refugee situation in the region. Longer-terms solutions must depend on several factors, including changes in Vietnam's internal policies and actions which gave rise to the mass departures; economic and political stability in Indochina including resolution of the conflict in Cambodia; and partly on measures including international aid and resettlement of refugees in third countries, and on non-resettlement solutions, especially voluntary repatriation.'' Response As the Committee has noted, Australian policy regarding Indochinese refugees has been an area of extensive and successful co-operation with the ASEAN countries. Over the past ten years the great majority of the more than one million refugees from the countries of Indochina have sought initial asylum in ASEAN countries. Australia has responded to this major humanitarian crisis by accepting significant numbers of Indochinese refugees for resettlement as well as pursuing non-resettlement alternatives. The Australian Government remains committed to the pursuit of a resolution to the situation. In this, international programs which balance the resettlement of refugees at appropriate levels with progress towards non-resettlement solutions are crucial. The Government strongly agrees with the Committee's conclusion that there exists a clear relationship between the displacement of persons in the region and the continued political and economic tensions of the region. In this respect this Government has also sought to alleviate the refugee problem at the source in the Government's modest initiatives to move towards a broader political reconciliation within the region. Australia will look to all countries involved in this problem, and particularly within the region, to play their part in seeking an overall solution to this humanitarian problem. PROSPECTS FOR TRADE IN AUSTRALIAN SERVICES Recommendation 4. (b) ''The Committee notes with approval the Foreign Affairs submission that 'governmental initiative is highly desirable (in) the development and implementation of policies which facilitate Australia projecting itself as a regional services centre', especially since several of the promising areas are largely within the government sector, e.g. Telecom. Areas of particular promise include medium and high technology (such as computer technology, telecommunications-including Australian satellites and distance education-and specialised media services), business consultancy, accountancy and information services, energy technology and industrial processes, engineering and construction services and tourism. The Committee notes that the Department of Trade has made a start by expanding its services trade establishment, and is continuing to receive and disseminate advice from the Trade Commissioner (Projects and Consultancy), Manila, about opportunities for Australian firms to bid for Asian Development Bank-funded projects. The Committee considers, however, that more needs to be done, in consultation with key business representatives such as the ASEAN-Australia Business Council, to communicate services trade opportunities to the services industries.'' Response The Government has already taken initiatives to further develop trade in services. As the Report notes, it has developed a new administrative structure to deal with these issues. Initiatives are going ahead in the areas of shipping, consultancy and technology and other areas are being explored. As part of this program, the Government will have discussions with a range of industrial organisations, including the ASEAN-Australia Business Council. Recommendation 4. (c) ''The Committee considers that the potential for, and the financial and cultural advantages from, promoting tourism from the ASEAN countries should be thoroughly investigated by relevant public and private sector bodies.'' Response The potential importance of tourism from South East Asia to Australia is recognised by the Government both as a means of developing human contacts and for its economic benefits. The Australian Tourist Commission, aware of this potential, is making concerted efforts through promotions and advertising to make Australia better known in ASEAN countries as a continent of many attractions. Particular attention is being paid at present to the promotion of Australia in Singapore and Malaysia. The ASEAN-Australia Business Council expressed the view of the Committee that ''Australia's visa requirements are a source of irritation to those ASEAN countries that permit visitors without a visa''. The Government is aware of this concern and while it intends to address matters such as expediting entry for business purposes, it must remain alert to problems which can arise with temporary entry. These include drug trafficking; the use of false documentation; and the overstay of visitors for the purposes of illegal employment in Australia. BANKING SERVICES Recommendation 5. ''The Committee considers that expanded access for both ASEAN and Australian banks to provide more effective financial services would be a desirable adjunct to the expansion of Australia-ASEAN trade and investment which the Committee anticipates. It suggests that improved access be considered on a reciprocal basis by ASEAN and Australian Governments in close consultations with the banking industry.'' Response The Committee will be aware that the Government recently invited sixteen foreign banks, some with associated Australian interests, to enter into discussions with the authorities to develop their proposals to the point where the Treasurer could recommend to the Governor-General the granting of new banking authorities. An ASEAN bank, the Singapore-based Oversea Chinese Banking Corporation, was included. The Government aimed for a spread of foreign participation in the Australian banking sector amongst the countries with which Australia has a significant commercial and economic relationship. In addition, the extent of opportunities available in those countries for reciprocal access by Australian banks was an important factor in the Government's decision. All the major Australian banks already operate in the offshore banking market in Singapore. SHIPPING SERVICES Recommendations 7. (a) ''While the Committee considers it unlikely, on the basis of the evidence given to it, that the present level of freight rates is harmful to the competitive position of Australian exporters to the ASEAN region, it considers that better data is needed before definite conclusions can be reached. The Committee notes that the results of research into Australia-ASEAN shipping services, being conducted by the ASEAN-Australia Research Project, are expected to be published later this year; also that the Australian Government is continuing its own investigations of shore-based components of shipping costs''. 7. (b) ''The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, on the basis of this research and any further independent investigation that may be necessary, seek to isolate the significance of shipping and related transport costs for Australian exporters and to develop and implement transport-related measures designed to improve the competitiveness of Australian exports, especially in Asian markets''. 7. (c) ''The Government's research mentioned above should also question whether any expansion of ANL's services would significantly reduce Australia's invisibles deficit, and whether any such reduction would be desirable overall taking into account any effect which such expansion might have on freight rates and the competitiveness of Australian exports''. 7. (d) ''Assuming the extensive over-tonnaging on ASEAN routes is resulting, or could result, in higher freight charges and the shipping industry continues to be unable or unwilling to rationalise its services accordingly, the Australian Government should consider consulting with ASEAN Governments with a view to persuading shipping lines (including governmental lines) to reduce their tonnage on Australia-ASEAN routes''. 7. (e) ''The longer term possibilities of expanded ASEAN national fleets and reduced participation by non-national flag carriers in regional shipping warrant the Australian Government's close attention. There could be cause for concern to Australia's export competitiveness if over-tonnaging was thereby to worsen or if a commercially competitive transport environment were threatened. These concerns should be considered carefully by the Government in its deliberations on whether to accede to the 'United Nations Liner Code' and in consulting with ASEAN Governments on future shipping developments in the region''. Responses 7. (a) and (b) The Government recognizes that the impact of freight rates on the competitive position of Australian exporters is a complex matter. Not only is it difficult to isolate freight rates from other elements which determine the competitiveness of Australia's exporters but other factors such as the importance of the commodity in the liner trade and the conditions of access to the market can minimize the effect freight rates have on the volume to be exported. Consideration is being given to how more comprehensive current data on comparative freight rates can be collated. However, even data such as this will need to be used with caution in drawing generally applicable conclusions about the impact of freight rates. Freight rates in the ASEAN trades are subject to constantly changing factors such as the exporter's competitive situation in the market and the general level of competition in the shipping route. The Government is addressing the issue of shipping and related transport costs for Australian exporters by its decision to establish two industry task forces, one to inquire into shore-based shipping costs and one to review Australia's overseas liner shipping arrangements. 7. (c) It is the Government's policy that a more equitable share of Australian cargoes should be carried on Australian owned or controlled and Australian staffed ships, and accordingly measures have been implemented to assist Australian flag shipping to become more internationally competitive and to place ANL on a more commercial footing. Expansion of Australian flag shipping on a commercial basis in the highly competitive ASEAN trade is unlikely to have any significant impact on the competitiveness of Australian exporters and such an expansion would be likely to make only a limited contribution to the invisibles account. 7. (d) One cannot automatically assume that overtonnaging results in higher freight rates. Overtonnaging can also reflect a high degree of competition in the trade and a greater level of service to exporters. It is recognised that greater understanding of ASEAN shipping policies is needed and closer co-operation between Australian and ASEAN countries on shipping matters is now being developed at several levels. We have agreed with ASEAN countries to keep each other more fully informed on shipping policy developments. The Australian objective is to ensure that the interests of Australian exporters and those of Australian flag operators will not be adversely affected, but at the same time recognising the need to be sensitive to the aspirations of the ASEAN countries regarding issues that may be raised. 7. (e) In regard to the possibilities of expanded ASEAN national fleets and reduced participation by non-national flag carriers in regional shipping, it should be noted that any action taken by Australia which might appear to undermine the expansion of ASEAN national fleets could be viewed by ASEAN countries as a facet of protectionism. This would have the capacity to prove more damaging to Australian export opportunities than any influence of freight rates as a result of overtonnaging. The question of Australia's overall approach to the UN Liner Code is to be considered by the Task Force on Australia's Overseas Liner Shipping Legislation and the implementation of the Code by ASEAN countries will be an important factor for the Task Force to examine. AUSTRALIA'S EXPORT PERFORMANCE IN THE ASEAN REGION Recommendation 9. (b) ''The Committee generally shares the aid-and trade-related concerns of the Jackson Committee about mixed credit schemes. At the same time, it is mindful of the prejudice to Australian manufacturing exports and industry resulting from the extensive use of mixed credit schemes by foreign competitors. The Committee therefore urges the Government to call for and participate fully in multilateral attempts to regulate and enforce tighter rules for the operation of such schemes. The Committee would prefer that any Government assistance to Australia's manufacturing export sector be not funded from the overseas aid budget. If however extensive use of mixed credit schemes by foreign competitors persists, the Government should consider alternative sources of support.'' Response As the Committee notes, this issue was raised by the Jackson Committee. The Government notes that the issue will again be considered by the Committee in its consideration of the Jackson Report, and it will be one of the matters to which the Government will be giving particular attention over the coming months in the context of its consideration of the aid program as a whole. LABOUR ATTACHE TO THE ASEAN REGION Recommendation 9. (e) ''The Committee emphasises the importance of promoting better understanding of industrial relations as they may affect trade between Australian and ASEAN. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government again consider the desirability of appointing a Labour Attache for the ASEAN region, along the lines proposed by the Senate Committee in 1980, to: liaise with ASEAN Governments and with employer, industry and union groups; to report on labour developments in the region; and to promote bilateral exchanges in the industrial relations area.'' Response The Committee correctly identifies the importance of mutual understanding and co-operation in the areas of labour and industrial relations in Australia-ASEAN relations. In the past, misunderstandings, different values, and priorities have led to tensions between Australian and ASEAN countries on labour and industrial matters. This Government has already recognised the importance of this issue and has for some time been examining a range of measures to facilitate mutual understanding and co-operation between Australia and ASEAN countries on labour and industrial relations. Among these the appointment of a Labour Attache will be assessed. ASIAN STUDIES IN AUSTRALIA Recommendations 2. (a) ''It has become commonplace in Australia to declare rhetorically that Australia's future is likely to be 'bound up' or 'enmeshed' with the ASEAN region. The Committee points out that such views are not reflected in Australia's present level of commitment to Asian studies in general and the promotion of awareness of the ASEAN region in particular.'' 2. (b) ''The importance of a more concerted and coordinated commitment to the promotion of Asian studies was emphasised . . . 'A central task of the Australian Government if it wishes to promote long-term, mature Australian-ASEAN relations must be an educational program in Australia about the ASEAN countries'. (Asian Studies Association of Australia's submission.)'' 2. (c) ''The Committee endorses the concept of an Asian Studies Council, with resources adequate to co-ordinate nationally initiatives in Asian studies, and recommends that a working party as proposed by the Asian Studies Association of Australia in 1981 be established at the earliest opportunity, to consider and report on the feasibility of establishing the Council under Commonwealth auspices.'' Response The Government agrees that a high level of commitment to Asian Studies in general and to studies of the ASEAN region in particular is essential in order for the Australian education system to make its contribution to the promotion of long-term, mature and beneficial Australia-ASEAN relations. The Government believes that serious consideration needs to be given to possible means to co-ordinate nationally initiatives in Asian studies. The Ministers for Education and Foreign Affairs have consulted and agreed with the Committee's recommendation that a working party be established to investigate and report on the feasibility of establishing an Asian Studies Council, as was earlier proposed in 1981 by the Fitzgerald Report. HUMAN RIGHTS Recommendations 4. (a) ''The Committee recognises the widespread interest in Australia in human rights issues and the continuing role which these issues may play in Australia's relations with the ASEAN region. The level of influence which Australia can exert on human rights issues will depend partly on the overall quality of Australia's multilateral and bilateral relationships in the region''. 