GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Thursday, 23 May 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Precedence Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That Government Business shall take precedence over General Business for this sitting. Mr Hodgman —Shame! Mr YOUNG —Before the honourable member called out 'shame', he should have referred to the Notice Paper. If he had, he might have noticed that it is a Government member who has the business of the day for discussion and he is giving way so that further time can be allocated to the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. It is the next motion on the business sheet which concerns me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.02) —The Opposition does not oppose this motion, although it regrets that there are so few opportunities in the Parliament for consideration of those many notices of motion which honourable members on both sides of the House have submitted for consideration. Obviously there are problems in trying to complete a program. We are most concerned at the advice given to us that we will have a reduction in the time available for consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill. As the price for that is some elimination of the opportunities for consideration of private members' business, we will not oppose the motion. However, I do point out to members of the House that if they care to look at the Notice Paper they will see that, in spite of the fact that F notices are now given in writing instead of orally, there are still adequate notices for consideration up to General Business Thursday No. 22, which would mean that we would need to have many more sitting days than this Government is presently permitting for them to be considered. That is without taking into account the other notices of motion which are listed without reference to a particular day of sitting. They commence on page 1825 of today's Notice Paper. There are something like 80 notices. So we have items listed for debate on 22 sitting Thursdays and there are 80 notices of motion, most of which are unlikely to be debated by this House. Presumably even supporters of the Government put them on the Notice Paper because they believe them to be worthy of consideration. Therefore, I think it is a great pity that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has seen fit to eliminate the item listed for debate on General Business Thursday No. 2. It is not a practice that I would recommend. I believe the Government needs to take note of the fact that there are honourable members on both sides of the House who believe that items other than Government Business should be debated and considered. Indeed, the item that was to have been debated today concerns the degree to which sporting contacts with South Africa can be pursued. We need to understand that sport is a matter of great concern to Australians. We on this side of the House abhor the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has personally denigrated a number of cricketers who, as professionals, seek to pursue their careers. Irrespective of our abhorrence of apartheid, we are concerned at the attitudes of the Government and particularly the Prime Minister's personal denigration in this area. General Business Thursday No. 2 would have provided an opportunity to canvass these issues. We do not believe it proper that this course should be pursued. However, in the circumstances of the Government's introduction of the guillotine, we have no alternative but to accept the motion. It is in that light, and that light only, that the Opposition does not oppose the measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Suspension of Standing Orders Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.05) —I move: That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985; Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985; Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985; Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985; Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985; Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985; Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985; Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985; Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1985. Suspension of Standing Orders Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.06) —Mr Speaker, the House should know that we are now considering a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. This is about the first occasion on which Government members have seen fit to arrive in the House at 10 o'clock on a sitting day. The normal practice is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers scurry away to cover for fear that they might be properly examined in this place at the opening of the day's proceedings. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) in that they, almost uniquely amongst the Government Ministers, are here so early in the day. I know that for many it is hard to get up at this hour of the day. However, I welcome Government Ministers to this place and assure them that at this time every sitting day a large number of my colleagues on this side of the House are fit and ready for duty. I welcome the Ministers' appearance in this chamber. They are here simply because it is necessary to have an absolute majority for the passing of the motion. Having disposed of the cheerio call, I get down to what is really a very serious matter-that is, the Government's intention to hasten the rising of the Parliament by ensuring that there will be a suspension of Standing Orders to pass a guillotine motion to cover all those Bills just listed by the Leader of the House-nine in number and all of which are particularly consequential. I add that were the day to be devoted to a debate on the first Bill, the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill, I doubt that there would be sufficient time. Rarely have we had a guillotine measure that embraces such an array of disparate Bills. It includes a conciliation and arbitration measure that goes to the very heart of industrial law in this country, that goes to the heart of our federal system and that seeks to destroy the ability of an independent sovereign State to pursue whatever course it might pursue in respect of industrial arbitration. It stretches to prejudice freight adjustment arrangements that customarily have existed with our colleagues in the State of Tasmania. It includes the fertiliser subsidy legislation, ranges across amendments to the Australian Federal Police legislation, and covers matters affecting broadcasting and television, communication and the Commonwealth Bank. We need to understand that all those measures are being embraced in a guillotine motion which the suspension of Standing Orders covers. It is designed really to ensure that the Parliament gets up as soon as possible. Let us understand two things: We are suspending Standing Orders so the Government can reduce debate on these measures. Secondly, we are suspending Standing Orders so the Government can wrap up the sittings of the House. Apart from any normal concern about an early rising of the Parliament, there are two matters which I think we need to consider. The first is that the Government will, in the course of the winter recess, invite a number of outside, non-elected members of the community to come into this place to debate matters properly the concern of this Parliament. Whatever election policy promise the Government may have given, I seriously question the propriety of parliamentary deliberations being terminated in this place so that others can sit in it for that purpose. If the Government wishes to have a tax summit I do not believe it is appropriate that it be held in the Parliament. It should be something that the Government does in the normal course of consultation. I hope to goodness that all those who attend the tax summit are given a lot more knowledge than we have of the Government's intentions-for example, preferred positions in the White Paper on tax. If those who attend are given even the same deal as members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions I will be greatly surprised. I can assure all those who are listening to Parliament this morning that nobody in this place has any idea of the Government's preferred position on tax. Nobody in this place has anywhere near the same knowledge, except perhaps those few who are on an odd Caucus committee, of the details of the Government's preferred options as has been given to the ACTU. They are matters which properly should be debated in the Parliament. They are not being debated in the Parliament. The guillotine will be applied to ensure that the House rises. Everybody in Australia needs to know that the Government, understandably, does not want anybody to know about these matters. The second matter concerns an array of areas in which the Government has not taken action and which honourable members should be allowed an opportunity to debate. I read in this morning's Age of the inactivity of the Government on crime. We all know that we had a very brief debate on the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, but we do not know what the Government will do about the Costigan recommendations. We know that the Government uses a great deal of rhetoric about its concern for organised crime but, equally, we know that it is doing absolutely nil to ensure that the big criminals in our society are brought to justice. That is one issue that should be debated in the House, but cannot be debated simply because of the guillotine being applied and the House rising. There is a whole array of other areas where there is genuine suspicion and apprehension about the Government's intentions. I am delighted to see the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in the House. Earlier this week outside the House-not in the Parliament-he decided to announce that the second largest defence procurement order would be put in train by the selection of two preferred tenderers for the construction of the Oberon submarine replacement. Quite properly, everyone on this side wonders just what he is up to. We know that the two countries which are the backers of the two preferred tenderers are not in the front generation of submarine technology. We understand that the Americans, who happen to be in the forefront of submarine technology in the Western world, have rejected the noise profile of one of those preferred tenderers. With respect to the other company, we know that there seems to be a reluctance to provide information about the combat systems that need to be integrated within the submarines. We are very apprehensive that there was something funny in the state of the Department of Defence in securing these two preferred tenderers. We are concerned that the Minister should in this Parliament open to debate the whole issue of the submarine selection process. The guillotine, to which the suspension of Standing Orders is directed, will ensure that the House does not sit long enough for the Minister to be able to answer any questions on it. Of course he is great on bluff and bravado, and I admire his parliamentary performances, but unfortunately his deeds do not altogether conform with his words. We are most apprehensive that the two preferred tenderers will be allowed to slip through $2.6 billion of taxpayers' funds, which will be used for the purpose of trying to buy one or other of those submarines, without the people of Australia knowing anything about whether or not they have been selected on a proper basis. It would be appropriate that the Parliament sit longer to consider measures of that ilk. I refer to the assets test. I know that several of my colleagues on this side of the House have been worried about the inequities that apply. Yesterday the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) told us in this place that the Government might correct some of the gross inequities in the assets test. The Parliament should hear from the Minister before we adjourn for the winter recess on just what is to be done about amendments to the assets test. Indeed, the whole thing should be abolished. There is no reason why the Parliament should not sit longer so that we can consider amendments to the assets test and work out where we will go. The whole performance of this Government is such that, with its factions, its divisions and its lack of leadership, I can well understand why there is reason for the Parliament to rise as soon as possible. As we are not able to do something about that situation, I frankly think that the Parliament should be able to consider all these matters. My colleague has just reminded me about the statement yesterday on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Hope report. There is a problem in debating the ASIO matter. Frankly, there is no need for the use of the guillotine to cover these measures. There is no need for the suspension of Standing Orders for this purpose. It would be far better if we spent the day debating the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill, the consequential constitutional implications and the problems of the maintenance of the separate Federal system which entails responsibility to each of the States. Frankly, this legislation should not be debated in a hurry. We should be permitted to give adequate and determined deliberation to it. I do not believe that the suspension of Standing Orders is justified. I am quite sure that the use of a guillotine on such a wide package of Bills is unjustified. I commend to all honourable members, even those in the Government, the suggestion that they might see fit to vote against the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders so that their point of view can be properly heard by the people of Australia. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R.

NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.

PAIRS Hayden, W. G. Smith, W.Dawkins, J. S. Everingham, P. A. E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985, Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985, Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985, Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985, Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985, Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985, Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 and Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1985. Question put: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 ——

PAIRS Hayden, W. G. Smith, W.Dawkins, J. S. Everingham, P. A. E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.24) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 1.50 p.m. this day. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 4.15 p.m. this day. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 4.45 p.m. this day. Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 5.15 p.m. this day. Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 5.45 p.m. this day. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 6.15 p.m. this day. Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 8.15 p.m. this day. Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 8.45 p.m. this day. Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 9.15 p.m. this day. It was not my intention to take up the time of the House by commenting on the motion. Nevertheless, I have been provoked by the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), into saying a few words. Of course, the right honourable member drew attention to some matters which I think require rebuttal. He says that not enough time is being allocated to a major Bill-the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985. We intend to give the House 3 hours 50 minutes to debate this Bill that affects the State of Queensland which is about seven times as long as the Queensland Government gave the Queensland Parliament to discuss all the State legislation connected with the strike up there. The Manager of Opposition Business says that in a few weeks time we are going to have a lot of strangers in this place at the tax summit and what a terrible thing that is. We invited the Opposition to come to the summit but Opposition members will not come. They will not come because there is no agreement between the dries on the one hand and the rain forest on the other. They cannot get together to decide their views on taxation. Nowhere in the Western world is an Opposition so dumb on taxation as it is here in Australia. The right honourable member attacked the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). He is the best Minister for Defence that we have had for decades. He has made decisions on submarines, helicopters and aircraft carriers. When the Opposition was in government it could not make a decision on anything. The Opposition is like Billy McMahon who, when asked what decisions had been made, went to his drawer and said: 'Look at this; we have made all these decisions', but decision 1,312 was to not make a decision on decision 1,311. That is what the Opposition is like today. No one knows where it stands on anything. Mr Nehl —We know where we stand on the assets test. Mr YOUNG —If the honourable member does not go on a diet and ease up he will not be here much longer. The Manager of Opposition Business says that we ought to be here discussing crime because the Melbourne Age has taken up the cudgels to fight crime. However, I ask the right honourable member to look at the comments of the Hon. Max Bingham, one of the members of the National Crime Authority and a former Liberal Attorney-General in the Liberal Government of Tasmania. In a speech to law students in Launceston the day before yesterday, he said that the National Crime Authority is a unique first in the Western world in fighting crime. This is something that has been done by this Government, not the Opposition. The Authority is very happy with the way things have been set up. The Manager of Opposition Business again attacked us over the assets test because it appears that whenever the conservatives get back into power it is going to be a case of big pensions for everybody in Australia. There is going to be no limit to the taxation burden that honourable members opposite are going to put on wage and salary earners. More and more tax is going to be paid by those in the work force because the next Liberal-National Party Government in Australia is going to be open-ended-there will be no restrictions at all on veterans' pensions, repatriation pensions and old age pensions. The wets-the rain forest group-have got their way in the coalition and this is what they are going to do. That is one of the reasons we are going to restrict the debate today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Tangney, I point out that, although these occasions are usually restive ones in the House, I ask honourable members not to carry their behaviour beyond the limits and not to expect to get away with it for the rest of the day. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.35) —This guillotine and allotment of time are a confirmation of the crass and gross incompetence of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) in organising the business of government. We are led by a Government, a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a Ministry who cannot make decisions on a vast range of important matters for the Australian people. The Leader of the House can look supercilious, but it is a fact. This House has been sitting since February, and for the last two or three weeks we have sat later and later at night, until even the Prime Minister wakes up in the morning looking as though he has been on the sauce bottle all night, with his eyes hanging out of his face. On this the last day of sitting nine Bills have been considered urgent. What do the people of Tasmania get on their legislation? Half an hour, a measly 30 minutes for us to discuss the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill. What do the rural people of Australia get on the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill? Again, a measly 30 minutes. Then there is the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill-and what could be more important than legislation on the Australian Federal Police? Again, members are getting half an hour to discuss that legislation. The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill has also been given only half an hour, as has the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. It is an absolute disgrace. Then I come to the major Bill, the Bill on which we should be spending all day because it is so important, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill. The Bill strikes at the Queensland Government's resolution of the power dispute in that State. It is a legislative assault on the people of Queensland. For weeks and weeks honourable members have come into this Parliament and called on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Prime Minister, on anybody who would volunteer for the job in this Government, to get on the telephone to call off the Australian Council of Trade Unions. But we have had nothing-absolute inaction and incompetence. Now, on the last day in this place, we are expected to debate a piece of legislation that strikes at the Queensland Government's responsibility to be able to govern industrial relations in its State. That Bill-we will come to this in the substantive debate-strikes at the Queensland Government, at contractors in that State, at the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and at the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There are many members in this place who wish to speak on the Bill, many of whom represent Queensland. We need a full and comprehensive debate on that piece of legislation and a full and comprehensive Committee consideration of the Bill. The Opposition violently opposes this allotment of time. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. L. J. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R.

NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C.