4. (b) ''Australia will need to continue to approach human rights issues in ASEAN countries with sensitivity. Attempting to draw direct associations between the extension of aid and human rights performances of regional governments would not, except in unusual circumstances, be appropriate.'' Response The Government's approach to human rights questions in ASEAN countries takes fully into account the reality recognised by the Committee that Australia's ability to influence human rights developments will depend in part on the quality of Australia's multilateral and bilateral relationships in the region. The Government accords human rights a high priority in its foreign policy and is strongly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights. This together with the high level of community interest and concern in human rights matters, ensures that the Government meets its responsibility to respond to violations of human rights wherever these occur. The Government believes however that it is essential to act constructively on human rights matters and that Australia's human rights concerns can be most effectively pursued in the context of mutual understanding and sound bilateral relations. The Government appreciates the Committee's view that Australia needs to approach human rights issues in ASEAN countries with sensitivity. As a country with a different social, cultural and economic history, working within a different political structure and system of values from that of its neighbours Australia must pursue its human rights objectives in the ASEAN region with tact, determination, sensitivity and persistence. The Government agrees with the Committee's view that the provision of development assistance should not inextricably be linked to a country's performance in human rights. The Government does not believe that aid should be automatically withheld from countries whose human rights record is poor. The adoption of such measures is most likely to inflict punishment on the poorest and most exposed who would be innocent of the human rights abuses perpetrated by their Governments. Nevertheless there will be scope for aid to be directed in a way which serves also to encourage positive developments in human rights. This possibility should be taken into account in developing proposals for development assistance. RADIO AUSTRALIA Recommendations 5. (b) ''The Committee considered that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine how successfully Radio Australia performs the functions of promoting awareness of Australia in the ASEAN region. The Committee is therefore unable to confirm that Radio Australia is performing this function as successfully as the organisation itself claims.'' 5. (c) ''Radio Australia also broadcasts in Asian languages news and commentaries on developments in the countries of ASEAN. It is this aspect of Radio Australia's activities which has caused some embarrassment to Australia in its foreign relations particularly with Indonesia. The Committee considers that the implications of this activity of Radio Australia have not been specifically addressed in recent years.'' 5. (d) ''The Committee is also concerned about the extent to which ASEAN governments and listeners may associate Radio Australia with the Australian Government, and assume that views or news analyses broadcast to the region reflect government attitudes or policies.'' 5. (e) ''The Committee recommends that in view of the important implications of Radio Australia's activities for Australia's foreign relations in the ASEAN region, the Parliament should conduct a review of Radio Australia's functions, relations with the Australian Government and activities in Southeast Asia.'' Response The Government is aware that some ASEAN Governments have tended to assume that Radio Australia's broadcast content necessarily reflects Australian Government policies or attitudes. The Government believes that continuing effort is needed to explain to ASEAN Governments the independent role of Radio Australia, as part of the ABC, in the context of Australian public broadcasting policy, and also consistent with Australia's traditional commitment to freedom of the press. Radio Australia's functions and activities, and its relationship to the Australian Government, have been reviewed extensively in recent years, particularly by the Dix Committee of 1981. The Department of Foreign Affairs provides background briefing to Radio Australia on request on current foreign policy issues. AUSTRALIA-ASEAN COUNCIL Recommendations 6. (a) ''The Committee considers it important that the formulation and announcement of policy affecting the ASEAN region be well-co-ordinated among Government agencies, mutually consistent and not open to misunderstanding by ASEAN countries.'' 6. (b) ''The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a working party, to include business and research specialists, to investigate and report on the feasibility of creating a broad-based, independent Australia-ASEAN Council with functions of supporting, co-ordinating and reviewing Australian programs seeking to advance Australia-ASEAN relations. The Committee also recommends that such investigation take account of its observations concerning a possible longer-term project for ASEAN/Australia economic research which might be established under the auspices of any such Council.'' Response The Government notes with interest the Committee's observations and the Committee's recommendation that a working party be established to look into the establishment of an Australian-ASEAN Council. While the proposed Council could have substantial benefits, it is a matter which will require further serious consideration before any decision can be taken. As the Committee has noted, the Government has undertaken a variety of measures to promote Australia in ASEAN countries, and the Government accepts that there may be scope for more co-ordination and planning of such measures to develop Australia-ASEAN relations. A significant contribution to better planning of future economic developments in the relationship has already been made by research conducted by the ASEAN-Australia Joint Research Project. The Committee has rightly recognised the importance of such research in planning Australia's international relationships. The Government will give these matters consideration in the course of the periodic reviews of its policies. AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE TO ASEAN EDUCATION Recommendations 7. (a) ''The education and training in Australia of post-secondary students from ASEAN countries is a major political, economic and cultural issue for both Australia and ASEAN''. 7. (b) ''The British full fee experience, with its significant initial reduction in student demand-at least, it seems, from the Southeast Asian region-deserves close analysis especially since Australia's foreign affairs interests, unlike Britain's, lie primarily in the ASEAN region. Positive lessons that may be learned, however, from the British experience, are the need to offer a compensatory scholarship system and to phase in full fees gradually and after full consultation with affected countries (which Britain did not).'' 7. (c) ''There will be limits beyond which any movement towards full fees could be counter-productive from both student demand and foreign relations perspectives. It is important that policy development in the education sector should be constantly considered in the context of Australia's overall political and economic interests in the ASEAN region.'' 7. (d) ''To a large extent the economic and the international viability of the Jackson approach would appear to depend on increases in Australian Government aid funding, and on the ability to attract a significant proportion of foreign students at significantly higher fee levels. This Committee notes that the quality and relevance of Australian courses may need to improve, to continue to attract students at cost levels, approaching levels charged in other educating countries.'' 7. (e) ''If a full fee approach could be planned, costed and presented so as to satisfy these important commercial and foreign relations problems, it could produce the important benefits of increased student numbers while still satisfying Australian demands, and better courses for both Australian and foreign students.'' 7. (f) ''On balance, the Committee considers that the present overseas student system, with its combination of quotas and subsidies, is not satisfactory to either Australia or those foreign countries whose students demand exceeds the supply of Australian places. In principle, the Committee recommends to the Australian Government that it give careful consideration to a new overseas student policy to include the following features: (i) gradual and predictable increases in overseas student charges to reach a level of operating costs as determined by the Government; such fees to be retained by the enrolling institutions to assist their funding of the additional places (and avoidance of any displacement of qualified Australian students) and as an incentive to attract higher overseas enrolments with improved courses. (ii) the parallel development of a comprehensive system of scholarships, to be funded out of the aid budget: an Australian government-to-government scheme similar to that presently operating; a scheme of 'free places' based on merit (not means-tested) but excluding living allowances, such scheme to be administered by institutions from Commonwealth (aid) funds. The Committee envisages that this category would comprise most of the scholarships; a supplementary system of free places, including living allowances, for financially disadvantaged categories of students, to be administered by the Government's aid authorities and intended to promote general development objectives in the students' countries. Such developmental scholarships would not be means-tested; indeed, developmental criteria would be employed and would need to take account of specially disadvantaged or under-represented categories such as Pacific Islanders and women from certain countries. (iii) the planning, implementation, and review of such a policy must be undertaken in the closest possible consultation with all source countries, especially the ASEAN countries, so that their concerns will be taken into account fully. (para. 4.94). 7. (g) ''Before seeking to develop Australia's regional advantages in higher and technical education further, Australian authorities and institutions must first consult ASEAN needs and reactions, and survey the ASEAN 'market' for appropriate course types and fee levels''. 7. (h) ''The Committee considers there may be promise in the proposal by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee for negotiation with individual source countries of training agreements, like 'trade packages'. ''While the Committee received insufficient evidence to enable it to evaluate fully the proposals for student 'trade packages' and the Malaysian idea that Australia might consider taking a higher proportion of senior year students in total overseas student numbers, it considers that both ideas warrant further attention in the Government's review of overseas student policy''. 7. (i) ''A commercial approach might be applied to special commercial or technical courses, outside the education 'mainstream', organised by private or public institutions and directed especially at foreign students. External studies, using the latest satellite technology for 'distance education' were also commended by the Goldring Report''. 7. (j) ''One of the greatest of Australia's comparative trade advantages is the English language itself: Australia should plan to become the regional centre for English Language teaching''. 7. (k) ''The Committee considers that in the longer term, Australia's aid and education policies should take into account the extent to which ASEAN countries should be encouraged to develop their own educational institutions towards substantial self-sufficiency.'' Response As the Committee has noted, a review of the Government's Private Overseas Student Policy has been undertaken and the results of this consideration has been announced by the Minister for Education. Mr HAYDEN —In all the Government's considerations there is the common judgment that Australia's future is inevitably intertwined with the future of the ASEAN region. Australia must make the most of the challenges and opportunities so well identified in this report. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.09) —by leave-As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said, the Association of South East Asian Nations area is of immense importance to Australia and ASEAN is an association of nations who are our neighbours. Therefore, relations of Australia with the ASEAN countries are of the most vital and enduring significance. I made a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence when our former colleague on the Committee, Mr Morrison, tabled it in the House some time ago. I join the Minister in wishing Mr Morrison all the very best of success in his new appointment. In my remarks today I will address the tabling statement of the Minister and aspects of his observations in the attached statement of Government responses which has just been tabled. The Committee, in its findings, endeavoured to criticise the assumption that we should distance Australia from ASEAN in favour of Vietnam. A very real and understandable view was growing up in the community that this Government and this Minister seemed to place much more emphasis on good relationships with Vietnam than on good relationships with ASEAN countries. As I have said, the Committee, in its findings, endeavoured to criticise that assumption. We need to recall that ASEAN diplomacy had convinced the Third World, which voted 100 plus in favour of the ASEAN position at the United Nations, that peace and neutrality could be restored only by an internationally supervised settlement in Cambodia, not a settlement imposed by the continuing application of Vietnamese force-150,000 Vietnamese troops still occupy Cambodia-and not a settlement induced by Pol Pot, whose Cambodian forces still hold out and who, quite rightly, the Minister and the Government criticised. I just add parenthetically, that it was a Labor Government which initially recognised Pol Pot when he first came to power and boasted about it at the time. ASEAN saw the need for a third force, a force based on giving a priority not to military effort but to political effort, a force which could creditably speak for the Cambodian people. ASEAN supported Prince Sihanouk and Son Sann and succeeded in getting agreement to the seating at the United Nations of Sihanouk instead of Pol Pot and instead of the puppet Government in Phnom Penh. This achievement was considerable and it has not been given sufficient credit by this Government or the Minister. It was at that stage that the Foreign Minister entered the scene and proceeded to muddy the international waters by taking a public line designed to reflect discredibility on ASEAN and more credibility on Vietnam. We all know the history of the overtures to Hanoi, the warnings to ASEAN, the embracing of Hanoi, the questioning concern of ASEAN. It got so bad that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had to step in and patch up the quarrel. It was against this background that the Joint Committee made its observations. Basically, Australia can contribute but ASEAN carries the main burden. Its members, particularly Thailand, are in the front line. A public diplomacy which has the effect, although unintended, of undermining ASEAN and its sponsorship of the struggle for a free and independent Cambodia should be avoided, but this happened in a number of ways. We exaggerated differences between ASEAN members in their approach to the problem. Government spokesmen drew distinctions between Indonesia and Singapore, and between Thailand and Indonesia, and implies that those differences reflected support for our diplomacy and criticism. Government spokesmen equated differences between the Hawke Government and ASEAN with differences between the Fraser Government and ASEAN over civil aviation and protection. Last year, speaking on this aspect, I said: It is inevitable that there will be divergent viewpoints emanating from Australia and ASEAN on economic issues in particular. We are not saying, nor is the Government Committee, nor is ASEAN, that differences are a sign of frailty. They may be a sign of strength. Clearly, just as there is a hierarchy of sensitivities, there is a corresponding hierarchy of permissible differences. The Fraser Government became involved in a strong dialogue on economic issues and civil aviation. Paragraph 3 of the foreword of the Committee's Report states: . . . Australia must be perceptive in identifying and distinguishing policies which appear to be shared by ASEAN as a group and those in which there is a divergence among ASEAN members' opinion. Some issues, for example ASEAN opposition to Australia's international civil aviation policy in the late 1970s and its approach to the problems of Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, are presented in terms of ASEAN solidarity. It is true that ASEAN solidarity was a factor in the ASEAN approach to Australia on both these issues. But it is a mistake to assume that solidarity on an economic issue is of the same order of sensitivity as solidarity on an issue affecting the fundamental security of the region. A moment's reflection will, I think, produce agreement on that point. The fact is that there will be times when our perceptions differ. I hope that these lessons have been learnt, particularly having regard to the embarrassment caused by the Foreign Minister's last visit to ASEAN and to the Indo-Chinese areas of the world. That visit was, in all aspects, an almost unmitigated disaster. It was a total embarrassment for the Government because the Government's Foreign Minister had been shown as inept or naive or both. More than that, it was an embarrassment for Australia as a whole. The whole Australian nation had to bear the same embarrassment that the Government had to bear, and that was tragic. I welcome the statement that the Government has reassured Thailand in particular of our continuing friendship and commitment to its security and well-being. The statement carries its own admission of the Government's management of its diplomacy, but the sincerity of that statement is all the more obvious for that reason. It is also obvious for another and more pragmatic reason-the Australian people would have it no other way and it is that reality which clothes the words and it is that reality which I trust the people and the Government of Thailand will take into full account. It would indeed be remiss to continue a line of comment on the Kampuchean issue as if that tells the story of Australian-ASEAN relationships. Anyone interested may refer to Hansard of 9 October 1984, when I gave a more developed analysis. But the issue is an important one and claims prominence on that account. Supremely, our relationship with the members of ASEAN and the people of ASEAN is above the run of any particular issue. The loyalty to the bonds on both sides is so historically well founded and so historically strong that not even grave misunderstandings have the capacity to dissipate before the strength of our history. We should not forget that it was a Labor Government which first ran up the flag of support for the independence of Indonesia. We should not forget that it was the coalition's decision to defend the peoples of Malaysia and Singapore against communist insurgency and the mistaken Sukarnoist policy of confrontation which contributed to the independent strength of Malaysia and Singapore in their period of emergence from colonial constitutions. I think it is appropriate in this context to affirm our support for Australia's defence co-operation program. We on this side of the House will be watchful of particular developments to ensure that the gallery of detractors from the left wing of the Government are not successful in their efforts to reduce the effectiveness of the principle. The Minister welcomes the Committee's recommendation on migration, and in doing so fails to acknowledge the part played by the Government in contributing to the unwelcome development of last year's controversy. The contribution was one distinctively made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It was the statesmanlike utterances of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and, amongst others, the Minister for Foreign Affairs which did much to recover what for many might have appeared to be lost ground. It might be suggested that the interpolation of this comment in the Minister's statement today may be deemed unwise as it was unnecessary. A significant contribution to refugees was made by Australia to a people fleeing the brutality of Vietnam. That must never be forgotten. Hundreds of thousands of people fled the brutality of the new regime in Indo-China. That action by Australia remains one of great social achievement and I hope that in the future the Government will administer the issue with practical wisdom and sensitivity. Tourism is a significant force for mutual economic development and people to people contact. We welcome the recommendations on shipping services, and the Government's thinking in this is to be kept under study and review. We think that is a sensible reaction. I wrap up my remarks by referring to two points, the first of which relates to human rights. I draw the attention of the House to the well-rounded comment by the Minister: The Government believes however that it is essential to act constructively on human rights matters and most of Australia's human rights concerns can be most effectively pursued in the context of mutual understanding and sound bi-lateral relations . . . The Government does not believe that aid should automatically be withheld from countries whose human rights record is poor. The adoption of such measures is most likely to inflict punishment on the poorest and most exposed who would be innocent of the human rights abuses perpetrated by their governments. There is a certain firmness in this position and an important sense of fairness too. We support it. The second point I make relates to the role of Radio Australia, which is a major one. It has, under its current Director, made efforts to further define its role. There is an important service to the region in maintaining a lively insight into Australia's developments and a fair-minded view of regional developments. They have to be dealt with with a great deal of sensitivity and a great deal of understanding of differing viewpoints as seen from different parts of the globe. In relation to education, let us all keep in mind that a great deal of benefit accrues to us in our capacity as a major resource in education. We should keep that aspect under enlightened review. The Committee's report was important and it was sound and fairly based. It made some strong recommendations which would be of help to governments of any political persuasion. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have responded to the report so promptly. Those responses to the recommendations are important and will continue to have a major impact on our continued attitude towards members of ASEAN and they will have a significant impact upon what is, after all, one of the most vital areas of significance to this country. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —by leave-I wish to comment on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, entitled 'Australia and ASEAN-Challenges and Opportunities'. I shall limit my remarks to the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Government to the recommendation on conflicts in Indo-China. Recommendation 3 (d) of the Committee's report states: That some uncertainty has arisen in ASEAN suggests to the Committee that Australia's regional policies have not been consistently propounded and explained as extensively as might be desirable. This makes consultation of prime importance. It is in both Australia's and ASEAN's interests to avoid major discord between them over policies towards regional security issues. The report goes on to state: The evidence does suggest, however, that if Australia wishes to take a consistent interest in the security of the Southeast Asian region overall, it will need to emphasise clearly that in seeking to explore ways of enhancing prospects for regional security the cautious development of policies towards Indo-China will not be pursued at the expense of long-term relations with ASEAN. That is a very significant part of the Committee's report. The Minister flew in the face of the recommendations of that report in visiting Vietnam. In visiting that country he did all the things that the Committee report warned against. The report is all the more significant because it is a report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, a committee of both members of the Government and members of the Opposition. Too little attention is given in this House, in the media and in the community generally, to reports of Committees where both sides of the Parliament sit down in the community interest. This report is all the more significant for that, and it is even more significant that the Minister flew in the face of the all-party report. As the previous speaker on this side has said, the Minister's trip to Indo-China was disastrous. It has upset ASEAN, our important neighbours, and it has upset its attitude to Australia. I believe it has endangered our foreign policy. The Minister's trip to Vietnam, at a time when Vietnamese troops were in Thailand, an ASEAN country, has endangered not only our relationship with Thailand but our relationship with ASEAN. The Minister's trip was naive and stupid and it flew in the face of the report of the Joint Committee of October last year. I find it surprising and amazing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country would visit Vietnam at a time when Vietnamese troops were over the border of Thailand. I conclude by looking at the human rights aspect of Vietnam. Vietnam has hundreds of thousands of people in so-called re-education camps, but which are actually concentration camps. That is an enormous denial of human rights in our region. I think the Minister's visit was a total disaster and, as I have said, flew in the face of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Slaughter of Wild Horses To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh,Ms McHugh,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Maher and Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a remainder 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 Robert Brown,Mr Drummond and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House or Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals is undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh,Ms McHugh and Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin,Ms McHugh and Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8% of the Australian market in 1979/80 to an estimated 20% in 1984/85-from 2.2 million kilograms to 8.0 million kilograms. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30% both in contract tonnages and prices, Hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries, Millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that: The Australian Government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen Peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and trade unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian frozen pea industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Drummond. 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 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test will mean the sale of homes, of cars, and treasured possessions which have been accumulated over many years of hard work and saving; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of old people is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry 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 Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen', And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. 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 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 Tim Fischer. 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 in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the assets test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair assets test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter-killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACS, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne. 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Right 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australia national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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 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 Staples. Petition to the honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows that we condemn any form of participation by Australia in the testing of MX Peacemaker missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject totally any form of commitment by the Australian Government to support, or participate in, the United States' MX Peacemaker missiles and ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia showeth that the Attorney-General amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: the Government will restore the former section 4A of the Customs regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire 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 Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales respectfully showeth that: We strongly support the immediate establishment of an FM public radio station devoted to music and the arts in Canberra and Queanbeyan and protest against the recent decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to grant an FM public licence to a racing and sporting group. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned residents in South Australia showeth: 1. That we are concerned with the gross lack of good television reception in Pinnaroo and adjacent areas. 2. That at present, the privately owned Television Towers, which range up to 30 metres in height, are not sufficient to achieve a satisfactory Commercial Television picture. 3. That the currently received Commercial Television service is grossly inferior compared to the Metropolitan and near Metropolitan areas. 4. That the most reliable television service is only received from ABC Regional Service based at Loxton which is 110km from the Pinnaroo Township. 5. That the residents of Pinnaroo and the adjoining areas consider that we are disadvantaged as we do not receive a clear Commercial Television Reception. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Honourable House will ensure that the Department of Communications will upgrade the Commercial Television reception in Pinnaroo and in the adjacent areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The excessive hardship imposed on elderly Australians by the Government's assets test: I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.28) —It is necessary for this matter of public importance to be raised again. It will be recalled that before the implementation of the assets test-in fact the day before the test-the Opposition brought up the matter to try to indicate to the Government the seriousness of the situation facing many elderly Australians, and many others who rely on the pension, because of the implications involved in that test. Halfway through the month following the introduction of the test the lessons from that debate have not been applied; nor has the review or monitoring promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to keep a very close look on those people who are suffering these severe hardships, yet taken place. I am sure that Opposition members, in representing their electorates, have had quite a few examples given to them in the last three weeks-hundreds of examples in fact. Yet we hear the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) saying at Question Time that he has few representations on this matter. No doubt he has had few representations because the results of those representations that have been made to him have been pointless. Those who have seen me after the event say: 'Yes, he smiles nicely at us, he understands the situation, but as far as he is concerned there is no place in the social security system for someone who is assets rich but cash poor', and basically that is what we are talking about now. We bring this matter before the House at a time when the Cabinet is discussing other changes in other systems and programs. One has only to mention the family allowance where the suggestion is that it should be flat rated. This will cause extreme difficulties to other people who are already relying on Government assistance to bring up big families. It is just one thing after another. It is obvious that the Minister has not applied any of the lessons that have been learnt. We have received the indications and there are many other indications of which the Minister should be aware. I shall give an example of what happens in one average electorate in Australia in relation to the introduction of the assets test. This information was given in answer to a question on page 1332 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 April 1985. It indicates that in one electorate the number of pensions cancelled as a result of the assets test was 295-almost 300. These pensions are basically age pensions but they also include those of other groups who suffer from the assets test-invalids, widows, supporting parents, the whole lot of them. The number who had pensions reduced as a result of the assets test was 302. Even before the assets test was introduced, we heard the Minister's very selective sampling and we have heard it again today. He is trying to indicate how great the assets test has been in bringing to heel those members of the community who are abusing the system. There is no program in Australia at the moment that does not suffer some form of abuse. The Government that tries to remove that will have a very difficult job. For the Minister to quote selectively 12 millionaires who are getting the pension-- Mr Howe —It hurts, doesn't it? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It does not hurt. I just want to remind the Minister that a person who, two years ago had he known what was ahead, invested $700,000 overseas in American currency would be a millionaire today in Australian currency. That is precisely the selective sampling the Minister has used. Mr Holding —Should those people get the pension? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Maybe, but I will go on to the other point: Why is the Minister able to quote selectively from what are obviously private records in a public sense just to demonstrate a point? One wonders, and this is what we have been asking all the time, what this saving is intended to lead to. If the Minister is prepared to use these examples publicly, I have no doubt that the Government will, in due course, use every valuation for an assets test for the purposes of a wealth tax, a death tax and the whole range of taxes. This is just the thin end of the wedge. The Minister mentioned that we were representing the privileged and the wealthy. I remind the Minister that over the last three days in this House it has been made quite obvious whom the Government is representing-that is the Australian Council of Trade Unions-- Mr Porter —Simon says. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, Simon says. The ACTU seems to have an input into these decisions well before anyone else in the nation and even before the Government itself. So the Minister should not talk to us about privilege without knowing where his own patronage falls. I want to give some examples that have been obvious to the Opposition and obviously the Government should have been made aware of them. After all, it is the Government's legislation. We are still getting complaints from Government members that it is the nasty people at the Department of Social Security offices who are to blame in implementing this test. It is not their fault at all. The Social Security Department's staff are doing the best they can under the circumstances without the flexibility of guidelines to administer the Act. The Minister and the Government are to blame for the assets test and the Australian people should never be allowed to forget it. I will give just a few examples. Before the introduction of the assets test we heard of the case of a person in the urban area of Melbourne who had 2.2 hectares of land. Two hectares was accepted as curtilage for the house in which he resided. The other 0.2 of a hectare was of sufficient value to deprive that person of a pension. That is just one example. Mr Porter —He had to sell his house? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I do not know what he had to do. Mr Porter —How else does he live? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I can give you an example of the manner in which the Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I do not believe the interjections on my left are helping the speaker. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not like to disagree with you, but I would not like to feel that the people behind me were restrained. I now give an example of the situation when a sale is imminent. This is the situation in a sugar cane farming area where, as everybody knows, the valuations were pushed up over the last few years but have now shrunk to an all time low, to the extent that at this moment there is no way in the wide world that a person on an average farm with a 3,000 tonnes yield would be able to derive an income from that investment. However, that investment, on the basis of the assets test valuation, deprives the person of a pension. Perhaps the Minister thinks that is fair enough. That farm is being worked by the next generation of the family because they want to keep the farm in the family and they are not making an income. Obviously the owner of the farm, the pensioner parent, is not able to make an income either. They have sought to have that farm valued at the Valuer-General's valuation, or the lowest price at which that farm would sell at the moment. Honourable members should understand that we are talking in terms of liquidation and bankruptcy prices here. The farm is not being valued at its proper value. Its value is being pushed right up. The alternative for that person at the moment is to sell the farm, to put his son out of a job-the son is aged 45 or 50-and to put the son into the unemployment ranks. That is where it will end. Mr Hawker —And he will buy a big house. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I do not know whether he will have enough money; he is a cane farmer. However, in another circumstance he might do that. In the case of a settlement following a divorce or family breakup there is now an obligation on the mother, if she wants to get a supporting parent's benefit and if she was previously in a business, to make a declaration that she will take no more income out of the partnership or business and thus deny herself benefits from the divorce settlement. Under this assets test that person has to sign a declaration before she receives one cent of pension. An urban farm has been valued on the basis of its worth if it were subdivided and not at the value at which the pensioner who owns and wants to live on that farm would value it. That pensioner has no intention in mind but to retire on that farm, yet that farm has been valued at the urban value. What is the answer of honourable members opposite to that? Mr Cleeland —What price would he sell it for? Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is not going to sell it, you dumb idiot! I am telling you that he wants to stay on the farm and does not want to sell it. That is precisely the point to do with the assets test that this Government does not understand. This Government is forcing people to make alternative plans for retirement and is putting them on society's scrapheap. That is a direct result of this Government's assets test. The assets test is affecting pensioners in both Government-held and Opposition-held electorates. Mr Porter —Ballarat, Bendigo-all the rural electorates. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. They are electorates that the Government will lose next election because the Government will find out that there is a limit to which it can push this part of the population without suffering the consequences. The Prime Minister made those promises about a review, but obviously those promises are going to be as helpful as his first promises-that there would be no alteration to the income test and that there would be no tax on superannuation. These massive programs have all taken place in the retirement area, of which the Government has no understanding. It is obvious the Government has not thought this through because already the promises made concerning the assets test-about social security inspectors on private premises and the gathering of information, and the statement that only 2 per cent of pensioners would be affected-are all out the back door. The basic anomaly in the assets test is in the exemption of the house. It does not matter what the land is valued at. A person with a $250,000 house in inner Sydney can receive the full pension whereas a person on a rural farm worth that but with a house worth $50,000 does not receive it. That is the first anomaly. I come to the other anomalies. During this last week the Minister has suggested to a couple in Tasmania who took their position to the media: 'What you ought to do is approach your local Social Security office first. The people there will tell you that there are hardship provisions under which you can apply; or, if you wish, you may borrow for the future and get the pension at 13 per cent'. I should like the Minister to tell me how many pensioners or past pensioners have taken advantage of the pay as you die scheme. I suggest they are very few. If that does not indicate something to the Minister, it should. The scheme is not a fair and reasonable scheme for a person to undertake. Why is that so? It is because they must sell everything first and provide some type of mortgage to secure the loan. That is point number one. However, let us look at the hardship test. That is the real beauty. The Minister has said: 'The Social Security people are with you all the way; let them have a look at it'. The figures I have been given on this matter show that 1,268 appeals relating to hardship are pending at present. Of these, for Australia as a whole I believe that 23 have been granted-23 out of 1,200. What a miserable approach it is to ask a person to apply for hardship benefits when those conditions apply. To obtain hardship benefits, people have to prove that they have less than $5,000 in cash or that they have no acceptable assets to convert. The fact that people are asked to exclude from the exemption their motor cars, insurance policies, paintings and everything else makes me wonder whether a person who wants to get the hardship benefit should have to sell these things before he qualifies for the pension. As I understand it, a long term investment for a fixed term might have to be cashed, as might life assurance policies. Where is the equity in this system? Recent statistics on this matter are just the tip of the iceberg. Five per cent of all those pensioners affected have lodged an appeal in some way or other. Some 2,433 pensioners have lodged such objections and, as I say, 629 have requested reviews, 536 have lodged appeals, and 1,268 have requested special consideration under the hardship provisions. One wonders how many more applications will come in. I placed on notice the fact that I wanted to know how the appeals machinery was being set up to have these applications considered. The Minister answered last Wednesday, when he indicated that the number of appeals tribunals would not necessarily be increased. He said that the situation would be monitored. The interesting part is that under the present system, non-medical appeals take an average of 22.7 weeks to be heard and decided. Can a person aged 70 or 80 who is denied a pension and who has nothing available afford to wait for that period? I say no. As an Opposition, we are determined that the assets test will be scrapped. In saying that, however, we believe that the whole retirement areas should be closely examined so that the impact of income tax, superannuation, self-help schemes and universal schemes are tied in together to give Australians justice and equity. That has been denied to this small percentage of people, this 5 per cent. They may not be many, but they are human beings and Australians and they are deserving of the Parliament's concern and the Government's concern. That is what they have not received over the period of the assets test. I ask for reconsideration of the whole matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.44) —The Opposition has come up with another damp squib today in relation to the assets test. Given all the hoo-ha we have heard from the Opposition benches in the last week, one would have thought that we would have got a rather more precise and specific speech today, on a matter of public importance, from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I think the first and perhaps the most important thing to be done in response to what the honourable member had to say today is to ask the question: Whom is the honourable member for Dawson and the Opposition seeking to protect? Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Howe-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —One must ask the question: Whom does the honourable member wishto protect? I think it is very clear that one of the groups he wishes to protect is a group of millionaires. As I pointed out today, we have identified 12 millionaires as receiving the pension. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has made it clear on more than one occasion that if the Opposition were ever to become the government one of the first things it would seek to do would be to repeal or abolish the assets test. In other words, one of the first things the Opposition would do and one of its highest priorities it would have if it were returned to office would be to return the pensions to those millionaires. That indicates the values and the priorities of the Opposition with respect to this matter. I made the point earlier today that all members of the House have an obligation to recognise and understand that the social security system is essentially being directed towards people in need. Many would say that it ought to be directed to the people who are in most need. Some kind of means testing would be needed to achieve this objective. I do not think anyone in the House would suggest that there ought not be means testing. I indicated that historically means testing has been applied in two ways. On the one hand there has been income testing. On the other hand there has been some recognition that assets wealth mean and ultimately should be regarded as a source of income. Income testing that is applied in respect of aged people, particularly those under 70 years of age, is extraordinarily strict. Indeed, a pensioner is allowed to have income of $30 a week before he loses a dollar of his pension. As I pointed out earlier in the House today, 1.5 million or 75 per cent of age pensioners in this country have declared incomes of less than $30 a week. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of pensioners are in that situation. No one is suggesting that that ought to be changed. I have received no representations that income testing in respect of the age pension ought to be eased. The other type of means testing is the testing of people's assets. I want to make a point to the people who are pretending some concern and weeping crocodile tears about the assets test. Governments and oppositions during the long post-war period until 1976 supported the operation of an assets test. That assets test was administered by applying a 10 per cent valuation over and above the amount that was income tested. That amount was regarded as imputed additional income on top of actual income received. Those two amounts were put together. It is interesting to note that the family home and an extraordinarily small amount of money were excluded from that means test. I think at that time we were talking about a few hundred dollars. Now we are talking about some thousands of dollars that would be taken into account in relation to the assets test. So the assets test prior to 1976 was very stringent compared with the assets test today. It went alongside an incomes test which has always been very stringent. The Opposition has come in today with this proposition in relation to the assets test which has nothing to do with fundamental directions and social policy in this country. I cannot understand how people whose responsibility, particularly when in opposition, is to think through the implications of long term social policy can say that they are opposed to this measure. Remember that the Leader of the Opposition said: 'I will abolish the assets test. I will get rid of it. I will go back to the situation prior to the introduction of the assets test'. But I ask honourable members opposite to think through what that will mean. It will mean that if someone has $1m or $500,000 in terms of a capital asset, he can carry on receiving a pension provided he does not turn it into income. It will mean that we will be paying to the supporting parents that the shadow Minister mentioned, who are the poorest group within the Australian community, a little bit less because we want to give those people in the community who are very wealthy relatively speaking, a little bit more! I ask the Opposition, when it comes in with propositions on this, to think through what it is saying in terms of social policy because I believe that what it is saying is absolute nonsense. It seems to me that amongst other things the Opposition, when it is in opposition, has an opportunity not simply to deal with things on the basis of short term political advantage but to do what is advocated by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), which is to think through what it is about in terms of substantial and long term policy questions. I refer to two particular examples, as I have already done today, of people with assets over $1m. I do it certainly because it has a dramatic appeal but also because it takes us to the heart of the problem. The Opposition has to come to terms, in relation to means testing, with what is done in regard to someone who has very substantial assets and who has arranged his affairs so that he can minimise his income. I must say that I am not terribly impressed with the National Party of Australia because it is a party always there like a pig with its snout to the trough. It is always on about relative rural poverty and always on about how hard it is for people to- Mr Cobb —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As a National Party member I take offence at being called a pig and I ask the Minister to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have considered the matter and it is really not a statement that should be withdrawn. Mr HOWE —The National Party is always advocating the need to spend additional government money. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the question of whether we are going to be paying people who have properties. A delegation from one rural area came to see me and I asked: 'What is the value of the properties which you are talking about; these people who are severely disadvantaged by the assets test?' I was told that the average valuation of properties in that particular area was $400,000. They brought along with them their accountant, who knew the intimate details, if I might say so, of the family circumstances. I said to them: 'Look, apart from the question of property, one of the rules in relation to the assets test is that we have to look at the amount of disposable income'. The accountant conceded that the people had on average-he was talking about the people who were part of a delegation from that rural area-$30,000 in liquid assets. I ask honourable members opposite: In terms of the needs of the two million or three million people in this country who are poor, what does one do in that situation, where someone has arranged his affairs so that he has very substantial assets but he is in circumstances where he has very minimal income? Do we disregard that property and that asset? Do we say that that person ought to be treated on the same basis as someone with virtually no income at all? It seems to me that members of the Opposition are so obsessed with scoring the odd point and with creating a ruckus in this place that they cannot think through the logic of their position. They have no position in relation to means testing because, if what the Leader of the Opposition promises is actually delivered, it would mean the beginning of the end of the means testing of pensions in this country. It simply is not credibly possible to go back to means testing only income, any more than it is possible to go back to a situation where the Government of the day, our Government, needed to take very strong measures to combat the realities of tax evasion and avoidance. Fundamentally the conservative parties have to face up to this: Are they interested in an equitable social security system? If they are interested in an equitable social security system how are they going to deal with the reality of inequality of wealth, not only inequality of income? It is not possible in our community to achieve equity with respect to income without taking account of the realities of inequality of wealth. I shall make a few points about the administration of the assets test. It is not true that representations are valueless and do not achieve change. I was able to inform the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) this afternoon that the case which he referred to me and which had had some publicity had been resolved by a revaluation. A very high percentage of the appeals-I shall not dispute the numbers suggested by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) as I did not write them down-rests on the question of valuation, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We are in some difficulty with valuations because of the kind of emotionalism which has been generated about Gestapo tactics, entering people's homes and all that rubbish. We sought to achieve valuation without a thorough inspection of people's property to protect that principle. We have now arrived at a method which, I believe, will enable us to review, through the Australian Taxation Office, valuations which people dispute. We are carrying out as rapidly as possible the investigation of cases under review about which there is dispute over the valuation. They are being reviewed by the Taxation Office, which will attempt to do that as quickly as possible. But to those honourable members who think that this will mean that somehow all the valuations will collapse, I point out that the Taxation Office has assured me that it puts a very conservative value on properties which it values. It concedes that there may have been errors but that, because it was somewhat restricted in the way it was allowed to look at properties, it was very conservative in its valuations. It is possible for that matter to be handled through that review process in consultation between the regional office and the Taxation Office without getting into the more extended appeal process. There is a review; there always has been. That is why I have written to honourable members today saying that, if they have cases, it is important that they refer them to me or that they take them up with their local regional office, so that if there is, for example, a question of valuation, that can be resolved as quickly as possible. In relation to hardship-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion has concluded. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.00) —The House and the nation should be advised of the importance of small business to the welfare of the community and to the welfare of the citizens of the seat of Deakin in Victoria. Many commentators, when writing of the condition of democratic capitalism in the late twentieth century, leave the impression that the bulk of the work force is employed in large organisations. In fact, less than one per cent of businesses in Australia employ 100 people or more; 99.4 per cent of firms employ less than 100 people; and less than one per cent employ between 50 and 99 people. Dickensian and vulgar Marxist notions of a world organised into vast, urban factory conglomerates have failed to materialise. Facts such as these will not stop the Socialist Left faction of the Government parading its ritual fantasies, but that should make the rest of us aware of the importance of small and medium businesses to the national interest. The key fact is that 92 per cent of businesses in Australia employ less than 10 people. So much for Marx and his disciples. In the light of these facts, what I propose is that a small business impact statement be attached to each government Act and regulation. The House will be astonished to learn that in the past 20 years the people of Australia and the firms where they work have been subjected to some 50,000 government Acts and regulations, and most of them are broken down into dozens of sections, sub-sections, wheretofores and the rest. Small business is unable to employ teams of company lawyers, chartered accountants and logicians on its staff to decipher all these rules and regulations. Small business has to get on with the job of producing the goods, servicing the market, paying its taxes and trying to meet the wages bill and insurance payments for workers compensation. The current situation in which small businesses are being drained of working capital by paying sales tax on revenue before they receive the revenue is a disgrace. Most of the new jobs which have come onto the market in the past 10 years are in the small business area, but they have been created in spite of, rather than because of, the activities of government. I smile when I hear Government leaders piously claim that they have created jobs. They might just as well claim that they have created sunshine. It is now the practice of Federal governments to look at the financial impact of their Bills. I am suggesting that a small business impact statement should be made a matter of priority. Let us look at some of the pieces of legislation before the House recently-the customs tariff proposals, the excise tariff proposals, the Bass Strait levy proposals, the Bounty (Injection Moulding) Bill and others. Each of these has a direct impact on a group of small businesses, or on all of them. There are potential costs in money and time in each of these pieces of legislation. There are investment consequences and, more importantly, there are consequences affecting jobs. Yet half of this Parliament would not have the faintest idea how their pet schemes, proposals and Bills affect small business and the jobs it creates. The Parliament needs to be told in clear terms of the impact of the Government's actions. From such knowledge a certain wisdom might grow. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(4.04) —Earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) delivered to this House statistics cleverly and selectively designed to suggest that Queensland's economy was at a dangerous ebb. Those figures were misleading, especially when one compares the statistical evidence over a more realistic period. There is no doubt that over a more relevant five-year period Queensland has been the fastest growing State in Australia. While several factors contributed to this growth, its main impetus was gained through the major once-off boost to the economy through the development of new export coal mines and port facilities. The major infrastructure associated with such work lifted Queensland's economy to a point where on all key indicators it was performing better than the national average. This is shown in the following figures, all of which relate to average annual growth rates for the five-year period from 30 June 1979 to 30 June 1984: Queensland's population grew at a rate of 2.3 per cent compared with a national average of 1.4 per cent; Queensland's labour force grew at a rate of 3.4 per cent, compared with a national average of 2 per cent; employment in Queensland grew at a rate of 2.8 per cent compared with a national average of 1.4 per cent; new fixed capital expenditure by private enterprises grew by 16 per cent in Queensland compared with a national average of 11.6 per cent, which was a four-year period only; the value of new buildings approved grew by 16.9 per cent in Queensland compared with a national average of 12.5 per cent; motor vehicle registrations grew by 5.3 per cent in Queensland compared with a national average of 3.7 per cent; and retail sales grew by 12 per cent in Queensland compared with a national average of 10.8 per cent. While Queensland's growth over the last five years has been spectacular, the current economic situation in Queensland reflects unfavourable national and international factors. This also has to be coupled with the completion of the expansion of Queensland's mineral developments. Despite the temporary problems we are currently facing, the underlying economic and financial strength of Queensland provides a sound basis for steady growth in the longer term. These growth prospects are enhanced by the Queensland Government's positive policy of encouraging economic development through expansion of the private sector. The current economic situation in Queensland is influenced by two main factors-the completion of the expansion phase of Queensland's massive coal resources, and the world economic situation, especially with regard to sugar and base metals. The effect of the completion of mining and port facilities was anticipated. However, the simultaneous problems in the world sugar market and low world prices for base metals, particularly copper, compounded the effect on Queensland's economic growth. Long term benefits are now being achieved through increased revenues and job opportunities associated with the operational phase. However, it was always accepted that the level of economic expansion would, inevitably, return more to the Australian average, although on a considerably improved base. It is in this context that Queensland's current level of economic performance must be assessed. The key point is that while many of our current economic indicators are below their previous high levels, they are still above the national average. They are above the contribution to Australia's performance that could be expected on the basis of population share. Compared with our population share of 16.1 per cent, the latest figures show that Queensland contributes 17.4 per cent of new fixed capital expenditure by private enterprises; 24.5 per cent of housing completions and 23 per cent of all building completions in Australia; and 23.7 per cent of Australia's exports. These are positive indicators of the State's growth and potential. One of the sources of major growth in the economy of Queensland, and Australia, in the future will continue to be our vast mineral resources. These include about 50 per cent of Australia's proven recoverable reserves of coal, bauxite, silver, lead and zinc. Recent studies of our international competitiveness in coal and aluminium confirm that our substantial cost advantages will ensure a prominent position in international markets as demand expands. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.09) —I appreciate this opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate today. I would like to turn to the assets test to look at some of the points raised by members of the Opposition in their speeches on the adjournment during the week. We on the Government side have said time and again that the assets test will bring back to the retirement system in Australia the fairness lacking after it was taken away in 1976 by the former Government. What many people do not realise is that we had an assets test in Australia from 1908 to 1976. It is very difficult to measure need on an income test alone. If we do that we open up a new field of endeavour for accountants to manipulate money in such a way that people can become assets rich and income poor. Those people who care to check the Pensioner's News, in the years around 1980 to 1982 in particular, will find many schemes being marketed. Full page advertisements advised pensioners with considerable assets to go to these accountancy firms so that they could arrange their assets in such a way that they would get the full pension and the benefits. The Government has rightly recognised that pensions are meant only for those people in need. 'Need' is the operative word. By bringing back the assets test we are able to have a look at the retirement income system in a much fairer way than was possible before its abolition. One thing a lot of people do not realise-it was made obvious in Question Time today-is that it is not compulsory to fill out an assets test form. There is no compulsion whatsoever. The only time that one has to fill out an assets form is when one wants a pension. I have stated before on many occasions, in Western Australia anyway, that I do not believe that Alan Bond or Lang Hancock will ever fill out an assets test form, mainly because they do not need a pension. Mr Cobb —They don't get the pension. Mr GEAR —Of course they do not need a pension. Another thing about the pension is that it is meant only for people in need. The policy of a former Menzies Government was that people should provide for their own retirement. To that Government's credit, it allowed a tax deduction to encourage people to look after their retirement income by taking out superannuation policies. In Australia today those superannuation policies can be taken as a lump sum payment, invested in the schemes that I spoke about before that are being advertised in papers such as the Pensioner's News, and then a person can get a pension. What we are getting is double dipping. The Government moved early in its term of office to close that avenue by bringing in a substantial tax disincentive for people taking lump sums. However, we have allowed people to have a tax-free status if those superannuation payments were taken, as they were meant to be, on a weekly or fortnightly basis. That is what superannuation is all about. It is all about looking after oneself in retirement. In the short time available to me I would like to bring up the quite emotive cases, which are often brought up in this House, concerning those people who are hard done by as a result of the assets test. We have never said that the assets test would be easy to administer and that it would cover all cases. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has made a point of ensuring that the assets test investigations are given the highest priority. We are working towards making sure that nobody is greatly disadvantaged by the assets test. It will take time. I imagine that, in a year's time, honourable members opposite will not be able to make the claims that they make today because of that. The Opposition parties' tactics in the last Federal election campaign can only be described as scandalous. The only reason that pensioners were scared was because of the opportunistic scaremongering tactics of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in particular. He had nothing else to fly with except the assets test. I suppose that, in electoral terms, he was successful in that he was able to claim a mandate. I would like to finish on this point: The Liberal Party of Australia has been talking about repealing the assets test if it gets back into government. All it has to do is answer one question: If it repeals the assets test, will it tell the people of Australia that it will raise taxes to give pensions to the wealthiest 2 per cent of the pensioners who do not need them, including the 12 millionaires the Minister talked about today, or will it lower the pension for the other people who really need it? That is the question that must be addressed if the Opposition is going to start talking about repealing the assets test. If members of the Opposition ever talk about it at the next election campaign, we will hammer that point as hard as we can. It is a significant point and they have never answered the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(4.14) —Tasmania has a proud record of looking after its beautiful scenery and natural wilderness areas. I illustrate that by making the point that Tasmania has over three times the percentage of national parks of any other State in Australia and, in some cases, it has six times the percentage. In addition, 23 per cent of the State has already been nominated for the register of the National Estate. Recently people have been working to have more parts of the State registered. These parts now total 31 per cent of that State. People on the mainland should realise that that is the equivalent of all the area of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria being on a national register. Once land is registered that prevents any person from investing in that part of the country. If companies want to mine or enter into any other venture, such as in the timber industries, they know that they will be in for long delays in dealing with government departments and working out whether they can undertake commercial activities in those areas. If people on the mainland had as large a proportion of the land as that cut out of economic activity I believe people would be seriously outraged. Because this land is in Tasmania people on the mainland believe what is in the newspapers or what is in articles written in nice glossy magazines such as the one put out by the Wilderness Society or the Forest Action Network people. Mr Hollis —Have you seen what the timber industry puts out? Mr Chynoweth —Look at some of the photos in it. Mr MILES —That is exactly what I am going to do. This magazine includes a photograph showing where the logging contractors loaded the logs onto their trucks. The sentence under the photograph states: This logging landing represents an area lost to production forestry because of major soil compaction and disturbance . . . The Wilderness Society uses this sort of photograph to sell to other people the idea that a forest will never be grown in that area again. I know from experience and from knowing areas where logging contractors have worked that it takes only five or eight years to get eucalypt trees growing there again. They are usually 15 to 20 feet tall within five years, even though hundreds of cubic metres of logs have been loaded in a small area and the soil has been compacted. Anybody in this Parliament who understands the forces of nature will realise that even things like mushrooms will push their way through cement paths. Mr Chynoweth —Fair go! Through the cracks, perhaps, but not the cement paths. Mr MILES —The honourable member should look at his botany books and he will find those examples. They do exist. The implication by the Wilderness Society is that just because the ground has been compacted it will not grow a forest again, even if it is allowed to. That is utter nonsense. Forests do grow back. That does happen, it has happened and it will continue to happen. Lots of other illustrations in this magazine are just as ludicrous. The comment appearing under another photograph states: Logging debris pushed into creek. Riparian ecosystem totally destroyed . . . That is also total nonsense because what will happen there is that that ecosystem will regenerate in another way. That has been going on for thousands and thousands of years. The ecosystem that exists anywhere at any time is probably not the same ecosystem that existed a thousand years previously. To say that that ecosystem is totally destroyed is nonsense. It will just change into something else over a period. What really needs to happen is that instead of having people who can register areas on the National Estate and can lock up resources in any part of Australia without the people of that State knowing-particularly the Government, the Premier or the Parliament-we have to have a good look at this matter and change the situation. This has been an emotional issue. As we develop as a nation I hope that some common sense can come into this matter rather than these people being allowed to lock up our nation's resources. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.20) —I rise, first of all, to remind the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) about the subscriber trunk dialling problem which is prevalent in the Frankston area. Ever since I have been a member of this House we have been pushing for STD rates to be removed from a small area within the Dunkley electorate. People may not believe it but parts of Frankston are still on the 059 network. There is an area down there called Mt Eliza which is on the 03 network. It is called the Mt Eliza bulge. It does not come within the radius which is drawn by Telecom Australia, but it bulges out and happens to go right down and cover Mt Eliza and Mornington. I believe the boundary actually goes to the home where Reginald Ansett once lived. No one planned it, it is just the way it happened, I have been told. Many people in the Frankston area do not have the facility of being able to ring Melbourne on the standard rate. This is wrong and must be changed. I also must mention the Palm Sunday march which I attended recently and in which I was proud to take part. This march was attended by thousands of people, many of whom were young people. This is important, and it augurs well for the peace movement. I am also proud to be a member of People for Nuclear Disarmament. It has taken several years for this movement to build up, and I have been a member for many years. I had a business of my own called CND Industries. It was not named CND Industries for any real political reasons, it was just to remind those people who were involved in or had some knowledge of the peace movement that I was actively engaged in trying to promote it for many years. Some parts of the peace movement supposedly belong to one particular faction. That is not correct, it crosses all factional groups, and I am proud to be a member of the peace movement. Mr Cobb —Did you have any anti-Russian banners? Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, there were many anti-Russian banners. There were banners complaining against Russian build up of nuclear arms as well as the American build up of nuclear arms. This is something that many people in the House do not realise because they have never got off their backsides to take part in a movement such as that. While I am on my feet I must also discuss, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the matter of woodchipping which was raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). I have that booklet. I have never been to the south-west of Tasmania but I have seen photographs. I believe what I see in some of those photographs, and it is a disgrace. Mr Smith —Go and have a look then. Mr CHYNOWETH —I will be. It is a disgrace. The Tasmanians have a beautiful island there. Mr Cobb —Would you lock up 30 per cent of your electorate? Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member says that we should lock up 30 per cent of it. What other nation in the world is rich enough to be able to do that? What will it be like in the future, when people come to Australia and go to Tasmania to see that area in its natural state? That area will draw tourists from all over the world. Tasmanians do not realise the potential they have. They want to rip it all out with bulldozers and push it into creeks. Of course it will wreck the environment. Mr Cobb —Would you lock up 30 per cent of your electorate? Mr CHYNOWETH —I would be pleased to do it if it was in its natural state. It is not; it is covered by concrete and houses and things like that. That is wrong. More of it should be left in its natural state. Tasmanians have a magnificent asset and they are just going to destroy it, chop it down and turn it into pulp so that we can have great stacks of paper. That is a disgrace. They should not do that; they should protect this area for future generations instead of turning it into wood chips. Some of the people who are interjecting here are very good at exploiting our natural resources. Instead of those resources belonging to the people of Australia, their companies exploit them and sell them off to the world. Mr Miles —How many trees have you planted? Mr CHYNOWETH —I have planted lots of trees. If the honourable member comes to the shopping centre near where I live he will see where I instigated the planting of the trees around it. It has made a tremendous difference. Mr Miles —How many? Mr CHYNOWETH —I would say about 50. That is probably 50 more than the honourable member has ever planted. While I am talking about the Tower Hill shopping centre, I must say how good the shopkeepers are because they look after all the trees. In the Frankston central business district, the Bayside shopping centre has been bought by the Gandel Group. It has put up the rents of the small shopkeepers by 400 per cent, which is a disgrace. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.25) —Throughout this week we have heard a great deal in this House about the situation in Queensland which has culminated in today's strike, a disgusting event, and members of the Australian Labor Party ought to be hanging their heads in shame. In Tasmania we sympathise with what is happening in Queensland, but whilst the blockade in Queensland has been going on we have had similar industrial trouble in Tasmania. The Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia is currently holding the Tasmanian economy to ransom. The current strike by the FEDFA is motivated purely by political considerations, as is the case in Queensland, and has nothing at all to do with industrial relations. The strike is attacking the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills plant at Longreach in my electorate and on the east coast of Tasmania at Triabunna in the electorate of Lyons, held by Mr Burr. The strike began some three weeks ago. The FEDFA defied an order by a commissioner of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. An article on the front page of today's Launceston Examiner is headed: 'Union ''Out to Destroy Trade'' '. Commissioner McKenzie is reported to have said that it appeared to him that the FEDFA was hell-bent on destroying Australia's vital woodchip industry. Mr Miles —One of those blokes earns $43,000 a year net. Mr SMITH —Did honourable members hear that, $43,000 net a year? The consequence of the strike has been the standing down of workers at the Longreach and Triabunna mills. The dispute has already cost $2m and has led to 800 forestry workers now being without a job. Before discussing the political motivation of strikes and the supporters of strikes, let me outline the brief history of this action which is so damaging the Tasmanian economy. The record of the FEDFA since 1982 is both miserable and shameful. In the last three years it has held nearly a strike a month. Over 3,500 workers have had to be stood down in three years because of the thugs in this union and other associated unions. Mr Chynoweth —That's not right. Mr SMITH —It is true. But what really motivates me to speak today is the callous manner and political motivation of these disputations. Mr Beale —The unions have been bashing the community for years. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin has had his opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate. Mr SMITH —I think he is contributing very well, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Bass that he not take over the functions of the Chair. Mr SMITH —The sad part is that many strikes are politically motivated. Equally true is the fact that many supporters of strikes are politically motivated. Let me give the House two examples of such blatant political posturing. A recently elected Labor senator from my State-Terry Aulich, the failed State Minister for Industrial Relations and the failed, rejected and discredited State Minister for Education-went to Queensland to tell the Queensland Government how to run its State. John Devereux, a thoroughly discredited and rejected candidate in the December Federal election, who thankfully lost to my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), was arrested yesterday in Queensland. He plans to stand at the next State election. He is State President of the ALP and a member of the left wing, a faction without any credibility in my State or indeed in this nation. Those two members of the Labor Party, both rejected at elections in my State in the past three years, now traverse the nation masquerading as industrial relations experts. In truth, neither has any expertise in this area and both operate merely for political gain and political exposure. They are prepared to sell out industrial order around the nation in order to enhance further their own paltry political careers. Both men have been conspicuous by their silence on the current industrial lawlessness in my State, and for this they stand condemned in this Parliament and in my home State of Tasmania. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.28) —Three weeks ago I was privileged, as part of an Australian delegation, to attend a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation conference on adult education. This is the third such conference on adult education that UNESCO has sponsored over the last 30 years. Of late there has been some criticism of UNESCO. Unfortunately, most of this criticism is ill-informed, mischievous and misleading. I actually saw UNESCO in action. I was one of the delegates from some 100 countries discussing problems of great relevance to their countries. Many of the developing countries have a great problem in adult education. A growing problem is literacy. Other countries, such as Australia, have a problem with how to deal with a post-industrial society. It is not just the holding of this conference but the exchange of ideas at UNESCO that fosters international goodwill. Having experienced UNESCO in action, I am pleased with the role that Australia has played, especially the contribution under the leadership of the current Ambassador. No one would suggest that the performance of UNESCO should never be reviewed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 April 1985: Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 57-Courses and Awards Amendment 1985. Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 18-Reserve Allowance. No. 19-Defence Force Rental Expense Assistance Allowance and Temporary Accommodation Allowance. No. 20-Temporary Rental Allowance. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Further to the answers to my questions No. 3992 (Hansard, 21 August 1979, page 382) and No. 5609 (Hansard, 8 December 1982, page 3227) concerning the Hague conference on Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions, can the Attorney-General now say when legislation will be introduced in Australia to ratify the Convention. (2) Is it a fact that (a) the convention provides for the return of children who have been wrongfully abducted to other countries and (b) this problem has become increasingly pressing in recent years. (3) Can the Attorney-General say which other countries have ratified or intend to ratify the Convention. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is expected that Regulations pursuant to section 111B of the Family Law Act 1975 will be made this year to give effect to the requirements of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Australia will then be in a position to ratify the Convention. (2) (a) The Convention provides for the return of children wrongfully abducted between member countries. (b) No precise figures on the incidence of child abduction are available. (3) To date four countries, France, Canada, Switzerland and Portugal, have ratified the convention. These ratifications have brought the Convention into operation. At the 15th Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law held from 8-20 October 1984, a number of other countries, including Australia, indicated that they were taking action with a view to ratifying the Convention. The United States, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom have signed the Convention. (Question No. 35) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: What is the average daily expenditure in Australia by international tourists from (a) the United States of America, (b) New Zealand, (c) Japan, (d) Canada, (e) Hong Kong, (f) Great Britain, (g) France, (h) Italy, (i) Switzerland, (j) West Germany, (k) Holland, (l) Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and (m) South Africa. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is based on the Australian Tourist Commission's 1983 International Visitor Survey, which refers to persons aged 15 years and over in that year, and is as follows: Total Holidays Visitors Visitors $ $ (a) 60 63 (b) 46 55 (c) 95 93 (d) 33 32 (e) 51 81 (total Asia $38 and $54) (f) 26 24 (UK and Ireland) (g) 37 23 (h) Not available. The average for visitors from other European countries not specifically mentioned in the report was $24 (Holiday visitors $23). (i) 39 40 (GFR and GDR) (j) 37 39 (k) 24 25 (l) 28 23 (m) Not available. The average for visitors from other (non-European) countries not specifically mentioned in the report was $50 (Holiday visitors $50). Related figures are available in the IVS report which is published by the ATC at $20 per copy. (Question No. 41) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports published in the Courier-Mail of 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 27 December 1984 and on 1 January 1985 and in the Sun-Herald of 20 and 27 January 1985 concerning statements made by Mr Graham Pike, President of the recently formed Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation, concerning the consideration by the Government of increased taxes on fishing equipment and fuel for boats; if so, is he able to confirm the accuracy of these statements. (2) Is Mr Graham Pike, President of the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation, the same Mr Graham Pike, Director of Public Relations for the Department of Primary Industry; if so, will he assure recreational fishing interests that there will be no conflict in statements or actions by Mr Pike, should any dispute arise between the Government and the sporting group, as happened in 1979 with the Japanese longline controversy. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the media reports concerning the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation to which the honourable member for Fadden refers but as has been clearly pointed out in a letter in the Courier-Mail on 27 December 1984 from Mr Graham Pike, President of the Confederation the media reports and letters critical of the Confederation and Mr Pike were based on one, initial article published on the front-page of the Courier-Mail on 10 December 1984. As Mr Pike stated, that initial article was inaccurate and misleading and it is fundamentally wrong to suggest, as the first article did, that the Government is considering increased taxes on recreational fishers. (2) In a second letter in the Courier-Mail on 30 January 1985, the Confederation President, Mr Pike, stated that he was also Director of Public Relations for the Department of Primary Industry. He made it clear in that letter that no conflict of interest exists between his employment in the Department of Primary Industry and his role as President of the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation. The Department of Primary Industry has no jurisdiction over recreational fishing and I am informed that Mr Pike's official duties are not connected with fishing policy or funding. Mr Pike's involvement with recreational fishing is extremely well known within the Department, to the industry and the general public and the likelihood of a conflict of interest arising under such circumstances is extremely remote and in any case, would be dealt with through existing administrative provisions, of which Mr Pike is well aware. (Question No. 42) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Did he or his Department make a grant to the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation or to its President, Mr Graham Pike, to stage a meeting in Brisbane on or about 9 December 1984; if so, what was the amount of the grant. (2) For what specific purposes or expenditure was the grant made. (3) Was part of the purpose of this meeting to keep in touch with individuals and organisations in the States; if so, why were the President and Secretary of the Queensland Amateur Fishing Council, representing amateur fishermen in that State, refused entry to the meeting. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) There was no specific grant made. (3) The Australian Recreational Fishing Conference is comprised of the seven national organisations representing the various types of recreational fishing and fishing interests. It is therefore a peak national body, autonomous under its constitution and I am not involved in its internal workings. This being so, I do not know of the circumstances surrounding the meetings of the Confederation Executive in Brisbane in December last year. I do note, however, that in his letter in the Courier-Mail of 30 January 1985, the Confederation President states that the Chairman and Secretary of the Queensland Amateur Fishing Council did attend at the time of the Brisbane meeting and spent several hours in discussions of mutual interest with the Confederation executive. It may interest the honourable member to know that I have been informed that the Confederation is currently giving very active consideration to creating an associate membership category in its constitution which would include State and Territory organisations representing recreational fishing. (Question No. 43) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Did he or his Department authorise a press release foreshadowing increased federal taxes on fishing equipment and boat fuel, following a meeting of the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation in Brisbane, on or about 9 December 1984. (2) Did he or his Department have informal or formal discussions with the President of that Confederation regarding proposed tax increases prior to the meeting. (3) Have discussions regarding the subject been undertaken between him or his Department and the Department of Primary Industry or the Minister for Primary Industry. (4) Has his attention been drawn to a letter to the Courier-Mail, dated 13 December 1984, from Mr Graham Pike, President of the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation, which states that the Confederation was constituted earlier in 1984, and is supported strongly by the Commonwealth Government; if so, does he endorse this view. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No. (4) The Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation was formed in response to the need to have a unified national body representing Australia's recreational fishers-and as a Confederation survey has shown, there are some five million of them. Fishing, according to the survey, is Australia's biggest outdoor sport, contributing in excess of $2.2 billion a year to the Australian economy. That is a very big industry and has obvious significant ramifications for tourism as well as for the healthy and wholesome outdoor life of millions of Australians. This Government has recognised the national importance of fishing as a sport and outdoor past-time and actively supported the formation of the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation which is greatly assisting in fishing's development. The Government is continuing, through the Australian Sports Commission, to support the Confederation. (Question No. 44) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Did he or his Department make a grant of $50,000 to the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation for the purpose of commissioning a survey of recreational fishing in Australia. (2) Were tenders called for consultants to conduct the survey; if so (a) who were the tenderers (b) what were the tender amounts and (c) who was the successful tenderer. (3) How was $50,000 arrived at as being a suitable sum for such a survey. (4) Has he authorised the Confederation to sell copies of the results of the survey to other recreational fishing organisations; if so, for what purpose will the income from these sales be used. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A grant of $50,000 over two financial years was made to the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation as part of the Government's programs of assistance to national sporting and recreational organisations. (2) As I stated in my response to Question 43, I am not involved, nor should I be, in the internal workings of organisations such as the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation but the Confederation has freely provided the Australian Sports Commission with the information the honourable member seeks. I am advised that the Confederation did ask for tenders for the national recreational fishing survey and received proposals from Market Survey Centre Pty Ltd, McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd, PA Management Consultants, and the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd. Some of the proposals were given in confidence and for commercial reasons too, the Confederation feels that the prices quoted should not be attached to the names of particular tenderers. The prices quoted by firms meeting all the specifications ranged from $50,000 to $128,000. The successful tenderer was PA Management Consultants. (3) The Confederation commissioned PA Management Consultants after extensive discussions, about cost-effectiveness and other technical matters relating to the proposed survey, with appropriate officers of my Department. Through my Department, the Australian Bureau of Statistics was also consulted. The Confederation, of course, also sought and received advice from other sources on the matter before making a decision. (4) As a properly constituted, autonomous body, the Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation is free to run its affairs as it sees fit and does not require any Ministerial authorisation for the conduct of its activities under its constitution. (Question No. 65) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) With regard to recommendation 12 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure of November 1983 entitled 'The Way We P(l)ay', did the Government in fact clarify the objectives and scope of the inaugural Australia Games before committing Commonwealth funding, if so when and where. (2) What was the Government's total financial commitment to, and in connection with, these Games, including appropriations through the Sports Development Program, the International Standard Sports Facilities Program, or through any other program or appropriation, either direct or indirect. (3) What is the precise financial and administrative relationship between the Government and (a) the Australian Games Foundation, (b) the Australia Games Board of Management and (c) the Australia Games Organising Committee. (4) What were the financial results of the Games, itemised by income from (a) marketing and sponsorship of the Games, (b) ticket sales, (c) the sale of television rights and (d) any other relevant item. (5) What was the total expenditure incurred by the Australia Games Foundation itemised by relevant categories. (6) Is he able to say whether the Games were a financial success. (7) What overseas countries participated at the Games, and how many participants attended from each country. (8) How many Federal Ministers attended the Games. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 13 September 1984 I tabled in the Parliament the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the McLeay report. In that response I advised that the Australia Games Foundation had clarified the scope and objectives of the Games. These are as published in my Department's 1983-84 annual report. As a result, the Government agreed to provide $800,000 to support the Australia Games in Melbourne. (2) The Government's financial commitment to the Australia Games can be categorised in three ways. First, direct assistance to Games costs for which $800,000 was provided in 1984-85. Secondly, direct administrative assistance to the Australia Games Foundation from the Sports Development Program consisting of grants of $50,000 in 1981-82, $180,000 in 1982-83, $60,000 in 1983-84 and $100,000 in 1984-85. Assistance in 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 related to the Games Foundation's endeavours to establish the inaugural Australia Games in Sydney in January 1984. The third category relates to facility development under the then International Standard Sports Facilities Program where $500,000 ($89,500 in 1983-84 and $410,500 in 1984-85) was provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the Victorian Government to upgrade the Olympic Park Athletics Track. (3) The extent of Commonwealth financial support for the Australia Games is indicated in the answer (2) above. (a) The Australia Games Foundation was registered on 10 March 1983, under the Companies Act 1961 (Victoria), as an incorporated company limited by guarantee. (b) The Commonwealth has two representatives on the Australia Games Board of Management. (c) The Commonwealth also provided two representatives on the Australia Games Organising Committee which was established by the Board of Management, in consultation with the Victorian Government, to organise the Games in Melbourne from 26 January to 3 February 1985. (4), (5) and (6) At this stage, because individual sporting organisations have yet to complete audited financial statements in respect of each event conducted and provide them to the Australia Games Foundation, it is too early to provide a final summary of the Games expenditure and revenue budget. Audited financial statements are to be consolidated by the Foundation and will include revenue still coming into the Foundation's account. However, I am advised that current predictions are that there could be a shortfall once all accounts have been received. (7) Thirty-one overseas countries were represented at the Games by 804 competitors and officials as follows: Belgium (1), Brazil (16), Bulgaria (26), Canada (47), China (77), Denmark (4), England (66), Fiji (1), Finland (1), France (1), Holland (1), Hong Kong (7), Indonesia (2), Italy (70), Japan (47), South Korea (11), Malaysia (10), New Zealand (214), Norway (1), Papua New Guinea (15), Poland (2), Sweden (3), Switzerland (8), Tahiti (3), Thailand (8), Trinidad and Tobago (13), USA (94), USSR (19), Vanuatu (2), West Germany (20), Western Samoa (14). (8) I was the only Federal Minister to attend the Games in an official capacity. (Question No. 67) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How much Federal Government money is made available for the sport of swimming. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the Executive Director's report in 'NSW Amateur Swimmer', that the Sports Commission is withholding money from the Amateur Swimming Union of Australia, and that many other sports receive infinitely more income from the Federal Government? If so, when will he respond to this statement. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the Sports Development Program in 1984-85 $91 000 has been allocated to the Amateur Swimming Union of Australia (ASUA). In addition, 30 swimmers received a total of $102 500 from the National Athlete Award Scheme for 1985. Under the National Sports Facilities Program, the Government has committed $1 050 000 in 1984-85 to the development of the South Australian Aquatic Centre. This complements allocations totalling $2 634 447 previously made to the facility under the International Standard Sports Facilities Program. (2) I am aware of allegations that funds have been withheld from the ASUA. The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) provides grants to national sporting organisations on the basis of annual programs submitted by the national body. I am not aware that the ASUA believes that funds have been withheld and I understand that discussions between ASC staff and the ASUA have been most cordial. (Question No. 70) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) With regard to page 19 of the Administrative Services Budget Statement for August 1984, when did the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) last review its practices to ensure efficiency and competitiveness and is a review available; if not, why not. (2) Will he make public any review. (3) What percentage of work has AGPS allocated to the private sector during each of the last 3 financial years. (4) What was the cost of work undertaken (a) for AGPS by the private sector and (b) by AGPS itself during each of the last 3 financial years. (5) What has been (a) the total income and (b) the income received by function of sale-type, referred to on page 21 of the Administrative Services Budget Statement for August 1984, AGPS has derived from (i) Government and semi-government sources and (ii) private sources, during each of the last 3 financial years. (6) If the figures for any of the sale-type categories requested in part (5) are not available (a) why are they not available, and (b) what are the estimated figures. (7) With reference to page 14 of the Department of Administrative Services Annual Report for 1982-83 what were the results of AGPS's review of bookshop operations conducted with the aim of improving services offered to the public. (8) What method does AGPS use to determine that their rates charged to client departments for printing services are competitive. (9) If AGPS uses a tender system to ascertain the most competitive quote, for what percentage of the work offered to tender have non-Government printers actually supplied the best quote during each of the last 3 years. (10) What has been (a) the total cost of projects undertaken by AGPS and (b) the sum total of the best quotes gained from non-government printers for the same projects in each of the last 3 years. (11) How does he explain the statement on page 16 of the Department of Administrative Services Annual Report for 1982-83, that during 1982-83 sales by AGPS bookshops rose in monetary terms, whilst both the number of transactions and number of customers using the service declined. (12) With regard to the major technological changes referred to on page 19 of the Administrative Services Budget Statement of August 1984, what operations does AGPS perform in the printing of Hansard and what technology is used. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A Policy and Projects Section was established within AGPS in 1983 to review policies and procedures with emphasis on forward planning and maintenance of cost effective, efficient and competitive practices. Major outcomes of the work of the Section during the last year included: The completion of an Internal Management Review. The introduction of Corporate Planning. The completion of a feasibility study into the introduction of computerised Management Information Systems. The completion of planning for the co-location of the AGPS Publishing Operations Section and the Printing Section in the Government Printing Office building at Kingston, A.C.T. Planning for the rationalisation of AGPS Receipt, Storage and Dispatch functions. Planning for the introduction of a marketing oriented approach to servicing clients. Planning for the introduction of new typesetting technology. (2) The majority of reviews result in refinement to practices and are circulated by way of advice of variation in procedures or guidelines to staff, clients and suppliers. These are available on request. (3) and (4) The following table shows the breakup of work allocated by AGPS Publishing Operations over the last three years. 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $m $m $m Fill-in work allocated to the Government Printing Office and associated units 3.70 (25%) 4.67 (23%) 4.55 (20%) Work allocated to private printers 10.75 (72%) 14.97 (75%) 17.83 (79%) Work allocated to State government printers 0.51 (3%) 0.32 (2%) 0.21 (1%) Total work allocated 14.96 (100%) 19.96 (100%) 22.59 (100%) The figures above do not include the ''core'' work flowing direct to the AGPS Printing Section (Government Printing Office) from the Parliament and other on-going major government printing work such as Commonwealth gazettes and the production of passports. The value of this work was $18.51 million in 1981-82, $20.59 million in 1982-83 and $28.09 million (including $3.98 million of work undertaken by the Defence Printing Establishment) in 1983-84. The substantial increase in 1983-84 was as a result of AGPS assuming control of the Defence Printing Establishment in Melbourne. Note: The figures showing the allocation of work to the private sector do not cover a considerable amount of printing work, below the mandatory AGPS involvement threshold of $10,000, which flows direct to commercial printers from departments and authorities. There is no centralised consolidation of information about this work. It is only available from individual departments and authorities. (5) and (6) With the exception of common service publications such as gazettes, directories and forms, a substantial proportion of public sector requirements are met by department/authority initiated and funded publishing programs undertaken through AGPS. Other public sector and private sector requirements are met through AGPS Sales and Distribution operations. Public sector demand for common service and additional supplementary publications is indicated by formal purchasing requests processed for mail (retail), subscription and bookshop sales. While there are other minor unidentified sales initiated by the public sector such as cash bookshop purchases, the remainder is private sector sales. Wholesale sales to booksellers are private sector sales. The following figures show the public sector/private sector sales breakup as requested for 1983-84. Breakup figures for earlier periods were not maintained in a consolidated form and collation would involve a major redeployment of heavily committed staff resources. The proportional breakup is, however, estimated to be similar. Private Public 1983-84 Sector Sector Total $m $m $m Mail (Retail) Sales 0.9 1.2 2.1 Wholesale Sales 1.1 . . 