PAIRS Hayden, W. G. Smith, W.Dawkins, J. S. Everingham, P. A. E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION (ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY) BILL 1985 Second Reading Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.45) —The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill is an absolute disgrace and an outrage, but at least it confirms one central feature-the core element of this Government. This Bill is the final proof, the absolute proof, as if any were needed, of this Government's total subservience and subjection to the present leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and militant sections of the trade union movement. The coalition has alleged this time and again, but now the status of this Government's so-called special relationship has been stripped naked for all to see. Australia has, at its head, a Prime Minister, a Cabinet and a Government which are beholden to the ACTU, bound by the strictures of the accord and prepared, as this Bill demonstrates, to use the full force of legislative thuggery further to achieve and advance ACTU aims. Honourable members are being asked today to support a piece of legislation which, if carried, would undermine the attempts of one State government to secure accountability between parties to industrial agreements within its own State boundaries. I urge all honourable members to vote against this shameful and sullied Bill. We in the coalition will be voting against it in this and the other place. We will fight it down to the very last clause. The Bill relies on an interpretation of one section of our Constitution that would make our founding fathers turn in their graves. Let me remind the House that section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution empowers the Commonwealth to conciliate and arbitrate for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of one State. This Bill relies on this section of the Constitution and it is a reflection of the degeneration and decay into which our industrial relations system has sunk. Section 51 (xxxv) has been so liberally interpreted that anything can be transformed into an interstate dispute, bringing whatever brawl is occurring into the Federal arena, especially if the trade union movement sees advantage in doing so. This is an absolute perversion of this section of the Constitution. It enables the Electrical Trades Union in Queensland to create a paper dispute so it can get the Commonwealth Commission to fish it out of an industrial arena where its members have been made to live up to their responsibilities. This is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. For weeks the Hawke Government has been right there at the barricades with the unions. I do not know how the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) did not choke on his words last Tuesday when he said: From the outset, the Government expressed its strong opposition to this industrial campaign . . . As we know, this is simply not so. The coalition was here day after day getting this Minister on his feet, trying to get him to condemn the outrageous Queensland blockade and the ACTU's hit list. Time and again he refused. The coalition was here day after day urging the Minister to get on the phone to Simon Crean and Bill Kelty and ask them to call off the campaign and he refused. One could search the records, scouring the Minister's public utterances on these scandalous events forever, and still not find a condemnation of them. There was none from the Minister. In his silence, he and the Government, despite what they might say now, tacitly supported the ACTU claim and blockade. How hollow is it for the Government to now proclaim that it is acting to restore sanity to industrial relations in Queensland in a way that will supposedly help achieve the principal objective of a guaranteed stable supply of electricity to Queensland? What absolute rank hypocrisy. The Government rushed on to the scene a full two months late, and then with the wrong measures-measures designed to strengthen the hand of the union involved, the ETU, instead of measures to protect innocent Queenslanders who have suffered by industrial action by the ACTU, the ETU, the Transport Workers Union of Australia and all their mates besides. Instead of coming up with timely action to support a government that sought to protect and succeeded in protecting its citizens from the ravages of unprincipled and irresponsible trade unions, this Government seeks to reward the perpetrators of the injustice with Federal registration. How can we ever hope to restore accountability in Australia's industrial relations system? How can we ever hope to get to the point where parties to industrial agreements can expect other parties to do the right thing and keep their word when the Hawke Government consistently rewards unions for doing the wrong thing? This Bill exemplifies the Hawke Government's approach to industrial relations. Indeed, it characterises the philosophy of the Government in general. This is a government of, by and for the trade union movement. This Bill might as well have been drafted by the ACTU. In effect it has. If the ACTU did not actually do the drafting itself, it could still relax knowing that it had in its pocket a government which would do the job the way it wanted. As the Australian newspaper reported on 16 May, Ian Court of the ACTU had checked the Bill a week before the Parliament was even given the opportunity to see it for the first time. The ACTU had this Bill one week before even the elected representatives of the Australian people could see it for the first time. This is not government; this is not democracy in action. This is corporatism of the worst kind, with the Government cuddling up to one powerful interest group, doing its bidding, and excluding the people who elected them from consideration. As for the people's representatives, this Government now expects us to behave like some collective rubber stamp bound by a guillotine and an allotment of time and okay its rushed and unreasonable Bill as if we should be grateful to it for bringing it into the House at all. The Government can forget it. We are going to resist this Bill. We are going to fight every clause. We are going to resist it because the Government is wrong about Queensland and because it is wrong in its approach to industrial relations. We are going to resist it because of the contempt this Government is showing for this Parliament and for its members, as well as those of the States, and because of the contempt it is showing for all Australians who fervently desire a return to accountability within our industrial relations systems. The Australian people expect the Hawke Government further to curb excesses of union power. The Hawke Government is failing on this issue. There are two points in the Minister's second reading speech with which the Opposition agrees. Firstly, the original dispute developed from a long-standing disagreement between power unions and the South East Queensland Electricity Board over the use of contract labour by that authority. Secondly, in late 1984 bans were placed by the ETU on work performed by contractors. But here the Minister departs from the facts. What the Minister did not go on to say was that the dispute arose over whether the SEQEB management had the right to organise its work force and work programs in such a way as to provide the utmost efficiency in the supply of electricity with consequent savings in costs to Queensland consumers. What the Minister did not go on to say was that no job was threatened. Simply, the ETU, in its quest for undemocratic and monopoly control, sought to contest its employer's right to hire contract workers. What followed over a three-month period saw the ETU reject six recommendations and three orders of the Queensland Industrial Commission. ETU leaders urged their workers to defy the Industrial Commission rulings and used their tactics of industrial blackmail to pull the plug on electricity generation, not caring one iota about the consequences for Queensland or Queenslanders. As a result of prolonged power blackouts, hundreds of people were thrown out of work; thousands of small businesses were forced closer to the wall and thousands of Queenslanders suffered physically, mentally and financially. This was all caused by a union hell bent on illegal industrial action. The Minister seeks to lay the blame for all this at the feet of the Queensland Government, when in fact the reverse was, is and continues to be the case. The Queensland Government solved this industrial anarchy and restored power to its citizens. Responsible SEQEB workers resumed their jobs. It is not widely known that one-third of them did not even strike in the first place. Sacked SEQEB workers had ample opportunity to reapply for jobs, and many did so. There is now no dispute. The matter is finished. The matter is settled. Workers who want to work are back at their jobs, and new workers have been taken on. Queenslanders are assured of an essential service safeguarded by a government which was prepared to take action and is prepared to continue to safeguard that service. What followed that resolution was, of course, the infamous blockade of Queensland by the ACTU. This blockade was no ordinary bit of industrial ratbaggery. It was an exceptionally insidious abrogation of the rights and freedoms of 2 1/2 million fellow Australians. The ACTU took it upon itself to seal off one State from the rest of the nation; to cut off one Australian from another. The Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union decided that Queenslanders were not entitled to their mail and placed bans on its handling. Planes, ships and trucks came to a halt. This occurred because the ACTU and a couple of its more industrial gun-happy unions decided to give Queensland and Queenslanders a bit of a kicking. They did it because they were outraged at the ETU being put in its place by a government which refused to be stood over. They did it because they cannot take a bit of their own medicine. The ACTU in its childish and vindictive outrage drew up a hit list of companies singled out for special persecution. This was done in the most criminally arbitrary manner possible. None of these companies had any involvement in the original dispute. None of them had anything to do with SEQEB or its linesmen. All of them were being punished doubly merely for operating in Queensland. They were punished through the original extensive blackouts, which so disrupted production in industry in that State, and they were punished for being innocent bystanders within striking distance of the unions which were simply blind with rage. Of course, the unions became further enraged when the Queensland Government called the bluff of the ACTU and its cohorts when it upped the ante with the blockade. What more could these renegade unionists do? What had they not done? What punitive measure could they now apply, which they had not applied already, to shift the Queensland Government? Here was the turning point of the campaign. This was the crunch. The bottom line that the ACTU was so clearly facing was the inability of union militants successfully to lean on an elected government. The prime union weapon in Australia since the turn of the century, upping the ante, escalating the dispute until it got its own way, had failed. It had failed miserably. The unions' only respectable alternative was a general strike. Honourable members would do well to study the lessons of labour history. The Minister claims to have done so. In fact, he himself raises the spectre of the 1890s. He said in his speech on Tuesday night: Adoption of the Opposition approach would certainly ensure a major nationwide industrial confrontation, greater than anything seen in this country since the 1890s. This Government is not about to embark on such a potentially dangerous course of action. Honourable members should note that this Minister's actions have every potential to spark the very war he says he is trying to prevent. Conversely, the coalition's approach is based precisely on the wisdom to be drawn from that tragic period. If the coalition has a single message for the ACTU and militant elements within the trade union movement it is that reasonable and responsible behaviour will bring the rewards of respect and certainty about the place of those unions in Australian society. The Hawke Government is trying to cushion the union movement from this lesson. I sincerely regret that the Minister and the Government are choosing to do this. They will needlessly draw out the process of re-establishing accountability into a long and agonising process, when one short sharp reminder such as that given by the Queensland Government to its linesmen would do. It would be a tragedy if the Hawke Government bequeathed the battles of 1890s on the work force as a result of its protection of the trade union movement from reality now. The Minister is doing the union movement and workers throughout Australia a disservice by pretending that such adjustments to the employer-union power relationship never occur and that power accrues in only one place-in the lap of the unions. Adjustments do occur and the system is healthier for it. As the Hawke Government pales at the thought of re-establishing accountability in our industrial relations system I assure all Australians that the coalition when next elected to government will not baulk at that task. Should the union movement make it necessary to do so-on present indications it appears it will-we will not hesitate to do our duty on behalf of all Australians to re-establish accountability. When we have done so we will look forward to governing in a period of newly secure, positive and co-operative employer-employee relations and to preside over an economy enjoying substantial employment growth as a result. The Government is deluding the trade union movement in another important respect which strikes at the fraudulent nature of this Bill. In a fraudulent manner the Minister touted this Bill to the unions when it was mooted a few weeks ago as the saviour of the former SEQEB linesmen, who are now by choice unemployed. Those waiting in expectation, those who have run down their savings, those who are considering selling their houses should be aware of the fraudulent nature of this legislation which the Minister holds up as being their saviour. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not-I repeat, does not-possess reinstatement powers. It did not possess such powers when the Minister foreshadowed the Bill. It does not now have such power and nor should it have such power in the future. Yet this Minister cast himself as the star of the drama when he announced his great new initiative last week. The bald truth is that this Bill cannot give the few remaining unemployed linesmen their jobs back and the Minister therefore cannot fulfil his implied promise to the trade union movement. It really makes this coalition wonder about the true intent of this Bill and what it is all about. It is a gross intrusion on the right of one State to secure adherence to its own constitutionally sound public policy prescriptions in the industrial relations sphere. The essence of the matter is exceedingly clear: This Bill was conceived by the Government in order to find a face-saving escape route for the ACTU which was running a campaign with embarrassingly little grassroot support. After all, the blockade was mounted by the ACTU, with help from the Transport Workers Union of Australia in the southern States and a couple of maritime unions to boot. The ACTU was responsible for the mail holdups but, apart from that, unions willing to join in the campaign were very thin on the ground indeed. As I have pointed out a number of times in this House, there was no mass outrage in Queensland about the Government's handling and settlement of this dispute. Consumers there were simply grateful that their ordinary routines and conveniences and the essential power services had been restored. Further, there was no mass outrage amongst the Queensland trade union movement. Truly mass-based representative industrial action never had a chance to get off the ground in Queensland because the average worker in that State and around the country supports the resolution of conflict, and in Queensland the ETU conflict has been resolved. This Bill is wrong fundamentally and it is wrong on several specific counts. I will turn briefly to some of them. I hope that the allotment of time will allow a more expanded Committee consideration of the Bill. Clause 4 is an especially pernicious clause of the Bill. A paragraph in clause 4 seeks to include in the reference of the Bill persons other than employees. Specifically, it seeks to include in the reference of the Bill contractors and their employees. SEQEB in its efforts to be more efficient, effective and productive, has made good use of contractors. We all know-my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) knows-that the contract system of labour underpins productive industry throughout the Australian economy. It underpins the housing sector and it can underpin the power generation sector. This Bill strikes at that most clearly and damagingly. Clause 4 is outrageous. Mr Willis —How? Mr SHACK —The Minister has the gall to interrupt in this debate. I sat for half an hour and listened to absolute tripe from him. Mr Willis —And everyone else was screaming and yelling. You have had absolute silence. Mr SHACK —The Minister has been totally discredited in his handling of industrial relations in this country, and the great tragedy is that it comes from his mouth. This Bill is an absolute demonstration of the fact that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and this Government are under the thumb of the ACTU. If we ever wanted more proof of the abject submission, the abject grovelling, of this Government before the ACTU, this Bill provides it. We all know the Minister's background. We all know about the time he spent in the ACTU. There is nothing wrong with that of itself, but when a person becomes a member of this place and when he accepts high ministerial office, the Australian people expect something more. They expect more than an apologist for the ACTU. They expect someone to have the national interest at heart. They expect someone to understand the constitutional relationships within this country. They expect someone to understand about accountability within the Australian industrial relations system. I listened in silence to the Minister's speech and I expect him to do the same in mine. Clause 4 of the Bill also specifically outlines its reference to Queensland. This is a discriminatory Bill. It purports to have an authority for the entire electricity generation industry in Australia, but when one looks at the specific clauses one sees that they have been drafted and designed for one reason and one reason only, and that is to get stuck into Queensland and Queenslanders, and they should understand that. Clause 5 is an example of the crass hypocrisy of this Government. Supposedly it is the champion of the centralised conciliation and arbitration system. Adherence to the conciliation and arbitration process is enshrined in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Yet this Bill, and in particular clause 8, removes the discretion powers from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of determining that a dispute would be better handled at a State level, or in respect of determining that it should not be handled at all because of the public interest. Clause 6 is an absolute furphy. This Bill is supposedly predicated on a decision made in finding an interstate dispute. On 18 April that finding was brought down. Yet counsel for Queensland will appear in the High Court of Australia this afternoon and it is quite likely that that interpretation will be thrown out on its ear, where it belongs. The entire linchpin for this Bill will disappear. Clause 9 is another example of the Government's slavish determination to carry out the wishes of the ACTU. This dispute must be referred to a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, from which there is no appeal. That would preclude any right of a hearing before a single commissioner or an appeal from an award. As I have foreshadowed, I hope that we will have a chance-if this Government does not squeeze off the time in respect of the debating of this Bill-to be able to get stuck into the Bill at the Committee stage. Mr John Brown —How much time did Joh give it in the Queensland Parliament? A quarter of an hour. Mr SHACK —I will tell the Minister how much time is necessary. Let me repeat the essence of this miserable Bill. Mr John Brown —Irony. Mr SHACK —The Minister is back in the country, is he? It is nice to see him. It is the document of a Government which is too weak to govern in its own right, a Government grossly susceptible to union influence. It is the document of a Government which does the bidding of the ACTU power brokers, who are sitting in Melbourne with great enthusiasm and glee. This Bill is the final confirmation of that regrettable fact. No longer will the coalition have to assert this relationship. We now have incontrovertible proof that will become more and more widely known throughout the Australian community. The ACTU is battered after what happened in Queensland. It met its match up there and it will not forget the experience for a long time. But is it not nice to have some friends in Canberra who will try to turn a loss into a quasi-victory? That is the instrument that this Bill is all about. The Government got the ACTU out of a tight spot last week, but its bail-out and this Bill are public relations exercises only. How cynical of this Government to hang it on the peg of the unemployed linesmen's livelihoods when it has not got even one shred of hope of securing their re-employment. That is the absolute tragedy of the outrageous nature of this Bill, not only constitutionally, not only in relations between one government and another, not only in relations between the Government and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but also in the relationship between governments and ordinary people. The Government is holding out a promise that it cannot deliver, and that is shameful. Why is this Government wasting time trying to push through corrupt Bills such as this when it has urgent matters to attend to-unemployment, wages policy, and enhancing rather than undermining accountability between parties to industrial agreements? This Bill is unsound from a number of standpoints and, as I have indicated, the Opposition will move extensive amendments. The Bill is constitutionally doubtful, resting as it does on an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of what is an interstate dispute. It is morally moribund as well, being based on the illusory, implied promise of reinstatement. This Minister and the Government have been totally compromised by their inability to play a straight bat in respect of public interest. The Bill appears before this House because the Government has done a deal with the ACTU and for no other reason. We will have limited time to consider the Bill because the Government has done a deal with the ACTU. In return for the ACTU abandoning conduct which the Queensland Government has asserted in court proceedings to be both unlawful and criminal, the Federal Government will give substantial advantages to the electricity industry unions in proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it will change the very ground rules during the course of litigation. This sets an alarming precedent. The Government has shown itself to be subservient to the ACTU. We have been pointing week after week to the failure to condemn the ACTU blockade, the failure to discount wage indexation for the price effects of devaluation and the failure to determine a taxation policy, all because of the subservience of this Government to the trade union movement and all because of the ACTU dominance over the entire range of Government decision-making and Government policy. That has been confirmed today by this Bill. It represents for the entire Australian people proof of this subservient relationship. We oppose the Bill and we will oppose it clause by clause. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.15) —I would be the first to acknowledge that an opposition has a very critical role to play in relation to any legislation. I acknowledge that its task is to assess critically any proposal brought before a House such as this. I acknowledge too that an opposition must keep a government on its mettle. I believe it is regrettable that today we have seen and heard the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) present what I say is only a very minor part of the story. He has presented it in a very biased and unsubstantiated way. He hung many of his claims on an alleged statement by the Government that the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill will be the panacea to solve all the problems for the sacked workers in Queensland. Nowhere and at no time has any spokesperson for this Government ever made such a claim. In fact the opposite is true. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) have gone to great lengths and to pains to make it very clear that this legislation, and in fact any legislation the Federal Government might forward, would not reinstate those men. Yet today the spokesman for the Opposition has made such unsubstantiated and false claims. It is also necessary to bring some truth and honesty into the debate from the outset. It ought to be known across this nation that this dispute was almost solved. The State Government and its representatives had agreed to meet and negotiate. In fact, the message was passed very clearly to the trade unions that, if their members were prepared to resume work and restore power, the negotiations would begin. At the moment the power was put back on Bjelke-Petersen's regime said no. It left those hundreds and hundreds of workers and their families out in the wilderness industrially. It promised to negotiate and it lied. Now we have men, women and families suffering because they dared to support a campaign that was trying to save their jobs which were under threat because of the Queensland Government's policy to replace full time paid employees in the public sector with contractors. One ought to come right back to what this Bill is all about. The principal objective of this Bill is to endeavour to facilitate a resolution of the Queensland electricity industry dispute. That objective is to be achieved by speeding up the procedures of conciliation and arbitration at the Federal level. Let it be known that there is only one reason for the introduction of this measure in this House. That reason is that a satisfactory resolution has not been able to be arrived at within State jurisdiction. Mr Slipper —You want to rig the rules. Mr WRIGHT —This situation has resulted not because of inadequacy of industrial law in the State, not because of the attitude of the trade unions and not because of the absence of an arbitration system, but simply and solely because of the obstinate, irresponsible attitude of the Queensland National Party Government, of which the interjector is a member. In recent months, Australia has witnessed- Mr Slipper —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for members who bear grudges to express them in the chamber? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —That is no point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Fisher that any further frivolous points of order will be dealt with rather severely. Mr WRIGHT —That shows how childish that honourable member is and his lack of representation in this assembly. In recent months Australia has witnessed in this dispute an unprecedented erosion of the rights of workers and ordinary people. Australians have witnessed the bludgeoning tactics of a State government which has no respect for the democratic processes of parliament. Earlier I heard the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) talk about guillotining legislation. He should be in the State Parliament of Queensland to see how legislation is put through and the Opposition does not even see it. In the Queensland State Parliament, one often does not debate clauses. That is not allowed, as has been the case with so many pieces of legislation. Members of the National Party of Australia in this House have the audacity to criticise this Government because it wants to bring on important legislation. Australians have witnessed the destruction of the very concept of arbitration and conciliation. They have witnessed also the dismantling of Queensland's independent industrial tribunal. They have also witnessed the introduction of new laws which attack the very core of civil rights. These laws attack not just the workers in the Electricity Trades Union of Australia, not just those in the electricity industry alone, but every Australian and every Queenslander. The Queensland Government has introduced new laws which allow people to be arrested on suspicion, to be arrested without warrant and to be prosecuted on hearsay-on the basis of a telephone call. That legislation requires ordinary people to be compelled to perform work for an electricity authority regardless of their age or skill and it requires also that the onus of proof is to be on the defendant and not on the prosecution. In other words, a person has to prove himself to be innocent and he is guilty until he is able to do just that. Those laws allow police to come into a home and arrest the family if it is believed by those police officers that the family is withholding information as to the whereabouts of the electricity worker or the employee. Mrs Darling —A police state. Mr WRIGHT —It is a police state, not because of the policemen, but because of that Government. In Queensland people can be compelled to go to the assistance of police and arrest a striker. I am amazed that particularly the Liberals in this House are prepared to condone and support such measures, such erosions of the basic civil and citizen rights of not just, as I say, electricity workers but every Queenslander. This Bill, in contrast, represents a constructive approach by this Government to assist in breaking the deadlock. It is a measure to try to prevent serious industrial disruption affecting and being harmful to our nation as a whole and not just to Queensland. Time and time again the Federal Government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, has offered its assistance to the State Government to resolve the dispute in a way which would ensure that stable electricity supplies would be guaranteed. But in every instance the Queensland Government has rejected these offers of assistance. Therefore, the Federal Government has to rely on only one aspect of redress. This is its only way of trying to bring this matter to a head. The specific objectives can probably be summed up by saying that this is a fast track measure, for the Bill seeks to speed up the handling of matters in relation to the Queensland electricity dispute. It specifically applies to the ETU dispute which is before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it can be declared to apply to other disputes involved in that industry. The emphasis is on facilitating first awards to enable unions to come within Federal jurisdiction quickly and for the first time. This provision can extend to other disputes in the State electricity industry by proclamation, if required. But this measure is locked into the electricity industry of Queensland. It is not, as the honourable member for Tangney said, that it attacks every other employer and every other incident and issue. Instead it is aimed to try to resolve this particular dispute. The Bill eliminates section 41 (1) (d) which provides for a discretionary power allowing the Full Bench to refrain from handling disputes. But that again relates only to the Queensland electricity industry. It relates only to those elements of the dispute. The Bill is a departure from the normal arrangements and because of that it is deliberately confined to the disputes in the Queensland electricity industry. So that the provisions of this legislation do not go on for ever and ever there is a sunset clause which gives the legislation a life of three years. The nonsense that was spoken earlier by the person who is supposed to be the Opposition spokesman on this very important issue amazes me. This Bill allows flexibility. It allows at least the opportunity for the matter to be brought to negotiation and talked through. I have heard some of the criticisms made of this Bill. The Opposition's spokesman claims that it is an interference with the ordinary operations of conciliation and arbitration. I have heard other claims made in Queensland that it is an interference with State rights. I suggest in turn that the people making these claims want industrial chaos. They want community trauma. They want the protests in the street. They want disruption of industry because it adds to their political gain-at least, as they see it. However, the Bill does not take away any element of the Commission's jurisdiction. It is procedural in character and it is specifically designed to facilitate the resolution of a Federal dispute. This is in complete contrast to the State legislation which made the dispute worse and worse. I reiterate that this approach has been taken only because of the obstinacy of the Queensland Government in refusing to negotiate a settlement of a dispute which has threatened not only Queensland but by a worsening of that dispute, the total national interest. It is difficult to see where there is improper interference with State rights when this legislation will resolve an extremely damaging dispute which the State itself cannot resolve. I have listened to the claims about the Bill being unconstitutional. I suggest that these claims are unfounded. The Bill is really procedural in character and does not seek to rely on any exotic interpretation of the Australian Constitution. The Bill is entirely within the conciliation and arbitration power at a Federal level. It relates to the procedures of the Federal tribunal in resolving disputes. I state again that the Bill is not the panacea. The Bill will not provide directly for the reinstatement of dismissed South East Queensland Electricity Board workers. It cannot because of constitutional reasons. Nonetheless, proceedings before the Commission can certainly address the question of the dismissed workers, particularly in the context of claims by the ETU for preference. If the workers do not go back to work and there are other vacancies, the ETU will be able to claim and demand that its members be given preference for those jobs. I give full credit to this Government as this action has resulted in the lifting of the blockade. I suggest to this House and to the people of Australia that there are many businessmen in Queensland who have said on this occasion 'Thank God for the Hawke Labor Government' because of the money that it saved and the trauma it prevented. This action is in contrast with the approach taken by the Queensland Government, an approach which has been supported-I would suggest in a scurrilous way-by the Liberal-National Party Opposition here. This action is in contrast with the approach of the unprecedented attack by the Queensland Government on accepted and effective processes of arbitration and conciliation in Queensland. I conclude on these final points: Why has it been done? It has been done, as the Premier of Queensland has said, to undermine the Hawke Government. The Premier said it publicly and he has repeated it. Why else is it being done? It is being done to hide the economic mismanagement of Queensland. It is not Labor Party people saying that. If honourable members pick up any independent report on the economy of Queensland they will find that Queensland is in grave trouble. There is a need for common sense. There is a need for people to have a right to believe that essential services shall be provided. As the previous Leader of the Opposition in Queensland I have argued-I have said it publicly and I say it again-that there has to be some type of constraint when it comes to industrial action on essential services. However, if it is a matter of safety, there has to be the basic right to strike. I advocate that the Queensland Government should move away from its extreme position and should negotiate a package-a package that may include, for instance, that a 21-day or 28-day notice be given by the industry in question if an essential service dispute is to arise. They are the types of things that can be negotiated, but only if the parties get to the negotiating table. We cannot allow the existing situation to continue. I support this Government's initiative. The Liberal-National Party's stand must be condemned because it is a strategy of trying to keep and cause industrial chaos in this nation. Mr BURR(Lyons)(11.29) —The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill is not designed to resolve any industrial dispute in Queensland. This Bill has two major objectives, neither of which has anything to do with the industrial dispute which exists in Queensland and which has existed for some time in that State. The objectives of this Bill are quite separate, and distinctly separate, from any of that industrial disputation. At the very heart of the industrial dispute that now exists in Queensland is the reinstatement of 850 sacked power workers. This Bill in no way seeks to have those 850 power workers reinstated. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in his second reading speech: . . . this Bill does not seek to directly provide for reinstatement of the dismissed SEQEB employees. If the resolution of the dispute is not what this Bill is about, this House and people throughout Queensland and throughout Australia have every right to ask what it is all about and what its objectives are. As I said, this Bill has two major objectives. Both of those objectives were determined in a sleazy backroom deal between members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and members of this Federal Government. I will deal with those two objectives separately. The first objective was to seek the support of the ACTU for the Keating tax plan, in particular the introduction of a broadly based indirect tax. As we know, the ACTU strongly opposed the introduction of a broadly based indirect tax. It is significant that as the ACTU-in particular Mr Simon Crean and Bill Kelty-changed ground and gave support to the introduction of the Keating tax plan, so too did the Federal Government change its ground and agreed to pass this legislation to show support for the ACTU blockade in Queensland. That is the first objective. It is not designed to resolve the dispute in Queensland. It is designed to seek the support of the ACTU-in particular, the support of Mr Simon Crean and Mr Bill Kelty-for the plan of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to introduce a broadly based indirect tax. One might then ask what the second objective is. The second objective is to seek the support of this Government for the election of Mr Simon Crean as President of the ACTU. As we well know, the ACTU Congress will be held later this year when the President will be elected. Mr Simon Crean needs to show to the delegates who will be present at that ACTU Congress that he has an influence over this Government. This Bill is designed to seek the support of those delegates for Mr Simon Crean in his bid for the presidency. Those two objectives are what this Bill is all about. This Bill has nothing to do with resolving any dispute in Queensland. This was all worked out in a sleazy backroom deal. It is significant to look at the key participants in that backroom deal. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and Mr Simon Crean are all members of the Labor Unity faction within the Australian Labor Party. That Labor faction is meeting behind closed doors. I suggest to members of the Socialist Left faction and other factions of the Labor Party that perhaps they do not know that these backroom deals are being made. That faction is meeting behind closed doors and making backroom deals designed to protect its own power structure within both the union movement and the Government. That is what this Bill is all about. This Bill is the outcome of that sleazy backroom deal. What will flow from that deal? Clearly the Queensland Government is not going to accept legislation which seeks to erode its rights in the field of industrial relations, which seeks to erode its rights as an employer and which seeks to erode its powers and its autonomy. Clearly the Queensland Government will challenge this legislation in the High Court of Australia. Clearly it will lead to very expensive and protracted litigation before the High Court, all of which will be at the taxpayers' expense. All of the taxpayers' money poured into that litigation will count for nothing as this faction seeks to have this amalgam between the Government and the ACTU which will help to entrench its power base. It is not in the least concerned about likely proceedings before the High Court and the resultant expense which will be charged against taxpayers. Another very important thing that this Bill does is to undermine the authority and the autonomy of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has been held by successive governments that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is an independent body that should be free of government directions. It is true that successive Federal and State governments have put matters before the Arbitration Commission, as any respondent may do. A case can be argued before the Commission but at all times the Commission's independence has been maintained by governments of all persuasion. This Bill will undermine and erode that independence. It instructs the Commission, by way of legislation, as to what it must do in this instance. That takes away the independence of the Arbitration Commission and effectively turns it into a tool of this Government. If that is to happen to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, if it is no longer to have its independence, if it will no longer be able to make its own decisions about which industrial disputes it will hear or which line of action it will take in those disputes, I think we are in for a very turbid time in industrial relations. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in his second reading speech was very critical of legislation passed by the Queensland Government and what that legislation had meant. He said: the independent processes of conciliation and arbitration have been rejected in favour of a policy of unilateral legislative action . . . That is what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said of the Queensland legislation and what he interpreted the Queensland legislation to be doing to the process of arbitration in that State. But what the Minister is attempting to do with this legislation is precisely what he is accusing the Queensland Government of doing. He is instructing the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as to what it shall do. He is taking away its independence, turning it into a tool of government, precisely what he has accused the Queensland Government of doing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that the word 'hypocrisy' is unparliamentary, so I cannot use it- Mr Braithwaite —Just use the words 'Labor Party'. Mr BURR —I will use the words 'Labor Party'; indeed I shall. I can point out the very obvious difference between the approaches that this Government seems to take. It is accusing the Queensland Government of one action and taking precisely the same action itself, and it seems to think that its actions are quite okay. I know that we have very limited time in which to debate this Bill. I simply say that this Bill is a hoax and a farce. It has nothing to do with resolving any industrial dispute in Queensland. The whole purpose of the Bill, as I said earlier, flows from a backroom deal between Mr Simon Crean, Mr Bill Kelty and the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, each seeking to scratch his own back. The Federal Government desperately needs ACTU support in order to introduce its plans for a broadly based indirect tax. Equally, Mr Simon Crean desperately needs the support of this Federal Government to be able to become ACTU President. That is what this legislation is all about. It is a hoax, it is a farce and it should be rejected overwhelmingly by this Parliament. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.39) —I welcome the introduction of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill because it offers a fast lane to the resolution of an industrial dispute that has not only revealed the gross political manipulation and mismanagement of the Queensland Government but also, and more importantly, seriously affected the lives of the people of Queensland, the sorely affected people of Queensland. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), with his party political fantasies, obviously cannot see from Tasmania what is happening in Queensland. I have seen that at first hand. The citizens of my home State have been the victims of the Queensland Premier's obsessive and self-confessed desires to smash the union movement in Queensland and bring down the Federal Government. By passing undemocratic laws and overturning the authority of the State Industrial Commission, the Premier has brought hardship to all sections of Queensland society. I cannot accept that. Eight hundred or so electricity workers have lost their livelihood for simply exercising their democratic right to strike. The general public of Queensland have endured large electricity blackouts despite the fact that all parties to the dispute were prepared to return to work, and workers outside the industry, and the unemployed, have witnessed the collapse of the Queensland economy under a State government whose confrontationist style of industrial relations has led to enormous increases in the level of industrial disputes and unemployment. That is a matter of statistics. The situation in Queensland has reached a stage at which something must be done to redress the economic disasters of the Queensland Government. No single piece of legislation can do this, but this Bill is justified in that it will protect the rights of citizens, bring industrial peace to Queensland and minimise the economic damage caused by the Queensland Government's mismanagement of industrial relations-that is what it is-and this dispute in particular. The Bill is largely procedural. It does not move outside the Constitution. It does not attempt to extend the powers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is tailored specifically to meet the crisis situation in Queensland and, under the sunset clause, will cease to operate after three years or such shorter time as may be prescribed. It does not redress the extensive social damage inflicted by a Premier more interested in personal aggrandisement than in achieving industrial peace in Queensland. But I endorse the Bill introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) because it offers the chance to end this dispute quickly and to alleviate the position of electricity workers and the public in Queensland. It has become clear that while Mr Bjelke-Petersen is Premier the situation in Queensland cannot be resolved within the jurisdiction of the State award. By transferring the jurisdiction for disputes in the Queensland electricity industry to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the fruitless policies of confrontation adopted by the Queensland Government will be replaced by negotiation and effective settlement of disputes based on consensus, as it should be. If one compares the record of the Federal and Queensland governments on industrial disputes, it becomes apparent that the Federal Government is much better equipped to settle the current dispute in Queensland because it has successfully sought resolution based on the principles of negotiation and consensus. Mr Donald Cameron —There is no dispute. Mrs DARLING —While people have to suffer great hardship, there is a dispute. If one examines events in Queensland in the last few months, it is obvious that the Premier has lost sight, if he ever had it, of the need to act in the best interests of the people of the State. When, under the due processes of industrial law, the Electrical Trades Union and the South East Queensland Electricity Board reached settlement of the initial dispute over contract labour in the electricity industry, the Premier intervened to overrule the findings of the State Industrial Commission and prolong the strike for a period of 15 consecutive days. However, the major reason for the Premier's actions was to divert attention from the woeful state of the Queensland economy. That is not an acceptable use of party politics. It is detrimental to the people in Queensland. Recent figures show that Queensland has experienced a 7.8 per cent increase in unemployment in the year to April 1985. The national figures show a 7.4 per cent decrease in unemployment over the same period. About 9,000 more Queenslanders are out of work than at the same time last year. The State Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act which the Queensland Government passed in March represents a grossly undemocratic attack on the rights of workers in the electricity industry to strike and protect their jobs. Such is the extent of this attack on civil liberties that journalists from the Brisbane media have been obstructed by the police in their attempts to report the news, with one reporter from a local radio station even being arrested for trying to report the news from a picket. It is the people of Queensland who have suffered most in this dispute. They have been forced to endure interruptions to their electricity supply, inconvenienced by disruptions to transport, repressed by laws which deny them their civil rights and led by a State Government which hides an appalling economic record behind a blatantly manufactured industrial dispute. The Premier has confessed that the whole point of this dispute was his desire to topple the Federal Government. This has been stated on a radio talk-back program in Brisbane as well as on a television current affairs program. Clearly the major issue in Queensland is not the dispute between the Government and the ETU but the fact that Queensland has the worst economic record of any State in the country. The Premier may criticise the Labor governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia but the fact is that those States are enjoying sustained economic growth and prosperity while Queensland flounders in the wake of the national economic recovery. The Premier is quick to invite people from other States to Queensland where, he says, plenty of jobs exist and the Queensland Government knows how to handle trade unions. But this is a total contradiction of current figures which show that in Queensland the level of employment has dropped by 0.3 per cent since this time last year against a national increase of 2.2 per cent. One must look at the figures. In addition, the number of working days lost through industrial disputes for the 12 months to February 1985 in Queensland rose from approximately 130,000 to over 370,000-an increase of 184 per cent. There was a 184 per cent increase in working days lost through industrial strife in Queensland. If one compares those figures with the national figures over the same period, there was a decline of 8.8 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. Queensland is the only State in Australia to record an increase in the number of working days lost through industrial disputes in the last year. So the Premier has painted a false image of Queensland as a State of opportunity and well-heeled trade unions. Clearly, Queensland is out of step with the economic recovery of the nation. It has the highest rate of unemployment and bankruptcies and has experienced the most extraordinary increase in industrial disputes as a direct result of the confrontationist industrial relations policies of the Queensland Government. The Premier is always prepared to criticise the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for not standing up to the unions. However, based on statistical fact, these governments have been much more successful in controlling industrial disputes because they are prepared to negotiate rationally with employers and trade unions. If a 184 per cent increase in the level of industrial disputes is the consequence of standing up to the unions, it is obvious that the most effective method of handling industrial relations is through consensus and negotiation. Perhaps the Queensland Government could have avoided the disasters of this current dispute if it had taken a leaf out of the book of the Labor governments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia which, in February of this year, collaborated on a power grid which shares electricity supplies between the three States in the event of power strikes or stoppages. That is a practical action to benefit constituents, not a party political smoke-haze to bring down another political party in government. The Hawke Government can point to the lowest level of industrial disputes for over a decade and the substantial achievements of the accord in constructive relations between all sections of society within a national economic recovery. In contrast, the Queensland Government is faced with an economic mess, with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia and the worst industrial relations record of any State. The Federal Government is therefore qualified to handle this crisis situation. Indeed, it is forced to by the dire circumstances of events in Queensland. Because of the urgent need to resolve this dispute, the onus has fallen on the Federal Government to legislate for an effective settlement through speedy access to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Bill can provide such a settlement because it properly addresses the main issues of the dispute. Those issues are: Firstly, immediate and speedy resolution of the Queensland electricity dispute to ensure the continued supply of electricity services and the cessation of transport blockades and other industrial action that have affected the people of Queensland; secondly, the protection of the rights of workers in the electricity industry and the civil liberties of the public; thirdly, the use of effective negotiations through the procedures of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to improve the industrial relations record of the Queensland Government; and, lastly, to remove political interference in disputes in the Queensland electricity industry and return industrial relations authority to the independent legal procedures that have served this country so well in the period of the present Federal Government. The Bill is the necessary and desirable method of addressing these issues. It is the only available method of resolving this dispute quickly and effectively to ensure an uninterrupted supply of electricity to the Queensland people and the restoration of justice and democracy to the citizens of that State. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.50) —All I can say about the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is that it is a document of bias. All I can say about the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 is that it bears the hallmark of discrimination. The Bill represents a pathetic capitulation to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and is an abrogation of the Government's responsibility in respect of how it should govern. The Minister is reported in Hansard of 16 April as having said: We totally repudiate the suggestions from the Opposition that we could settle this dispute by rushing in with draconian legislation of one sort or another. That kind of legislation would not settle this dispute. It would not stop the blockade. It would exacerbate and inflame the situation and we would rush to a much wider confrontation much more quickly. During the course of many debates on this matter we have heard the words 'undemocratic', 'draconian', 'jackboots', 'nazi' and 'Gestapo'. The legislation and the way it is being dealt with bear all the hallmarks of everything the Queensland Government has been accused of by the Federal Government. One had only to listen to what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said about six weeks ago or read the speech on union moderation that was made in Tasmania by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to realise that this legislation represents a complete capitulation. It is a somersault from their former situation. We now have legislative dictatorship and industrial manipulation. The Government of Australia is a monkey dancing to the tune of the ACTU organ grinder. The dispute is over. The thousand people who we have been told are out of a job no longer seek employment. My last recollection is that 200 are out of work. Possibly they are shop stewards who would not work in any case. But that is the situation. The dispute is over and there are no positions to be filled by reinstated workers. This legislation cuts across all democratic principles. This is a Federal intervention, just like the one-sided intervention in respect of the Franklin Dam. The Federal Government is going to impose its will on the Queensland Government. One has to ask the question: Who governs this country in the face of these facts? Is it a government of the people or a government of the unions? I would say that it is a government of the latter. Mr Duncan —But in Queensland-- Mr BRAITHWAITE —Does the honourable member realise that 75 per cent of Queenslanders back the Premier and the Queensland Government in this dispute? The honourable member should go back to South Australia which bows to union dictates. However, 75 per cent of Queenslanders have backed the Queensland Government in this regard. The Federal Government has tried to overrule the situation in face of what the Queensland people want. Did we see the Federal Government act when Australia Post and Telecom Australia black banned services into Queensland? The answer is no. Did the Government castigate the Electrical Trades Union which on six occasions defied the order of the Industrial Commission? The answer is no. Did it castigate the ACTU on its blockades? The answer is no. Did it protect Queensland by using section 45D and section 80 of the Trade Practices Act? The answer is no. Did it act in respect of secondary boycotts which were placed on Queensland businesses? The answer is absolutely no. In fact I received an answer yesterday from the Minister in reply to a question I had asked a month ago. The Minister said that the Government would not act. That is a great response. Did the Government help to ensure that essential services would be provided during the Victoria dairy farmers dispute? Again, the answer is no. The only 'yes' that can be given in that sad commentary is the answer to whether the Government supported the ACTU against Queensland. In fact, we have seen a travesty of all principles. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech mentioned a change in the rules. It was not the Queensland Government that changed the rules; it was the Electrical Trades Union, acting under the directions of its union bosses. As to the 200 unionists who are not in work in Queensland at the moment, I believe that if a class action is available to them, those unionists should use class action against their union leaders, who led them into this folly. Let us look at the great accord about which we are told time and time again, an accord that sees the Government bowing to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The accord accommodated all the principles of big government and big unions, but it left out people. Under that accord there has been indexation of wages, and Australia is the only country among the developed nations that has such a policy. Redundancy provisions have been brought and superannuation provisions have now entered the industrial area. The Government has backed down on uranium policy. The Government has taken steps with the ACTU on tax policy and access to Budgets and has given it full participation in the tax summit. The Government has backed off taxing perks because it would affect some ACTU officials. Even as late as last night, the Minister did not appreciate that the legislation on Commonwealth compensation would for the first time bring trade unions under its cover. There has been complete domination of the Government in these matters, and if one has to criticise anything about the accord it is that this Government, as usual, has left out the people. The Government does not realise that people are revolting against the extreme use of industrial power. Indeed, not only the people but the workers are revolting against its use. It can be said that this Bill operates against all workers' principles. But when have the unions considered the workers who want to go about their jobs and do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay in order to bring up a family? Such consideration has not been offered. The Queensland Government's reaction in the present dispute in that State is not directed against workers; it is against union leaders who want to grasp power and domination. It could be said that, if the Queensland Government does not win in this dispute, not only will Queensland suffer but Australia will suffer, too. Workers will be forced out of their jobs because of ACTU demands which have no possibility of commercial realisation. These demands are forcing businesses to go bankrupt, and only the workers will lose. No one wants to go on to unemployment benefits. Australians are sick and tired of being second class citizens and of bowing to the demands and the dictates of the Labor Government, which has been the case on so many occasions in the last two years. Let us examine another area of concern for the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government in Canberra. I refer to the fortunes of the ALP in Queensland. We have seen honourable members come in here, dictated to by Peter Beattie and the executive in Queensland and bringing in prepared speeches. They are not prepared to ad lib on this matter. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) has come into this House and from this coward's castle he has criticised the Queensland Government, whereas as the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland he could not get one iota of support. It was Peter Beattie who forced that situation. Mrs Darling —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, could you rule whether it is acceptable for members of the Opposition to say things that are not true, such as that Peter Beattie has written speeches for members? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) is very sensitive, and perhaps there is some truth in the allegation. Let us look at the ALP fortunes over the last year and see how good Peter Beattie is. The ALP in Queensland has lost a State by-election. A seat that had been held by Labor has now been won by the Liberals. The results of last March's Federal election show that, despite an increase of five seats in Queensland, the Labor Party lost one seat. In dealing with ALP fortunes in Queensland, I direct attention to the latest poll and to the results of the local council elections on 31 December. Labor members will not come into this House screaming on that issue. For the first time in 25 years, under Peter Beattie's direction, obviously part of the ACTU, the Brisbane City Council situation for the ALP has fallen apart. The Queensland economy has come under attack, and let me indicate a few facts about that. The statistics of sustained growth in the last five years still show that Queensland imports people from the rest of Australia. Building approvals in Queensland are 25 per cent above population base. In the year ending March 1985, of 58,500 new jobs 23,000 came to Queensland. There has been a population growth of 1.7 per cent in Queensland, which has topped all Australian growth. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said yesterday that figures for tourism in Queensland last year rose by 70 per cent. The legislation passed in this House has to pass the test of the States. I would like to know how the Australian Democrats will face up to that responsibility. The House can be assured that this legislation will be tested in regard to its constitutionality in the High Court of Australia. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(12.02) —I gladly support this Bill. It aims to rescue the Queensland power workers from the clutches of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. That Government has shown no willingness to obtain industrial peace. Its provocative actions have sought through every device to overthrow the accepted traditions of industrial relations. It has threatened to cause misery to hundreds of sacked linesmen, even to the point of insisting that they did not receive social security benefits after they had been sacked. Moreover, the Bjelke-Petersen Government has rejected every reasonable request from the Commonwealth to sit down and find a solution to the problem. The Queensland Premier even admitted that the whole intent of his action was to try to bring down this Federal Government. Thus, Queensland was plunged into darkness. The Industrial Commission was overthrown; sacked workers faced despair; the Queensland economy was put at risk. All these things occurred because the Queensland Premier and his Government want to try to bring down the Federal Government. In a study entitled 'Control, Consensus or Chaos' 219 top executives were interviewed. The study found that business leaders prefer the predictability and stability of the co-operative approach to industrial relations. It made this observation: Many managers saw the Fraser Government as inept in industrial relations because of ill-timed intervention in particular industrial disputes, which smacked of grandstanding rather than genuine efforts to get matters sorted out. Some managers even suggested that Liberal-Country Party governments in Australia 'sought political advantage from industrial disputes'. How they drew that conclusion I would not know. How right those business leaders were. How right they are today. The fact that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) supports Bjelke-Petersen's actions suggests that any future Liberal-National Party government will return this country to the bad old days of the political strike. Mr Conquest —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member is quoting from a document. Could we ask that that be tabled for the information of the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hinkler is out of order in interrupting a speaker for that purpose. Mr BEDDALL —Obviously National Party members do not like to listen to these things, because they are trying to protect a corrupt government in Queensland. The whole idea has had devastating consequences for the economy of this country. It is having dire consequences for the Queensland economy. As Senator Graham Maguire pointed out, Queensland is performing worse on every economic indicator than any other State. It is performing much worse than Western Australia. Queensland and Western Australia have similar economic bases. It is not really surprising that Queensland is worse. Business leaders in Queensland are tired not just of the inept National Party industrial relations policy, but also of the extra overheads their businesses have to carry in Queensland. The extra overheads in Queensland are the money businesses have to pay to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation to get contracts in that State. The Bjelke-Petersen industrial relations policies are as corrupt as its business practices. It is interesting to investigate the type of legislation the Bjelke-Petersen Government introduced in an effort to trample on the Queensland workers. The Human Rights Commission, set up by the Fraser Government, found that that legislation was inconsistent with Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the International Covenant is adhered to. Mr Ian Cameron —Where will Queensland get power? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is continually interjecting. I suggest to him that he reserve his remarks until he receives the call. Mr BEDDALL —When the Covenant was ratified, the Queensland Government was continually consulted. It agreed to the International Covenant being ratified. Having agreed to it, the Queensland Government is bound by it. Surely, in this country-one of the few democracies left in the world-we can run our affairs intelligently without having to breach the Covenant. Advice given to the Attorney-General's Department suggests that a number of International Labor Organisation conventions have been broken. The excessive powers of the State Electricity Commission of Queensland breach ILO conventions 29, 105 and 98. The lack of appeal rights for electricity workers to an independent authority regarding dismissals for being on strike is in breach of ILO convention 87, and the accelerated deregistration provisions, which do not allow for an appeal to an independent authority against deregistration of a union, are also in breach of convention 87. Of relevance to Queensland, breaches of ILO conventions 29 and 87 have been cited against Russia and Poland. That is how far down the track Queensland workers' rights have gone. We are now in the same company as Russia and Poland in the treatment of citizens. It is no use saying that the ILO does not matter. Mr Slipper —Why don't you want Queensland to have power? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Fisher was present when the Chair chastised the honourable member for Maranoa. He is well aware of the circumstances prevailing. He may consider himself warned. Mr BEDDALL —There has been long-standing bipartisan support for the ILO. There is an annual conference of the ILO to which Australia sends a tripartite delegation. That delegation often includes the Minister and it has been long-standing practice for the Minister to invite a State labour relations Minister and also the Federal Opposition spokesman. In 1981, the then Queensland Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, Sir William Knox, now the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, was invited. In 1982, the now Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) went along. Surely they went because they believe in the Organisation. Surely they did not treat the visit as just another overseas junket. Why then are they not rushing to defend the Organisation in the face of the onslaught from the Queensland National Party? The Queensland power industry has been a disaster ever since the National Party got its hands on it. In the days when the Brisbane City Council controlled electricity, there were few, if any, industrial disputes and electricity was a revenue earner for the city of Brisbane. Once the State Government took control, the problems and the prices began to escalate. It is also worth recalling that the present trouble started because the South East Queensland Electricity Board wanted to contain costs. Yet, at the height of the dispute, it was offering power station operators an additional $20,000 to $30,000 in an effort to attract people from interstate. What a way to save costs! The people hired to work under the new agreement work a 10-day fortnight. Some people still employed under the old agreement are working a nine-day fortnight. The result is utter chaos in the SEQEB work force on the tenth day. I have seen it reported that SEQEB will make everybody work compulsory overtime on the tenth day. That is a great way to save costs! That is the National Party way to save costs. Perhaps the most amazing way in which the Queensland National Party saved costs was its decision to build a power station at Tarong in the Premier's own electorate. The State Electricity Commission's choice was Millmerran-a choice backed by the then Minister, Mr Camm, who has now moved on to a job for the boys. Mr Camm was backed by his Department, expert recommendations and the State Electricity Commission. According to that Commission, Millmerran had a significant advantage in both annual costs and capital. It will come as no surprise that Tarong won the day. The additional cost to Queensland electricity consumers was $259m over a 25-year period. By his own actions Bjelke-Petersen imposed an additional charge of more than $10m a year on electricity consumers. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I pointed out last week, because of National Party rorts in the milk industry Brisbane consumers pay the highest prices for milk in Australia. So, too, with electricity. Because of rorts like the building of the power station at Tarong, Queensland has the highest electricity charges in Australia. Currently, the domestic consumer in Brisbane pays $115 per quarter on average. The average cost per quarter in Adelaide is $113. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. What has the price of milk in Brisbane to do with this debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson has been here long enough to have a nodding familiarity with the Standing Orders. He wilfully breaches the Standing Orders. He may consider himself warned. Mr BEDDALL —For the honourable member's benefit, the price of milk is an additional cost imposed on the people of Queensland. The National Party is making the Queensland public pay higher prices for everything. I point out that the figures I have given were obtained before the 10 per cent price hike in Brisbane. Unlike Queensland, South Australia has no coal that it can use for electricity generation. There is no doubt that the Queensland National Party Government has used the power dispute to justify the ridiculously high prices it charges for electricity. Far from power disputes, it is the economic mismanagement of the Queensland National Party which has caused the troubles in the electricity industry. As of 30 June last year, the total loan debt of the Queensland electricity industry was $2.7 billion, or $244m more than it was the previous year. In addition, the value of coal stockpiles at the State's power stations has increased from $27.9m in 1981-82 to $61m in 1982-83 and $81m in 1983-84. The people of Queensland want certainty in power supplies. They also want value for money in electricity. They are simply being ripped off. My electorate includes people in Inala and Logan City who are battling to make ends meet. National Party mismanagement is forcing them to pay more for milk and electricity than they otherwise would. In rural areas many of my farmers need electricity for irrigation and pumps. Pea producers in my electorate face a cut in prices this year of 10 per cent, yet they also face increases in electricity costs. Dairy farmers in my electorate are among the most disadvantaged and they have to face a massive electricity price hike. It is fascinating to see that, at a time when Queensland electricity workers are told that they do not have to join a union and compulsory unionism has ended, dairy farmers are being forced by the National Party to join the Queensland Dairymen's Organisation-an organisation which fails to represent the views of disadvantaged farmers in my electorate. This dispute is simply about putting the boot into trade unionism. It is not about cutting costs or any of the other nonsense. It is about trying to damage the Federal Labor Government. Members on this side of the House should never forget the depths the Queensland Premier went to to get rid of the last Labor Government. Having a strike suits his purpose. In conclusion, I draw the attention of the House to recommendation 91 of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. When talking about dispute resolution it states that any legislation should 'promote co-operation between the industrial parties and provide an atmosphere conducive to industrial harmony'. The Queensland National Party has rejected that path. This legislation is the only way in which the sentiments expressed by Hancock can be put in place. I commend the Bill. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.13) —When we look at the Government's speaking list today we see that eight Australian Labor Party Queensland members are listed in a row. They are followed by a couple of people from other States. It is a case of eight very sickly green bottles sitting on a wall. It is obvious that the political masters in Queensland-the unions-have got their minds in such a state of frenzy that they all think they have to speak today. They have been mute for the last four or five months. We have heard hardly a speech from them. Suddenly, eight in a row appear on the speakers' list, followed by a couple of others. I do not think they have their hearts in the debate. They know that they have to speak to look good. To my mind, today will live in infamy. It is a day when a Federal government intervened by legislation to try to erode the powers which are vested in a sovereign State of this nation. It is a day when a Federal government kowtowed to its masters-the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government has performed like a puppet and said: 'Yes, we will do something'. It has been stated in this place on many occasions that it is not believed that this Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill will hold up in the High Court of Australia. Nevertheless, we are going through the charade of debating the legislation, which is simply a form of appeasement to the Government's political masters-the ACTU. No wonder the Government's rating has slipped to 43 per cent. Australians think that the Government is no longer giving them direction; that it is a government of reaction; that if there is a problem the Government thinks it had better jump and do something just to be seen to be doing something, instead of looking at the matter and attempting to bring in the best possible legislation to overcome it. I know that in this matter of the Queensland electricity dispute it depends on which side one is listening to as to the explanation one receives. I will try to present clearly a brief history of the electricity problems in Queensland. The problems started six or seven years ago. They did not start just in the last few months. In 1980 the South East Queensland Electricity Board gave members of the Electrical Trades Union in Queensland a 36 1/4-hour week instead of a 40-hour week. It was a kind of package deal. One of the aspects of that package deal was that the union would agree to the introduction of some contract labour. That was agreed upon in 1980, but later the trade union movement reneged on that agreement, and that is when the real troubles began. The State of Queensland has had 15 crippling electricity stoppages in the last seven years. It is not something that just happened at Christmas time and Joh Bjelke-Petersen suddenly thought there was a chance to kill them. It is something that has been going on and on. People who wanted electricity connected had to wait ages before it was connected. Some years ago there was a strike in that State which went on for, I think, 13 weeks. The industry has a history studded with stoppages by those who are in a very special position in terms of their strength as unionists. The vast majority of Australian workers do not have the power to bring a nation, a State or a city to its knees, but people such as those who supply electricity do. They are in a very privileged position, as a union, compared with others. Joh Bjelke-Petersen has tried to bring those people back to the field. He has been about stopping those people from going overboard. He has been about stopping those people from using excesses as a form of blackmail. A unionist is really powerful when he says: 'I shall turn off the lights and the power unless I am given this or that'. Such a unionist has tremendous power in his hands. We can compare him with a unionist working in a small factory in the back of Sydney, Melbourne or any other part of Australia. If he goes out on strike, nobody notices. People who are employed in providing essential services have almighty power. What this is all about is the proper utilisation of that power, the curbing of recklessness. I inform honourable members that in January of this year-this is an absolutely true story-there was a luncheon in Brisbane which the management of SEQEB and the leaders of the trade unions attended. Mr Punch —Did they have cakes with girls in them? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Punch by name and Punch by thought. The honourable member should go outside. At that quite congenial gathering the management of SEQEB said to the union leaders: 'Fellows, we warn you that if you don't go back George Street will take over'. George Street, for those who do not know, is the street in which the Queensland Parliament is situated. The union leaders said: 'They can go and get . . .' I will not utter that word. As it turned out, it was the union leaders who 'went and got . . .'. That is exactly how it ended up. That was the approach adopted. It was reckless unionism. As a Liberal, I believe in unionism, but I believe in responsible unionism. One of the great tragedies that has developed in Australia over the last 20-odd years is that if a union says something it has to be right. Not all union members believe it is right, but they have been put in a situation in which, if the union says they have to douse themselves with petrol, set light to themselves and burn themselves to death, they must do it-it is almost the law of the land. That is what this Government is supporting-reckless trade unionism. Most trade unionists have a brain of their own. I do not blame them for not wanting to stand alone and be subjected to what many of the ETU workers went through in Queensland. They were rung up in the middle of the night. They received phone calls from New South Wales and letters of abuse. When they went to work and walked through the factory gate they were spat on. Surely the Australian Labor Party members here do not condone that type of behaviour which has become a hallmark of reckless unionism in our State. Another little truth that has to be drawn to the attention of the House is that 1,500 SEQEB employees are members of the ETU in Queensland. Only 1,100 of the 1,500 SEQEB employees actually went out on strike. Four hundred broke ranks from the word go. They said: 'We are not going out'. Four hundred members of that union told the union what to do. That took great courage, but they did it. Government members tell us that there are about 1,100 unemployed ETU members in Queensland. That is a lie. It is a lie because many of those people have been re-employed. Two hundred, at least, went back to work immediately they were offered new conditions. So the 1,100 is down to 900. Two hundred and fifty of them are working for the contractors. They have a job. The Government presents the situation in the Parliament that 1,100 people are out of work in Queensland because of the actions of the Queensland Government. That is not true. About 300 of those people have disappeared from Queensland. They have gone back to New Zealand, New South Wales and Victoria. Some have gone to Papua New Guinea. Some might say that they have fled the State, but they have gone. So we can knock another 300 off the number. Probably about 200 members of the union are still out of work. I recall events at Lang Park stadium when this strike first started. The ETU would beat the drums and the grandstand would be filled with ETU members. To a man they put a fist in the air and shouted: 'We will not go back'. Then one day a brave man put his hand up and said: 'I want to go back'. The union really gave him a going over. Initially the grandstand was full, but in the end those meetings could have been held in a committee room. Many employees went back to work. They did not want to have anything to do with the union any more. Yet months later, after it is all over, this Parliament is confronted with legislation introduced by the Hawke Government simply to appease the ACTU. What caused it? The legislation came about as a result of an illegal blockade. Most of the Queensland union leaders knew that the ETU was wrong. Most of the Queensland union leaders just wanted to close the book as a black page in the State's history in terms of the union's approach to things. They thought that the ETU had gone crazy and they just wanted to leave it alone. But orders came from the south and the blockade began. What union gangsterism we saw during that blockade. Southern companies were told that if they did not put an advertisement in the newspapers saying that they condemned Joh Bjelke-Petersen they would be isolated and their plants would be drawn to a halt. Only three weeks ago I saw an advertisement from some poor group of people in Western Australia-I think the letter was published in the Australian-who had to denounce the actions of the Premier. They said 'We don't want the work to stop on our blocks of units', or whatever. That is an illustration of how the situation has developed. I regard it as gangsterism when a union goes up to somebody and says: 'If you don't denounce the actions of the Queensland Premier, we will bring a stoppage to your plant'. We have all agreed to speak for about 10 minutes on this Bill. Obviously I have some views and feelings on this subject. As a Liberal, I have no real reason to say 'thank-you' to Joh Bjelke-Petersen for what he did to my Party in the State election of 23 October 1983. However, I say to that Premier: 'Thank you for standing up to the unions. It was not just for Queensland's sake but for Australia's sake.' I pray that the Federal Government of today starts to recognise that the union strength is not limitless and that in this country we are all bound by laws which have been designed for the overall good of everybody. At last we have a Premier in this country who has said: 'Fair go, no more'. Let nobody on the Government side parade in here with remarks concerning jackboots and all that type of business. Sure there are some aspects of his legislation with which I disagree but in principle- Mr Cleeland —Why don't you mention them? Mr DONALD CAMERON —There are some minor aspects with which I disagree. But in the overall picture they are unimportant. What the Premier has sought to do and, what is more, what he has achieved is in the best interests of our State of Queensland and also the rest of Australia. If union leaders fear that future Liberal governments might bring the same restrictions, they are absolutely justified in those fears because it is the way to go. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(12.27) —The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) at the start of the diatribe we have just listened to said that speakers on this side of the House would all be Queensland members of this Parliament. Quite obviously that statement was wrong because I am from South Australia. The honourable member's contribution to the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill in terms of truth, justice and fairness went downhill from then on. Mr Donald Cameron —You have jumped the speakers list. Mr DUNCAN —It is the first time that I have seen the honourable member in here for quite a while. It must be payday. At least the people of Australia will be getting some value for what they are paying the honourable member today. That is not the normal situation with the honourable member for Moreton. I think that what this debate basically is about is the rights and privileges of ordinary, decent Australians. I have not heard one word uttered by honourable members opposite of sympathy or understanding for the rights of the 800 or so-it does not matter whether it be 600, 700 or 1,000-workers and their wives and children who are now unemployed as a result of the fascist activities of the Queensland Government. That does not matter a tinker's curse to honourable members opposite. The fact is there are plenty of ordinary decent Queenslanders who have suffered under the jackboot of Bjelke-Petersen; so, as he has said himself, he is able to get stuck into the Hawke Government. Out of his own mouth he made the point that the only reason he got into this shemozzle in the first place and why he locked horns with the unions was that he saw an opportunity to put the boot into the Hawke Government. That is exactly what he intended to do. Of course he is not going to get away with it. Fortunately there are plenty of people in this country who will stand up to the dictatorial actions of the Queensland Premier. Honourable members can ask me why I hate Joh. I hate dictators. I do not care whether their names are Joe Stalin or Joh Petersen. They are dictators and I hate them because of that. The people of Australia are fully entitled to dislike those who get elected with about 37 or 38 per cent support, who then, through devious backroom deals, make arrangements so they are able to govern-so-called-in their own right and have the cheek to start putting the boot into the trade union movement in this country. Almost every speech we hear from Liberal and National Party members in this Parliament seeks to denigrate the trade union movement. I make the point that this dispute started late last year which symbolically was the 150th anniversary of the Tolpuddle martyrs. It is a great piece of symbolism that, in the sequicentennial year of that great struggle which put the trade union movement on its feet and led to women and children being taken out of the mines and to decent conditions all over this country and other Western democracies like it, this dispute, engineered by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, has now led to the clock being turned back, in terms of industrial legislation in that State, by about 80 years. I will have more to say about that in a few minutes. I do not think for a moment that this legislation is the be all and end all in resolving this dispute. Of course, it is not. Nobody has claimed that it is. However, it is the best that can be done-with the powers available to the Federal Government-to ensure that the proper body for resolving industrial disputes, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, should be able to deal with this dispute as quickly and as expeditiously as possible to ensure that a just and fair resolution to this problem can be implemented at an early time. This legislation has been described as fast track legislation. It is facilitative legislation. It is not legislation that in itself seeks to resolve the dispute. It is simply legislation that enables the Arbitration Commission to set aside the sorts of legal tactics that might be available to the Bjelke-Petersen Government to thwart the Commission's expeditious dealing with this matter. It ensures that there will be one hearing before the full Commission to allow the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible. For the first time that will force the Bjelke-Petersen Government to talk about this matter. That Government is very good at calling the Queensland Parliament together, passing legislation in about 15 minutes, not justifying it and not seeking to explain to the people of this country why it believes the electricity workers of Queensland need to be treated like sub-humans. The Queensland Government has not sought to justify its position at all. All it has done is simply to bang legislation through the Queensland Parliament-that most undemocratic institution-in about 15 minutes. All it has sought to do is to put the legislation into effect. It has forced the Federal Government into the position which requires us to take action to assist in resolving the dispute. The Queensland Government is not prepared even to come before a conciliation commissioner and justify its position. It has taken the matter to the High Court of Australia to try to avoid talking on the situation. We are intent on ensuring that the Queensland Government will be required to sit down quietly and in a logical fashion justify what it has done. Mr Ian Cameron —You won't let them, though. Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member does not want to have Bjelke-Petersen forced to sit down and justify what he has done. That is exactly what the National Party wants to avoid. It knows full well that when it has to justify its stand in front of a reasonable person it will not be able to do so. That is why the National Party opposes this legislation. That is why the Queensland Government has sought to go to the High Court to avoid any compulsory conference call by the Arbitration Commission in an endeavour to settle this dispute. All the Queensland Government wants is industrial confrontation with the Hawke Government. All it is seeking to do in opposing this legislation and industrial conferences is not to have to justify what it has done and the jackboot tactics it has implemented in Queensland with its legislation. Of course this position taken by the Opposition is somewhat new, at least in recent historical times. In the days of the Fraser Government the Minister concerned with industrial relations for most of that period, Ian Viner, was a much more reasonable fellow, although some of us did not see him as quite so reasonable in those days. Nonetheless with the benefit of hindsight and the historical context that the Bjelke-Petersen Government is putting us into at present it is quite obvious that the approach of Viner as Minister was much more reasonable than the approach of this Opposition. I suppose we must expect that oppositions, particularly when they have a National Party rump calling the shots, will be much more irresponsible than conservative governments. The Bjelke-Petersen regime has undoubtedly embarked on a course of action designed quite specifically to try to destroy the trade union movement in this country and, incidental thereto, the civil and political rights of Queenslanders. Of course, the Queensland Government operates from a completely corrupt electoral base with, as I said, 37 or 38 per cent of the vote. It is moving significantly right now to strengthen the gerrymander on which its power and term in office is based. I make the point in passing that the coincidence of timing that the Queensland Government has pulled on this industrial dispute, as a smokescreen for its upgrading of the gerrymander, has not passed by the people of Australia in the way they are viewing this dispute. This morning we heard some stories from Opposition members about opinion polls. It is interesting to note that since the Federal election the standing of the Liberal and National parties in Queensland, as shown in a Bulletin poll last week, has dropped 3 per cent. That is a pretty fair indication that the people of Queensland are waking up very quickly to the charade that is being constructed by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, with the support of its mouthpiece and lackeys in this place. I point out to the people of Australia that there are not too many of those lackeys in the chamber at the moment. I see three Opposition members here, which clearly indicates the real support they have for this measure. Mr Reith —Don't worry about our support. Mr DUNCAN —We will see. The future of this country is very much tied up with the struggle to ensure that we retain, maintain and extend democracy. The sorts of activities that Bjelke-Petersen is getting into are not designed to do that. I have only a limited time in which to speak and I do not want to detain the House any more. It is important that this legislation be passed today and put on the statute books as quickly as possible so that the Arbitration Commission is enabled to deal with the matter speedily, effectively, and without the intimidatory tactics of the Bjelke-Petersen regime. It is quite obvious that the law, morality, civil rights and history are all against the actions of the Bjelke-Petersen regime and the totally hypocritical, abhorrent and opportunist attitudes of honourable members opposite. I urge all honourable members who believe in democracy, who believe in industrial relations, who believe in fairness and equity for ordinary Australians, to strongly support this legislation. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(12.37) —This is certainly a black day for the parliamentary process in Australia. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill is an attempt by this Labor Government to subvert the Constitution of Australia. It defends law breakers and is directed at Queensland alone. Section 30K of the Crimes Act has been in force since 1926. This Bill has been specially directed against Queensland. Queensland is the only State mentioned in the Bill, and under the Constitution all States are meant to have fair and equitable treatment from the Federal Government. The High Court of Australia has ruled in favour of the action taken by the Queensland Government and against any compulsory conference. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has had this Bill sitting under his seat in the Cabinet Room waiting for the ruling. When the High Court ruled against what the Australian Labor Party wanted to do, the Government rushed this Bill into the House and is guillotining it through today. I ask every Australian who is listening to this debate to ring his neighbour and tell him to tune into the broadcast and listen to the way in which this Labor Government is ruling the country. It is a disgrace. States rights have been totally subverted. Where was the Government when the Commonwealth Public Service dispute was on? Where was the Government when the coal and rail strikes were affecting the people of New South Wales? Why did it not then introduce some legislation on New South Wales? Where are the members of the red corner today? Not a soul is here. I guess that they are caucusing on a capital gains tax. Members of the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia are the thug boys in Victoria. Four bridges in Victoria are now not being constructed because the BLF has its bully boys there. I would like to know where the Government members are. There are only five of them in the House. The Bill has no power to reinstate sacked workers. That should be well and truly understood by all Australians. This Bill cannot direct that people be reinstated and it will not. Only 18 months ago the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems was set up by this Government. I suggest that the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) read a few more sections of the report. Recommendations 9 and 10 suggest that there be a broadening of section 41 (1) (d) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and that these disputes not be brought into the Federal arena. This Government is doing exactly the opposite to what the people it appointed to conduct that review recommended that it should do. What a sham that is. Members of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, who were meant to be slaving in Queensland under horrible conditions-there were 1,500 of them-went out on strike. Eleven hundred of them did not go back to work. What sort of conditions do the power workers have compared with those of the rest of the community? Presently they are getting a basic wage of $382 a week and workers in general industry are getting only $295 a week. Do honourable members think that the ETU members are hard done by? No. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) mentioned before that they work only 36 1/4 hours. Even here in Parliament House we work twice as many hours, although unfortunately we will probably work until 3 o'clock tomorrow morning. Other workers work 38 hours a week. ETU members are on a nine-day fortnight; they have four weeks paid annual leave with 17 1/2 per cent loading, paid sick leave, long service leave, State Government superannuation, overtime, danger money, et cetera. The State Government is contributing to their superannuation. That is, the taxpayers of Queensland are contributing to their superannuation. Members of the ETU are not badly done by; they are some of the leading wage earners in Australia. What about the so-called Human Rights Commission, a socialist set-up, a commission which is draining- Mr Duncan —It was set up by your Government. Mr IAN CAMERON —If that is the case, this Government is supporting it but it; is a drain on the taxpayers of the country. Where was the Commission for a whole month when there were secondary boycotts and 95 per cent of Queensland was without power? Farmers, old women, pensioners and all sorts of people were without power. Even my farm had no power. My cattle ran out of water because the water they depend on comes from a submersible bore pump which is power-operated. Where were the animal liberationists then? Were they calling out to the power workers to go back to work? The commissions which are set up by governments are totally hypocritical. They are not interested in defending the people of the country, they are just interested in defending small pressure groups that make a lot of noise. The Australian Democrats have the power in the Senate to reject this Bill and I ask them to throw it out. What have the Democrats done? The Democrats have asked the Government to do a deal with the unions. The Government has done a deal with the ACTU so that there will not be any more blockades. In other words, the Democrats and the Government are again supporting the ACTU on the blockades. This is a total abuse of section 45 (1) (a) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. What a sham the Democrats are. I have asked Michael Macklin of the Australian Democrats in Queensland not to support this Bill. However, at this very moment the Democrats have done a deal with the unions. What hypocrites they are. The Queensland Government has already offered the sacked workers their jobs back but they screamed that they would not go back because of the no-strike clause. What has happened? The Democrats and the Government have done a deal with the ETU on a no-strike clause. What hypocrites they are. I hope that there is not a voter in Queensland who will support the Democrats after they support this legislation in the Senate. It is a total disgrace. This Bill supports the union movement against dismissals of any kind. Australia has sunk to the depths of a Third World nation. The Prime Minister has been to Asia and China; he has seen the competition we have to put up with. He has come back here and told us to get off our backsides and start working and that if we do not we will remain a depressed Third World country. That is where we are now and we will remain there under this socialist Labor Government. This Bill puts the last nail in the rickety coffin of the socialist Government. We have seen the polls. It is amazing how 12 months ago the Prime Minister came into the House with the latest poll results when his popularity was running at 80 per cent. I bet that he will not tell us here today that the polls in the Bulletin are telling him that his Government's popularity rate is running at 43 per cent and that his rating is now 50-figures that have dropped practically in half. I bet that he is not here at Question Time flaunting those figures. Australians are crying out for elected governments to govern. The Fraser Government had that opportunity. When Fraser was elected in 1976 he had the highest majority that any elected government has ever had, and one of the platforms of his Government was to pull the unions into line. What happened? He did not do it and he slid out of government. What happened was that Hawke, the great white leader, was elected to this House in 1980. He was the ex-President of the ACTU and Australians expected him to take a stronger stand against the union movement. He has not done that. He has disappointed them. To his own shame, he has not done it. Where are his rating and standing in the community now? Hawke is shown for what he is. He is a puppet of the ACTU. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will refer to the Prime Minister as such. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Prime Minister has shown what he is. He is a puppet of the ACTU. Australians, particularly Queenslanders, have had a gutful of struggling, recession and drought with bully-boy unionists cutting off power, road, rail, air, postal and telephone services. We will not stand for this nonsense any longer. One Australian at least is prepared to take a stand at long last-Joh Bjelke-Petersen of the National Party in Queensland. Every fair-minded Australian supports him. If the socialists on that side of the House care to read any poll that has ever been taken amongst the community, they will see that Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the National Party Government have 70 to 80 per cent support on this issue. Australia is fed up with being governed by minority groups-Aborigines, greenies, welfare libbers, feminists, unionists. You name them, we are fed up with them. At long last we have a Premier-Premier Joh-who will go down in history as the man who turned the lights on. I assure honourable members that the majority of Australians support him. We will not reinstate those sacked workers. Long live Joh! Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(12.47) —I support this legislation; it is both necessary and timely. It is necessary because every normal and accepted process to bring about the settlement of the industrial dispute in Queensland's electricity industry has failed because of the absolute paranoid determination of the fascist Queensland Premier to reject any settlement agreement. The legislation is timely because this national Government recognises that the destruction of the Queensland economy, which has resulted from this dispute and which has been planned and permitted by the Queensland Premier, has now shown clear signs of spreading to and seriously influencing the national economy. This Government had a responsibility to act to support the national economic recovery that has resulted from its decisions and policies since it came to office in March 1983. This industrial dispute has one principal purpose. It is not in any way the normal process of an argument between employment and management. It is in no way a disagreement between management and workers. It is an organised campaign designed by the political advisers of the fascist Queensland Premier and directed at the sabotage of our national economic recovery. It is a desperate hope that the destruction of our national economic recovery will reflect adversely on the electoral popularity of the Hawke Labor Government and help to bring about the rejection of this Government at the time of the next election. That is the main purpose of this organised dispute. This planned attack on the Federal Government is recorded by the facist Queensland Premier's own admission on the AM radio program on 9 May. He was asked by the interviewer, Peter Thompson: I suppose there's some feeling that perhaps your interest in bringing the Hawke Government down might be above your interest in resolving this dispute? From the Premier's own mouth came this reply, which, of course, he has since denied: Well, my main objective is to get rid of the Hawke Government. That's the main prime objective, because he cannot govern this State, this nation. He went on with the usual bumbling reply that we expect to hear from him. Again, on 27 April, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Premier Petersen said in reply to the interviewer that he had sacked a thousand striking linesmen in February as a way to confront the Hawke Government. He said that his real reason for sacking the Electrical Trades Union linesmen was that it was the only thing he could do to embarrass the Commonwealth Government and 'to put a time bomb under them'. I think the time bomb is under Petersen and the Queensland Government. Of course, as we have come to expect from the Queensland Premier, having been exposed as the despicable fraud he is, in his own bumbling and inarticulate way he attempted to deny that he said those things by claiming that he was quoted out of context. I say to the House that it is wishful thinking on his part that he would be believed, but it does say a lot about the mentality of the man. He seems obsessed with the power of his position; his speeches are filled with words of aggression-them versus us attitudes. This is hardly the image of a man dedicated to remedying the ills of the economy of his State. The Queensland Premier and his Minister have raised the tired old argument of States' rights to try to arouse public opinion against this reasonable and conciliatory legislation. Honourable members will recognise the way Petersen has time and again used his catch-cry of an abuse of States' rights when this Government and the previous Labor Government acted in the national interest, and it is very definitely in the national interest to bring industrial sanity back into the affairs of Queensland. I totally reject the argument of States' rights being challenged by this legislation. I put it to honourable members that this legislation is not against States' rights; it is for people's rights. That is what we all should have foremost in our minds when considering the reasons behind this legislation and the purpose for which it is intended. Queensland people are, after all, Australians. Together with the rest of Australia, surely they have the right to expect this Australian Government to protect their rights. By adopting what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has explained as a fast track method of implementing a process already available in existing Federal law to provide for the ETU to gain recognition and protection under the Federal conciliation and arbitration system, that is what the legislation is all about. That recognition and protection are necessary because the people of Queensland have been denied industrial justice under the draconian legislation designed and implemented by the fascist Government of Queensland. The legislation introduced into the Queensland Parliament during the power industry dispute is among the most regressive packages of industrial laws ever introduced in Australia. Among other things, the legislation denies sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board workers the right to return to work on reasonable terms or to have the issue of their reinstatement considered by an impartial tribunal. It imposes oppressive terms and conditions of employment on workers in the Queensland power industry. It curtails the basic civil liberties of those workers by conferring extreme power on police to arrest and prosecute persons involved in protest action and picketing, et cetera-anything at all in regard to their normal rights in relation to the situation in the Queensland power industry. It introduces harsh new sanctions against workers and unions involved in industrial action and it attempts to weaken union organisation by encouraging workers not to join unions and not to take part in union activity. I want to turn again for a few moments to the economic situation in Queensland. The situation there quite obviously is a direct result of the policies of the Queensland Government and of the professed determination of the Queensland Government to try to crash the whole of the Australian economy. I would like to highlight to the House the failure-- Mr Slipper —What has this got to do with the Bill? Mr KEOGH —It has a lot to do with the Bill. This Bill is necessary because of the actions of the Queensland Government and because of the way the Premier has destroyed the Queensland economy in his determination to see that that destruction flows over to the Australian economy. The fascist National Party Government in Queensland has failed to keep pace with national economic recovery, which failure now threatens the national recovery. An independent report recently examined the issues in Queensland. It was compiled by Queensland University lecturer Mr Phil Day who found that the Queensland economy continued to trail the rest of Australia. This was firmly confirmed in an economic analysis of the Queensland Government undertaken by my colleague Senator Graham Maguire, who produced figures which point to a faltering, narrowly-based economy in Queensland which needs to be redressed by the defeat of the Bjelke-Petersen Government at the next election. I have consulted the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I seek leave to have a table of figures incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIA-PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS Australia Queensland Per cent Per cent Employment (March 1985 compared with March 1984) +2.0 +0.3 Total unemployment (March 1985 compared with March 1984) -4.1 +7.3 Registrations of new motor vehicles (3 months to February 1985 compared with 3 months to February 1984) +11.9 -0.5 Number of new dwellings approved (3 months to January 1985 compared with 3 months to January 1984) +9.5 +1.7 Value of other building approvals (3 months to January 1985 compared with 3 months to January 1984) +67.4 +36.8 Number of dwelling commencements (September quarter, 1984 compared with September quarter 1983) +27.1 +13.9 Value of retail sales (3 months to the end of January 1985 compared with 3 months to the end of January 1984) +7.3 +9.9 Actual new fixed capital expenditure (September quarter, 1984 compared with September quarter 1983) +2.3 -20.6 Working days lost due to industrial disputes (12 months to January 1985 compared with 12 months to January 1984) -15.6 +83.9 Working days lost per 1000 employers due to industrial disputes (12 months to January 1985 compared with 12 months to January 1984) +6.4 +80.2 Bankruptcies (12 months to December 1984 compared with 12 months to December 1983) -8.2 +26.4 Mr KEOGH —The regrettable state of the economy of my home State can fairly be attributed to the pathetically poor economic management of the incumbent Government of Queensland, in particular its Treasurer and Premier. It is no wonder that this man has refused to enter discussions on the power dispute in Queensland. The longer he can encourage and prolong feelings of division and disquiet in the community, the longer he can hide the real state of the Queensland economy. As Treasurer, as well as Premier, he must be held responsible for what has happened to the once-thriving, prosperous State of Queensland. As I said earlier, the situation that exists today can be redressed only by the action of this Government. The action of this Government will protect the rights of Queensland people, particularly the rights of Queensland people involved currently in the electricity industry and hopefully in the long term those who, until recently, held secure jobs in that industry, jobs taken away by the fascist tactics of the Queensland Government. This legislation is in the national interest. It is to preserve industrial democracy in Queensland and to protect the people and the workers of Queensland from the fascist Government that they currently have inflicted upon them. When this legislation is passed, both Houses of this Parliament will, in a very direct way, bring to Queensland the industrial harmony that has existed now for some time, because of the efforts of this Government, in the rest of Australia. I support the Bill. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.55) —If ever there was an occasion on which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should exercise his often-exhibited propensity to change his mind, and if ever there was an occasion when the Prime Minister should persuade the Caucus to follow his lead-and we heard his recent boast last week that members of the Caucus would follow him across hot coals if he gave them the call-this is the occasion to do so in the interests of Queenslanders and Australians. Of course, that is the last thing that this Government will do because it is, as usual, acting under instructions from and in concert with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was quite open about it; he admitted that the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill had been prepared specifically to meet the Queensland situation. He even referred explicitly to the cosy relationship between the Government and the ACTU when on page 8 of his second reading speech he referred to the fact that the Bill had been put to the ACTU first-in fact seven days before it was even sighted in this House-and that the ACTU had been given him the green light to proceed with it. So we now have a Bill which is clearly an integral part of the ACTU's attack on the democratically-elected Queensland Government and the people of Queensland. There is, however, more to it than that-more to it than meets the eye. On Tuesday it became clear that the legislation would be debated today and that the Government would be extraordinarily generous with us and give us three hours and 50 minutes to debate it! What a contrast that makes to Tuesday night when the Government, in the dead of night, rammed through some legislation which enacted a betrayal of undertakings given to the ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen of this country. So, one must ask oneself: Why all the public breast-beating, especially since the Bill will not provide reinstatement for the electricity workers-as much has been admitted by the Minister-will not bring Queensland to the negotiating table-and who could blame Queensland?