1.1 Subscription Sales 0.8 0.2 1.0 Bookshop Sales 2.0 0.4 2.4 Total 4.8 1.8 6.6 (7) As a result of the review it was announced, in a ministerial media statement on 26 October 1983, steps had been taken to upgrade AGPS bookshop operations. The announcement coincided with the official opening of the relocated AGPS bookshop on the corner of King and Clarence Streets, Sydney. The new bookshop provides far better public access to services than the previous location on the fourth floor of an office building in Pitt Street. The initial focus of the review was to improve services without incurring significant increases in costs. This involved variation to trading hours of several bookshops and an initial pilot market survey of the new Sydney bookshop. In the longer term, subject to available funds, it is proposed to refurbish Adelaide and Melbourne bookshops and relocate a number of the other outlets. AGPS is also in the process of establishing a marketing group which should provide considerable impetus to the marketing of the AGPS range of publications. (8) The pricing arrangements for such work were revised in 1983-84. The new procedure for 'fill-in' printing work, which is allocated to utilise Government Printing Office capacity, sets charge rates comparable to those of commercial printers. The industry comparable rates are determined periodically by taking contracts for similar work undertaken by commercial firms after the tendering process and striking the price at which the majority of the work has been undertaken. Parliamentary, urgent and confidential printing work-the 'core' work of the Government Printing Office-is charged at rates which ensure the client department meets the full cost of production. (9) Not applicable. See (8). (10) (a) See answer to question (4). (b) Not applicable as tenders are not sought for 'fill-in' printing work allocated to the Government Printing Office as outlined in answer to question (8). (11) The decline in customers using the bookshops during 1982-83 was believed to be partly as a result of the tight economic situation at the time, partly to an unexpected need to operate the Sydney Bookshop from an unsuitable location, and also to the reduction in the number of trained permanent sales staff available following the announcement in 1981 of the then government's decision to lease the bookshops to the private sector. The bookshop situation certainly contributed to an unusually high increase of 22.8 per cent in mail, subscription and wholesale sales (from $2.63m to $3.23m) in the same period. The 7.85 per cent increase in the value of bookshop sales, despite the drop in customers, was due to pricing adjustments reflecting the AGPS objective of cost recovery and achievement of a break-even financial position on each year's trading. (12) AGPS, through the Government Printing Office, is responsible for Hansard printing and distribution operations. The latest technology is utilised in the typesetting, platemaking, printing, binding, dispatch, sales and distribution processes to meet the tight time frames required by the Parliament. Computer typesetting systems were introduced into the Printing Office during the 1970s. AGPS is currently in the process of acquiring a new 'state of the art' computer typesetting and editorial system which will be a key component in its operation. (Question No. 120) Mr Duncan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: Has he or his Department sent a direction to magistrates in the Australian Capital Territory suggesting that they should order costs to follow the event in criminal cases; if so, what is the wording of this instruction. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is: Neither I nor my Department have given an instruction to magistrates in the Australian Capital Territory suggesting that they should order costs to follow the event in criminal cases. In June 1984, following representations by the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory seeking clarification of the policy of the Deputy Crown Solicitor in claiming costs in criminal proceedings, my predecessor identified a number of categories of cases where costs would not be sought as exceptions to a general rule of seeking costs in every case where the informant was successful. The categories are: (A) Courts of Petty Sessions (i) in undefended matters disposed of in the general list on the first or second return date of the summons (ii) committal proceedings and trials upon indictment in the Supreme Court (iii) where the defendant is required to undergo a jail sentence and it is unlikely that he would be in a position to pay (iv) in cases where because of poverty, extreme hardship or other special circumstances, it would not be appropriate to seek an order for costs. (B) Superior Courts (i) proceedings on indictment in the Supreme Court (ii) appeals whether against conviction or sentence emanating from trials on indictment. Responsibility for prosecution work in the Australian Capital Territory has since passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has initiated a review of the above- stated policy. The review is being conducted by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the Australian Capital Territory, Mr R. Greenwood QC. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be advising me on the completion of the review. My predecessor also asked officers of my Department to approach the Chief Magistrate in the Australian Capital Territory with the object of establishing an appropriate schedule of costs to be applied in Petty Sessions prosecution matters which schedule would eliminate any inconsistencies between magistrates in the amount of costs they award in prosecution matters. The approach to the Chief Magistrate is being held in abeyance pending Mr Greenwood QC completing his review of the abovestated policy. (Question No. 132) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) What control will he or his Department exercise over the expenditure of the $300,000 contribution to the survey to be carried out by the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER) to test the fitness of Australian schoolchildren. (2) What are the proposed contribution details of this survey, in particular the cost of administering this survey. (3) Were tenders called for consultants to conduct this survey; if so, who were the tenderers and what were the tender amounts. (4) What facilities does ACHPER have to conduct a survey of this kind. (5) How was $300,000 arrived at as being a suitable amount to contribute to such a survey. (6) What is the anticipated scope and duration of the survey. (7) How many people will be involved both full-time and part-time in conducting the survey. (8) Why has he endorsed a new survey of fitness in Australian schoolchildren despite his stated concern that there has been little improvement in the fitness levels of secondary students since the last survey. (9) What evidence is there available prior to this new survey which would warrant the introduction of national fitness awards to encourage Australian schoolchildren to raise their fitness level. (10) Why has he authorised his Department to contribute to the survey if the awards are going to be introduced in any case. (11) Will he direct the $300,000 to be spent directly on incentives to improve the fitness of schoolchildren. (12) Has he or his Department earmarked any funds for the proposed series of national fitness awards: if so, what amount. (13) What is the evidence to suggest that the introduction of fitness awards will encourage a general lift in fitness levels. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As is normal procedure, the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER) is required, under the conditions of acceptance of the grant, to provide my Department with audited expenditure statements indicating that funds have been used for the purposes approved. In addition, my Department is represented on ACHPER's project management committee to provide expert advice and to monitor progress on the implementation of the project. (2) The total budget for the conduct of the survey is in the vicinity of $500,000. The major costs in the survey are expected to be: personnel $269,000 (refer to answer to part 7) laboratory tests $30,000 equipment $75,500 travel $43,000 administration and overheads $20,000 computing $30,000 preparation of report and printing $15,000 My Department is contributing $300,000 and ACHPER has succeeded in attracting support from a range of other government agencies and private sponsors which have an interest in these areas, including the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Department of Health. (3) Tenders were not called. The project has been a joint Commonwealth/ACHPER exercise developed over the last 5-6 years and involved funding from the Menzies Foundation for a proposal entitled 'Recommended Guidelines and Protocols for the Establishment of a National Fitness, Health and Physical Performance Survey in Australian Schools' which formed the basis of the current survey. Tenders were not called in view of ACHPER's long involvement in the development of the project and its experience in the promotion of physical education in the schools. (4) ACHPER is the only Australian professional organisation for physical educators, health educators, recreation personnel, dance and fitness leaders. It is an incorporated body whose national office is located in Adelaide. ACHPER has a small staff of professional and clerical officers and a membership of more than 2,000 professionals who bring to the project the benefits of extensive liaison networks with the schools (where the survey is to be conducted), educational and tertiary institutions and other specialised professional groups. For the purpose of the survey ACHPER has established a national survey office in Canberra. ACHPER has demonstrated on many occasions its capacity to undertake significant projects in this area, for example the Daily Physical Exercise program for children which is now in use throughout Australia and in many overseas countries, and the Jump Rope for Heart program currently conducted at a national level in conjunction with the National Heart Foundation. (5) In its submission to me ACHPER identified a total of $300,000 required to finance the tests which are to be conducted over a six month period throughout Australia by a number of specially employed personnel, will comprise laboratory, technical and field tests and will involve the use of special equipment. As the results of the survey will have major impact on that area of my portfolio concerned with the development of policies on physical fitness, I considered it appropriate to provide that level of assistance in the knowledge that the balance of funds required would be found from other sources. (6) The survey which is to be conducted nationwide has as its target schoolchildren between the ages of seven and fifteen years. The survey will be conducted in an equal number of primary and high schools (108 in all) across the States and Territories which were selected from a sample provided by the Australian Council for Educational Research and will involve a total of 9,000 children (20 randomly selected from each age in each school). The survey, including planning and the preparation of the report, will be carried out from March 1985 to March 1986, with the testing in schools being conducted between May and October 1985. (7) The conduct of the survey will involve the employment by ACHPER of various categories of personnel: one full-time project co-ordinator to be employed over a period of twelve months 77 persons (selected from unemployed and relief teachers and physical education graduates who will be trained in appropriate data collection techniques) to be employed full time over periods from 3 weeks to 3 months to collect data in the schools 1 full-time nurse to be employed over a period of 9 months 1 part-time typist 5 to 6 part-time data coders. ACHPER will provide two specialised consultants and a Project Director and will assume all usual employer responsibilities. The Project Co-ordinator, who has responsibility for scientific and technical supervision of the project, has considerable experience in the gathering and analysis of physiological data. (8) It is now over ten years since the publication of the results of the last major national survey of schoolchildren's fitness. It is important to identify changes in levels of fitness which may have taken place given the relatively slow development of organised physical education as a core component of school curricula, especially at the primary school level, during that time. Surveys that have been conducted in the interim, while of indicative value, have been restricted in scope, regional nature, range of parameters tested and the extent to which those surveys can be generalised to other groups. The conduct of a national survey using comprehensive testing methods such as is proposed by ACHPER will provide substantial information about the condition of schoolchildren's health, fitness and physical performance. This data will be the basis for the consideration and development by Governments and professional organisations of appropriate programs and strategies to promote and maintain levels of health and physical fitness. The survey to be conducted by ACHPER will be more comprehensive in its population base than the Willee survey which was confined to secondary schools and will also use a broader set of testing methods. (9) and (10) The introduction of a National Fitness Award Scheme is an ACHPER initiative. I strongly support it in principle. The aim of such an Award Scheme is to offer incentives in the form of awards to increase levels of health and fitness. (11) Incentives are currently provided to children and the community through the Department's general fitness programs including the staging of the First World Week of Physical Fitness and Sport for all events and activities in the first week of October 1985. (12) No. (13) National fitness award schemes in operation in the USA since 1966 and Canada since 1970 have proven to be highly successful. Both schemes operate under a supervised award system conducted in conjunction with the schools. The success of those programs can be indicated by the participation rates they have achieved, with as many as 2,000,000 in the USA scheme and nearly one third of all Canadian children involved. (Question No. 137) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) What funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund have been directed to the Glengallan Shire in Queensland since the scheme began. (2) What projects have the funds been allocated to and what were the amounts. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An estimated $2.5 billion will be made available for roads over the life of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, of which an estimated $59,535,450 will be provided for local roads in Queensland. Of that amount, 52.7 per cent will be directed to local authorities for roads under their control. Glengallan Shire's total indicative entitlement under the Bicentennial Road Program is $156,000. The amount directed to Glengallan Shire to date is $10,000. (2) ABRD projects approved and the allocation for Glengallan Shire: ABRD Location/Road Job Description Allocation $ Anderson's Crossing Road at 1.1 km Construct concrete invert and gravel approaches 13,300 Longs Bridge Road Condamine River Crossing at 1.7 km Construct bridge and approaches 52,300 Coopers Gully Road at 8 km Reconstruct bridge 19,800 South Branch Road 5 km from Maryvale Reconstruct bridge 25,500 Upper Freestone Road at 1.6 km Widen and reconstruct for 1 km 13,900 Pine Street, Killarney Reconstruct street 31,200 Total ABRD Allocation 156,000 (Question No. 159) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Is it a fact that the policy of the Australian Government Publishing Service provides for a free issue of departmental handbooks to members of parliament but not the loose leaf binder that goes with them; if so, why? Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: AGPS does not provide free issues of copies of departmental handbooks to members of parliament. In most cases, these publications are produced in-house and distributed by individual departments. In cases where AGPS publishes such handbooks or manuals and they are provided for sale to the public, members of parliament may obtain up to two copies by provision of identification to AGPS bookshops. These copies are paid for by the Parliament. Where AGPS produces or arranges provision of binders with loose leaf publications, binders are provided with copies of these publications. In some instances, purchasers have the option of buying such publications with or without a binder. On occasions, client departments do not request provision of binders with loose leaf publications. In these cases, the publications are available only in the form ordered by clients. Similarly reprints or revised editions are often provided without a binder as users still have binders provided with the original edition. Production of special binders in these cases is uneconomic in that there is very little demand and, if produced as an integral part of the publication, impose an unattractive loading to the sale price. Consideration has been given to the sale of a range of plain modestly priced ring binders through AGPS bookshops. However, this would be a duplication of services already widely available through commercial stationers.