-and anyway will more than likely be thrown out by the High Court; and, if not, of course, expires in three years anyway because of the sunset clause inserted by this Government? There is no dispute. The Premier of Queensland, I thought, summed up the situation rather well a month ago when he said: The battle is won. They are all in the bag. The string is being tied at the top. This is all just a mopping up operation. How true that was. So, this Bill needs to be seen in the context of the ongoing power play between the factions and within the factions and between the Government and the trade unions. The fact is that Mr Crean of 'Simon says' fame and of the ACTU wants to be ACTU President later this year and so desperately needs to be seen to be taking a tough stance against the Queensland Premier. The Government is creating this piece of legislation as a face-saver and in return is looking for some concessions from the ACTU on consumption taxes. This Bill is a sop for a trade union movement that has been stunned by a government prepared to stand up to extremists, and a sop for the ACTU, which has been using all the elements in its armoury to blackmail the Queensland Government. We have seen in this case the full range of the ACTU's powers being used and thrown against the Queensland Government. We have had hit lists and blockades, and yesterday a part of the trade union movement was even calling for a black ban on horses! Of course, the last and the major element in its armoury is to be pulling the puppet strings of those in Canberra in an attempt to force a democratically-elected government to repeal legislation that it had every right to enact. The unions are quick to heap blame and abuse on the Queensland Government, but I quote the words of the ACTU's permanent representative in Canberra, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, from his second reading speech: The unions involved in the initial dispute have not been beyond blame. How clearly that has been demonstrated in this House today. The Minister went on to say: Indeed, by rejecting an order from the Queensland State Industrial Commission directed at resolving the dispute, the unions helped lay the groundwork for subsequent moves . . . In simple terms, the unionists were directed to go back to work. The Premier gave them time to consider their position and told them what would happen if they continued to refuse to return to work, and when they still refused to work they were dismissed. I reckon that was fair enough, and I reckon most fair-minded Australians and trade unionists would agree with me. The Minister is, of course, right to say that the Queensland legislation has implications beyond the State of Queensland. The reason he is right is that the legislation tackles some of the prize sacred cows of the trade union movement. First, the Queensland legislation includes provision for the abolition of preference to union members over non-members. In my opinion, preference should be gained by merit, and I reject union preference as anathema to the principles of equity. Secondly, the legislation makes the suspension or cancellation of union registration easier, a concept generally supported by the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which was tabled this week. If one thinks of the damage caused by the Builders Labourers Federation in this country in the last few years, I think one would agree that this is a sensible proposition. Thirdly, it makes provision for an extension of the circumstances in which a secret ballot may be ordered. This is again sensible, merely on the face of it. Fourthly, as an example, it incorporates the principle of no work, no pay. To most Australians that again is a fair and reasonable proposition. It is about time this Government faced up to a few home truths about trade union extremism in this country. Instead of commissioning reports from the Human Rights Commission on the rights of extremists, how about it asking a few questions about the rights of Australians to an uninterrupted supply of essential services, including electricity. How about the rights of Australians to run their businesses without threats from union extremists. How about the rights of unemployed Australians to enter a labour market which will set wage rates which will allow all Australians to obtain work. How about the sovereign rights of the State of Queensland. In conclusion, this Bill represents the ACTU loading the gun and aiming it at the people of Queensland and the Prime Minister pulling the trigger. It is a clash between a Prime Minister who is a captive of the ACTU-what a classic example this piece of legislation represents in that regard-and one of Australia's great Premiers, who is fighting for the best interests of Queenslanders and Australians, who, amongst many fine achievements, has abolished probate and death duties, not just in Queensland but throughout Australia, who has given Queensland some of the lowest taxes in Australia-of course, this rankles with the other side-who can claim Whitlam's scalp on his belt and who has given real leadership and confidence to one of our fastest growing and most exciting States. To Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the people of Queensland I say: We, on this side of the House, give you our support in your efforts to secure a limit to the excessive powers of the trade union bosses and to bring some sanity back into industrial relations in this country. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(1.08) —The response to this legislation by the Liberal-National Party coalition Opposition in this place depicts once and for all just how right wing, how extreme, those opposite have become in such a short space of time. It must surely now be recognised, by its response to this legislation, that the Liberal-National Party, right across Australia, is the political party that seeks fundamental changes in the basic tenets of the Australian way of life. It must surely now be recognised that it is the Liberal-National Party in this country that occupies the lunatic political fringes, because it is supporting a deliberately created massive dispute-industrial strife designed and provoked by the Queensland National Party Government. The Queensland Government has three motives in designing and provoking this industrial strife. Firstly, it is designed to act as a blind for the failing Queensland economy-an economy falling around the ears of the Premier day by day. Secondly, it is designed to draw public attention away from the massive gerrymander that was slammed through the Queensland Parliament in recent weeks-a massive redistribution of electoral boundaries that, amongst other things, will help to destroy the Liberal Party in Queensland. Thirdly, it is designed to bring down the Hawke Government. Should anyone question the motives of the Queensland Government and the Queensland Premier, I draw their attention to page 26 of the Bulletin of 23 April, where the following is stated: Victory over the Queensland union movement and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, says Bjelke-Petersen, will mean the defeat of the Hawke Government: 'It will build up to such a crescendo that the people will never forget it', the Premier says. 'They won't run their term; they won't be able to run their term. They'll cause so much chaos, so much disruption, that they'll be forced into an early election and that will be the end of the Labor Party. There in black and white is the Premier of Queensland advocating, creating and designing chaos and disruption to use his own words. He is using his own State as a political battleground. He is prepared to cause conflicts, chaos and misery for his own political ends and he is using Queenslanders as political cannon fodder. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) a short time ago in this place said that 'innocent Queenslanders have suffered by the actions of unions'. I say to him that innocent Queenslanders are now suffering by the actions and excesses of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his Government of bandits. Why has the Commonwealth deemed it necessary to act in this way with this legislation today? The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), amongst his ramblings, mentioned that there had been 15 crippling electricity strikes in Queensland in recent times. The electricity industry is not alone. In the 12 months to February 1985, industrial disputation, in terms of days lost, rose by a massive 184.1 per cent in Queensland, in contrast to the Australia-wide decline in industrial disputation of 8.8 per cent. This means that the Queensland economy is a blot on the Australian economic performance, and its industrial relations is the key factor in that decline. If there is to be a question of leadership in this place-and we have heard it often in the last few days from those opposite-let me say this: This Government has made it perfectly clear that it is not prepared to stand by and watch Joh Bjelke-Petersen destroy the economic recovery now taking place in Australia, and we are not prepared to stand by and let him destroy the prices and incomes accord that has been the foundation of that economic recovery-and let there be no doubt that he is deliberately seeking to destroy the prices and incomes accord. This legislation provides a fast track to resolve the electricity crisis in Queensland. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has already said that it is prepared to arrange dispute-settling procedures in the electricity industry. But where is the Government of Queensland? Where is the Federal Opposition on this? They do not believe in talking out industrial disputation. The Queensland Premier will not come to the table; he will not seek industrial resolution. He wants conflict; he thrives on conflict; he is seeking conflict. In Queensland there is no talk-there is only union bashing. In Queensland there is the highest rate of industrial disputation in Australia, with the worst economic effects. The honourable member for Tangney also said that this legislation smacks of there being 'not democracy, not government' in this place. I call on the Queensland members of the Federal Liberal Party, particularly the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), to look at what is going on in Queensland and at what they are supporting in this place, and then have a good hard look in the mirror. Where is the democracy in the actions that they are supporting here? Do they condone the gaoling of priests and clergy in Queensland? Do they condone the previously unseen police powers that are being enacted in Queensland? Do they believe in the changes in the rules of law and evidentiary provisions to facilitate prosecutions of innocent people? Do they believe in the directions to carry out work from the electricity commissioner on the pain of penalties? Do they believe in this conscripted labour? The irony is that none of these big stick measures will work or facilitate industrial peace in Queensland. I call on the honourable member for Ryan and his colleagues from the Queensland Liberal Party to have a good hard look at their consciences and at what they are supporting. Surely it makes them sick to the pits of their stomachs. The Liberals are now standing by to be wiped out by the Queensland Premier. They are prepared to stand by and watch the killing of democracy and civil rights because they are gutless and they are frightened. To make matters worse, they are now governed nationally by the far right of their own Party. The honourable member for Tangney said: 'There is no outrage about the Queensland Government measures in Queensland'. Again he is wrong. I draw his attention to the Courier-Mail of 15 April in which the opinion polls show that the majority of Queenslanders think Joh has gone too far and support the unions. He went on to say: 'There is no mass outrage amongst the Queensland labour movement'. I draw his attention to the Labor Day march of 6 May-the biggest Labor Day march in over 15 years-in which participated trade unions that had not participated in the Labor Day march for 30 years. As usual the honourable member for Tangney is long on well-prepared and well-designed rhetoric in his speeches, but is short on specifics. He is even shorter on substantiation of his facts. He raised also the constitutional validity of this legislation. The dries and the leading industrial relations protagonists in the Federal Opposition, it is worth while pointing out, have absolutely no experience in the field of industrial relations. The honourable member for Tangney, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) are arch-novices in the area of industrial relations. They have simply read Margaret Thatcher's thoughts on life; that is the extent of their interest in and knowledge of industrial relations. They should know that there is a wealth of High Court decisions to provide precedents for this legislations's validity. They should know that this very case that has been in and out of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provides its own precedent because the findings of a dispute is a question of fact. It has been upheld twice in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, firstly, by Commissioner Brown and secondly, on an appeal by the Queensland Government which was rejected by the Full Bench. Who sat on that Full Bench? It was Mr Justice Ludeke, Deputy President McKenzie and Commissioner Lear. Those gentlemen know something about industrial relations. The honourable member also said that this Government is subservient to the ACTU and the left wing unions. Again he provides no substantiation for this, but he repeats it. I draw the House's attention to the matter of public importance along those lines that was debated on 7 May in this House when he spoke of the implications of the dominance of this Government by the trade union. If any objectively minded citizens want to read the Hansard report of that debate he will see not only that he failed to provide any substantiation for these points but also that his arguments were ripped apart one by one. He has never tried to substantiate those points yet again because he knows he cannot. I ask the honourable member for Tangney and all those opposite who listen to him on this point: If this Government is subservient to the ACTU and the left wing unions and if our Ministers are hacks of the unions, how does he explain that Australia has the lowest rate of industrial disputation for 16 years and, married with that, real unit labour costs that have declined back to 1966-67 levels? Real wage costs in this country have fallen, and fallen quite dramatically. At the same time, the average trade unionist, because of the policies of this Government, is better off. This Government is not subservient to the ACTU, to left wing unions or to anyone else. We are subservient to the wishes of the people of this country. They want economic recovery and industrial relations stability, and we are going to bring that about in Queensland and all of Australia. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(1.20) —Every State in Australia has emergency legislation to cover essential services, except New South Wales; and of course the Commonwealth does not. The States feel it is an essential part of their activity to protect their people by having an assured delivery of foodstuffs and essential services. Queensland is no exception in that regard. In a little over three hours this House will pass legislation relating to essential services of a type never before seen by this Parliament. In the Queensland Parliament the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act was debated for four and a half hours, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was debated for three and a half hours and the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act was debated for three hours-a total of 11 hours debate. I think it is about time members of the Australian Labor Party understood that there are proper democratic processes and that they can be exercised by parliaments. Why have the rights of Australians been interfered with to such a great extent by the union movement? The citizens of Queensland have a right to get to work; they have a right to their jobs; they have a right to heating and cooling in their homes; they have a right to exist as other Australians. The Queensland legislation seeks to ensure those rights. The dispute which caused stoppages in the electricity industry commenced in December. Following the dispute and a long period of negotiations and discussions, the order to return to work issued by the Industrial Commission of Queensland was ignored by electricity workers. That was followed subsequently by a blockade of Queensland by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the unions that were involved represented employees of Australia Post, Telecom, and the airlines. All militant union groups were responsible for that blockade. The Electrical Trades Union, the Transport Workers Union and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union were the key unions that brought about that blockade through the ACTU. Queensland was under seige by the union movement of Australia. Queensland is no longer under seige thanks to the legislation passed by the Queensland Parliament and thanks to the democratic process of eleven and a half hours debate of this issue in the Queensland Parliament, compared with three hours debate in the Australian Parliament. The Government is supported by unions and acts for unions. The Australian Government has only one objective; that is, to make sure that it does not get offside with the Australian union movement. Let us have a look at the record of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to demonstrate these things. He has done nothing about a massive rail strike in New South Wales. He did not intervene in any way; he made some paltry remarks here in the Parliament and did nothing to assist the State of New South Wales or to stop that strike. He is an effete Minister; he is incapable; he is incompetent. He did not do anything in the food preservers dispute when, outside the accord, the food preservers were awarded a 2.6 per cent increase in their salary. He did nothing about the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. In fact he withdrew that case and Mr Gallagher now is appealing for legal aid to fight criminal charges. He did nothing about the Public Service dispute involving employees of the Australian Government. He is effete and ineffective. I would like to quote to the House comments by the Minister on the AM program of 22 April. The question asked by Prue Goward was: Are you prepared to contemplate guaranteeing essential services? The Minister replied: Well, it's not a matter of us guaranteeing it because essentially the essential services area is very largely in the hands of the State industrial jurisdictions. There we are: He admits that it is a State matter and, in one stroke with this legislation, is moving to insert the Commonwealth in a State matter. But, of course, the Commonwealth is one of those governments of Australia which have no essential services legislation of their own; and every State in Australia has, except New South Wales. The Minister is not prepared to stand up to the union movement and he is not prepared to stand up for the Australian community. The Minister I accuse also of being dishonest in his presentation of this matter. The Minister, in his second reading speech, cited as one of the reasons it was necessary for the Commonwealth to move in the fact that that the electricity commissioner had 'unprecedented power to direct any person to carry out work at pain of penalties'. I will quote the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act to the Minister because he has misrepresented the situation of Queensland. The Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act says that the electricity commissioner has the power: . . . to direct any person whatever who, in his opinion, is capable of carrying out the necessary work . . . it does not relate to anybody whatsoever; it relates to a person who is capable of carrying out the work. Mr Conquest —They can say no, because there is no penalty in the Act. Mr CADMAN —Of course they can say no. If they say no, they do not want to do the work, they can then walk off the job. That should be the right of every Australian, to withdraw his labour and go somewhere else to work. The rights of the Australian community and the Queensland community are interfered with by this legislation before us. One of the worst legal jobs I have ever seen in my life was done for this Government at short notice by the Human Rights Commission. It presented a report, taking us through half a dozen European conventions, eventually to a minority report in the International Labour Organisation Convention and saying that that applied in Queensland. That was a dishonest piece of work also. I reject completely the work done at short notice by the Human Rights Commission. Let us have a look at the Bill before us. Clause 4 says that State authorities and departments come under the powers of this Parliament and this legislation. Clause 4 also says that subcontractors will be deemed to be employees for the purposes of the legislation. Clause 5 overrides the normal protection of State powers that is afforded people living within a State. Clause 6 takes up the decision of single commissioners and will allow single commissioners to act. Clause 6 also deals with regulations. In fact, the regulations attached to this legislation will not be capable of disallowance by this Parliament or the Senate until August or September, because the Government delayed the introduction of this legislation so that the regulations could not be disallowed by this Parliament. That gives the Government scope to act throughout the whole winter recess. Clause 6 also deals with employee organisations and gives the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the opportunity to declare employee organisations as coming under the regulations of the legislation. So the Government can choose whatever group of workers it likes under this legislation to make them parties to the dispute. It binds every Queensland authority, not just the power working authorities or the power supply authorities. It declares, as I said, subcontractors to be employees. Under clause 8 the Commission must take the case. It cannot dismiss this case. It cannot dismiss the case for any well-known reasons, such as its being effectively dealt with by another authority. It is even stopped from refusing the case on the basis that it is in the public interest to do so. If the public interest, as discerned by the Commission, would best be served by the Commission not hearing this case, under this legislation, the Commission still has to go and hear the case. So, under the legislation, contrary to the public interest, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has to go in and hear the power dispute case in Queensland. Of course the best one of all is a right of union veto on the commissioner who is to hear the case. Any party to the dispute can reject the commissioner who is sent to them to hear the case. That commissioner is then removed by the Full Bench and another one is appointed. They can go right through the commissioners until the union is satisfied it has a commissioner who will listen sympathetically to what it is being told. Of course there are no rights of appeal from the decision of the Commission following the hearing of this dispute. So Clause 8, I believe, is a disastrous clause. The Commission is forced to go in, even against the public interest, and hear this matter and make a decision. The Australian Government is forcing that on the people of Queensland. The Australian Government has said that it wants to talk about this matter. The Minister has said he would like to speak to the Premier. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that he would like to speak to the Premier. I cannot imagine any Premier wanting to speak to the Prime Minister when he is addressed in this way by the Prime Minister: It is about time that the people of Queensland were better served than they are now by a Premier who is deliberately dishonest and is misusing this situation not to ensure the supply of electricity to the people of Queensland but to engage in a political charade. Those are the words of the Prime Minister, encouraging the Premier to come and talk to him! I can understand a Premier not wanting to speak to the Prime Minister on those terms. Let us have a look at this Government and what it is doing. It does not stand for the rights of the people of Australia; it stands for the rights of unions. Series after series of disputes have been supported by the Government and no firm action has been taken against the union movement. The State Government is under siege and captive to the Australian Council of Trade Unions with the Federal Government egging on the union movement. We have an economy with the Australian dollar worth 60c against the United States dollar. We have a government that attacks the elderly, rejects our allies and is a captive of militant union leaders. This legislation should be rejected. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(1.30) —I will be brief in my comments on the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill. At the outset, I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation because it represents at least some light at the end of the tunnel; light that, of course, was never evident before. The Bill before the House today has been introduced in an attempt to resolve the continuing industrial dispute, notwithstanding what some honourable members opposite have said that there is no dispute. Of course there is an industrial dispute. One does not have to be very perceptive to see that. This Bill is an effort to resolve the continuing industrial dispute in Queensland between the State Government and the unions which recently deprived the people of Queensland of their electricity supply. In my comments in relation to this Bill I certainly will not be laying at the feet of anyone the blame for the dispute that occurred and is continuing in Queensland. One has to be constructive and, I would submit with respect, one has to be conciliatory-something, of course, that is not known to the Premier of Queensland. I just make comment on an issue raised by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). Either his actions were deliberate or he spoke without having knowledge of the issue. He either deliberately misled this House or, as I say, did not know what he was talking about. He said that the majority of unions did not support the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in this issue in relation to the strike. I indicate to the House, particularly honourable members opposite, and to the people of Australia that that is totally false. There is no basis for that statement. As I say, either it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the people or he does not know the facts. At a special meeting of all unions in Queensland, affiliated and non-affiliated, there were 150 union representatives present and they gave total and unanimous support to the ETU. Some honourable members opposite would consider the present industrial dispute as a single issue whereas, in fact, a brief look at the history of the matter will indicate that the Premier of Queensland has harboured long time plans to destroy a part of the essential fabric of the society of Australia. I am certain that some honourable members present would be aware that, as long ago as in the mid-1970s, the Premier proposed introducing right-to-work legislation. Right-to-work legislation exists in some of the southern States of the United States of America and, from experience and from research, it has been shown that workers in those States that apply the right-to-work philosophy are grossly underpaid compared to workers in those American States which are unionised. To substantiate what I have just said about the Premier of Queensland I refer briefly to the Bulletin of 23 April this year. I quote from that publication. After an interview with Bjelke-Petersen, the reporter said of the Premier: The model he would like to establish in Queensland is the free-labour markets of the southern sunbelt states in the USA. Bjelke-Petersen was reported to have stated: It is a good philosophy where you have that attitude. We can get away from all these things that block jobs, such as penalty rates at the week-end. This was clearly put on the record as long as 10 years ago by the Premier of Queensland. Not all that long ago his attitude towards working conditions and wages was clearly illustrated, when he used to go and get Aborigines from the Cherbourg Mission to work on his property at-one could hardly call them wages-mere subsistence rates. He had no regard for the Aboriginal people of Cherbourg; he had no regard for wages, conditions or anything else except for lining his own pockets using cheap labour from the Cherbourg Mission. The intention of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is not related just to this dispute. His long term plans are to break the concord that exists in this nation between workers and employers. Only last year, on 3 September in fact, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen met the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and vowed-it is on public record-that he would introduce similar legislation to hers to try to destroy the concord that exists in this country. While it has been the Premier's long term aim to drag on the unions, it is also a blind for the parlous state of the Queensland economy. I know that has been said in this place before, but it bears repeating because we do have a parlous economic state in Queensland. I put on record some of the difficulties that the State faces and what the Premier is trying to hide under this confrontation that he has brought on with the union movement. Whilst employment is improving in Australia nationally, it is going backwards in Queensland. In fact, for the period March 1984 to March 1985 employment improved by in excess of 2 per cent in Australia but by a miserly 0.3 per cent in Queensland. Let us look at the unemployment records-the records go on and on. The statistics bear out what I am saying about the disgraceful state of the Queensland economy. Between March 1984 and March 1985 in Australia, through the policies and programs of this Federal Government, the Australian or national unemployment level was reduced by 4.1 per cent. I invite honourable members to compare that with the pathetic record of the Queensland Government. In Queensland in that period unemployment increased, not reduced-everywhere else in Australia it reduced but in Queensland it increased-by 7.3 per cent. Mr Cleeland —We will get on to bankruptcy and small business in a minute. Mr GAYLER —Someone mentioned bankruptcy. We have a wonderful record of that in Queensland. Sometimes one has not too much pride in calling himself a Queenslander. Let us have a look at bankruptcies. In 1984-85 in Australia, on a national basis, bankruptcies reduced by 8.2 per cent. Once again, the policies and programs of this Government are seen to be providing benefits. There was a decrease of 8.2 per cent in Australia on a national basis; in Queensland there was an increase, not a decrease, of 26.4 per cent. Everyone is going broke in Queensland, and it is no wonder; the Queensland Premier and his Government have the worst possible record in Australia in relation to the economy. Queensland's Minister for Northern Developments and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Katter-I certainly do not reflect on the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) here-came to north Queensland the other day and said that in north Queensland 5,000 jobs had been lost in the last 12 months. I just ask the people of north Queensland and the people of Queensland generally to consider that, while we were losing 5,000 jobs in north Queensland, everywhere else in Australia except the State of Queensland jobs were being created and the unemployment situation was improving. Let us have a look at actual new fixed capital expenditure and compare the Queensland situation with the national average. In Australia there was an increase of 2.3 per cent; in Queensland there was a decrease of 20.6 per cent. So that bleak picture is throughout the economy in Queensland. What we have is a Premier who, under this union confrontation bid of his, is hiding the real facts from the people of Queensland. Further evidence of the Premier's true intent is contained in public statements he made recently. I do not wish to repeat those, because they have been brought to the attention of the Australian public by previous speakers. But there is no doubt about it, the Premier has on more than one occasion publicly indicated that he, in fact, is bringing on this confrontation to bring down the Hawke Labor Government, the national Government. Mr Conquest —He hasn't lost many. Mr GAYLER —Well, we will see about that. After all-- Mr Humphreys —What about his record here, lest we forget. Mr GAYLER —Lest we forget, yes. The Government Whip has just brought something to my attention, but I will leave him to outline that to those present, Mr Deputy Speaker. All too often Bjelke-Petersen is portrayed as a standard bearer for the conservative cause in this country. In fact, he is actually a radical of the Right, who is chopping down the standards of Australia. But more than that, there is perhaps no person in this country who seems more intent upon destroying agreements so basic to the fabric of this society. What we have is a return to the confrontationist attitude of the Fraser Administration. He has an abysmal record as far as wages and industrial matters are concerned. One only has to look at his attitude over the years. Let us look first at the 40-hour week-a condition that was won after a lengthy struggle by the unions and their members. What did Bjelke-Petersen have to say about that? In the Queensland Parliament-it is on record that this is what he said-he said: It gives workers more time to while away in hotels. That is his attitude to the 40-hour week. On long service leave-this is a matter very close to his heart, of course, because he failed to take up his superannuation in the Queensland Parliament, but I will speak briefly on that in a moment-he said: It smacks of people getting something for nothing. I ask the Australian public to consider the views of the Premier in that regard, to just think about it. His attitude towards the trade union movement, towards wages and industrial matters is one of apathy. I conclude by saying that age will weary Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the years will condemn. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(1.42) —The Bill before the House, the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill, is exactly the pathetic bully-boy response one could expect from a government which is at the end of its political tether. We of the Opposition can sympathise with how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) must feel as they squirm and dangle precariously on the end of the Australian Council of Trade Unions string, knowing that the supposed cornerstone of their Government-the ACTU and the accord-is being toppled over by that great man, the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The Bill is one that could serve as the epitaph to this Government as it leaves its short-lived stay in office in 1987. I refer it to the Bulletin of this week. This is a Bill which shouts out to the Australian people: 'We are the Government of the ACTU, by the ACTU and for the ACTU'. For over two years the Prime Minister has repeatedly shoved down the throats of the media and the business community how the accord and his special relationship with the ACTU would bring great benefits in the form of industry harmony and efficiency to the community. Well, let us have a look at the benefits that Queenslanders have enjoyed through the Prime Minister's special warm relationship with the ACTU: Food, fruit and vegetables piled up in storerooms and at ports and lay rotting; families suffered, losing freezers full of expensive food which many of them could not afford to replace; small businesses and supermarkets sustained heavy losses; ships came to the ports to load their coal and grain export shipments and there they stayed while Australia's reputation for being unreliable worsened and the coal and grain industries lost millions of dollars. What happened to Queenslanders trying to go about their leisure and business activities? There were no planes, so families suffered a little more and the business community watched helplessly as dollars clicked endlessly into the red column. The Hawke Government failed to fulfil its duty to ensure that essential services, such as transport and mail services, were delivered to Queensland. The Opposition tried to assist the Government by explaining the legislative avenues open to it to bring the unions warfare against the people of Queensland to an end, but the Minister did not seem able to understand. People around Australia then made it clear that they supported the Queensland Government's endeavours to protect its population, to retain essential services and to keep the economy moving. Australians supported the Premier because he stood up to the bully-boy tactics of the ACTU, the Storemen and Packers Union, the Transport Workers Union of Australia and the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. The Premier called their bluff. He simply said: 'We have had enough. The Government runs this State, not the unions, and unionists will not hold Queenslanders to ransom'. Now the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is attempting to have passed what must be the most outrageous piece of legislation ever introduced into this House. The Bill is a gross invasion of State rights. As the Minister said on 22 March 'It is essentially a State matter and it would be inappropriate to introduce overriding legislation'-until he got his riding instructions from the ACTU. So, not only has he now introduced a Bill which will destroy the principle of State rights; he has introduced a Bill, the purpose of which is to solve a dispute that no longer exists. We are all getting our electricity in Queensland. There is no need for this legislation to be wasting the valuable-and already limited-time available to this House to administer the nation. The Minister should understand simply this: The dispute was solved by the Queensland Government. People are now back in the workplace and essential services are flowing. Evidently he does not understand this. There are no jobs available to send anyone back to. Will the Minister just move in the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia to bump off anyone currently filling positions in the electricity industry? The real reason for this draconian, scandalous legislation is simply this: The ACTU jerked its Government puppets hard and said: 'The Queensland Government has beaten us fairly and squarely so you people get to work and make some laws that will put us back on top'. If the Prime Minister had really had a special relationship with the ACTU, if he had really cared about the wider constituency, he would have invoked the so-called special relationship with the union movement to prevent what were illegal blockades. The Prime Minister did not invoke his umbilical tie with the ACTU because he was not in a position to do so. The ACTU runs the Government in a one-way relationship in which the Prime Minister is subservient to the ACTU executive. What the Prime Minister does not realise is that the community has had it up to the back teeth with the standover tactics of the Australian union movement and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. Australians want to be freed from union thuggery. They want to have the right to carry on and go about their business. The Opposition is not in the business of wanting to destroy unions. Unions have an important role to play in the infrastructure of our society. However, the right to strike, like the right of freedom of speech, has to be tempered against the interests of the community. Every section of the community has to accept accountability for its actions-except, according to the Minister and the Prime Minister, the union movement. For my part, I have the right to drive my car the wrong way up a one way street, but I have to be prepared to be accountable for my actions, which have not been in the best interests of the community. The union movement demands that it be placed above accountability, that it be placed above the interests of the community. The Opposition and the Premier of Queensland do not find that acceptable. That is why we have supported, and will continue to support, the stand taken by the Queensland Government to limit and to reduce the legal privileged position unions hold in the community. The Government has accused the Premier of Queensland of destroying civil liberties. I find that statement offensive. This Bill aims to destroy the most fundamental of civil liberties-the right to be heard in one's own defence. The proposed legislation will deprive the Queensland Government of the right to argue in defence of the system which it has established within the electricity industry. Why do not the Minister and the Prime Minister march in protest against the denial of that civil liberty that everyone except the Queensland Government has? The fact that the proposed powers to settle industrial disputes under the legislation relate to Queensland only is indicative of this Government's intention to try to reopen the dispute to enable the ACTU to have a second attempt at holding the people of Queensland to ransom until their selfish, sectional demands are met. It also further demonstrates the legitimacy of the Queensland Government's position before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that the dispute was a Queensland dispute and should remain an internal State matter. The system will simply be burdened with artificial paper disputes created by similar logs of claim served on employers in different States. The proposed legislation sets an alarming precedent. It serves notice that this Government will condone whatever unjustified demands the ACTU may make of the Australian people. It puts in doubt the accepted framework of conciliation and arbitration as it has operated in the Commonwealth sphere. It puts in doubt the fundamental civil liberties of the individual and it puts in doubt the federation principle of the right of the States to administer their internal affairs. In effect, the Commonwealth is promising-we condemn this action- to defend the unions against State governments that may seek to impose accountability upon them. Queensland, Mr Speaker, as you well know, has a government which governs for all Queenslanders, unlike the Hawke socialist Government here in Canberra which obviously governs only for the benefit of the ACTU. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 ——

AYES Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry

NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McCGoodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.

PAIRS Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Dawkins, J. S. Watson, DavidKlugman, R. E. Everingham, P. A. E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Question put: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.

NOES Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J.Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N.Howard, J. W. Beale, J.Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W.Jull, D. F. Braithwaite, R. A.Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A.McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A.McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G.MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, DonaldMcVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen (Teller)Macphee, I. M. Cameron, IanMiles, C. G. Carlton, J. J.Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R.Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P.Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M.Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J.Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B.Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M.Robinson, Ian. Downer, A. J. G.Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H.Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, HarryShack, P. D. Fife, W. C.Sharp, J. Fischer, TimShipton, R. F. Fisher, PeterSinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J.Slipper, P. N. Hall, SteeleSullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G.Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M.Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Wilson, I. B. C.

PAIRS Hayden, W. G. White, P. M. D.Dawkins, J. S. Watson, DavidKlugman, R. E. Everingham, P. A. E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE PREMIERS CONFERENCE Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald suggesting that he has telexed the States arguing that the June Premiers Conference be cancelled. I ask the Prime Minister: Is this the case? If so, has a decision been taken to limit real growth in Federal outlays to the States to 2 per cent? Mr HAWKE —No decisions have been taken in this area. Of course, when they are taken they will be conveyed in the appropriate context, that is, in the Premiers Conference. TURRELLA MAIL CENTRE Mr PUNCH —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Communications, concerns my electorate, most decidedly. What action has Australia Post taken to solve the mail dispute which affected the Sydney southern suburbs region last week? What was the central problem at the Turrella depot? Can the Minister ensure that the Government will do its best to provide a reliable service to my electorate and the other southern suburbs of Sydney? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. On 20 April 1985, the Turrella mail centre, which services the southern suburbs of Sydney, including the area referred to by the honourable member, came into full operation. One of the problems associated with the integration of the three mail sorting offices in the new mail centre building was the time taken by staff to adjust to the new environment and working arrangements. This is significant in relation to the problems that exist with respect to mail in Sydney overall. It was clear after a two-week period that alternative arrangements would have to be made to deal with the amount of mail for the Turrella region as delivery was delayed to the extent of 1.4 million postal articles. Arrangements were made to use a number of selected post offices in the region and other post office staff to process mail which would normally be processed through that mail centre. This proposal was not accepted by the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union and the matter was taken before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 6 May. Commissioner Grimshaw recommended, inter alia, that management should be in a position to arrange for other areas of Australia Post which employ APTU members to assist in reducing the backlog at Turrella to an acceptable level. Because of the continued refusal of union members to move a portion of mail from Turrella to selected post offices, it was necessary for Australia Post management to approach the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission again. At this hearing Commissioner Grimshaw approved the insertion of a stand-down provision in the APTU award with effect from Monday, 20 May. Australia Post estimates that currently around 700,000 articles destined for the southern suburbs of Sydney are delivery delayed. This contrasts with the backlog on 17 May of 2.3 million postal articles. Australia Post management has indicated that it is now confident that by early next week the backlog will be reduced to a stage where articles addressed to the southern suburbs region will be delivered within one day of the prescribed service standard. On the basis of Commissioner Grimshaw's recommendation, the parties are working on reaching an understanding on the flexible use of the decentralised mail network with a view to ensuring long term speed of service and reliability. As I have indicated, I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it must be said in relation to both sides of the House that there are members who assiduously go about making representations on matters affecting their electorates. But I suggest to the honourable member for Barton that that camp stretcher, which he put in my office and which he seems to have been occupying for the last fortnight, can now be removed. TAXATION AND WAGE INDEXATION Mr HOWARD —I ask the Treasurer whether he agrees with the view expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when, as Treasurer, in the 1975 Budget Speech he said: It is the Government's firm view that, for the purpose of wage indexation, increases in prices resulting from tax measures . . . should be discounted. It would be self-defeating if the system of wage indexation were to attempt to insulate the community from tax measures designed to redistribute resources for the benefit of the community. If the Treasurer shares the view of his colleague, will he assure the House that that principle will be adopted in relation to the introduction of any broad-based indirect tax and that, furthermore, he rejects the utterances of Mr Dolan, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on this very matter, as reported in this morning's Press? Mr KEATING —The whole question of the introduction of indirect taxes or changes in the indirect taxes which we have seen in this country in years past obviously has price effects. If one were to contemplate the introduction of an indirect tax of significance, obviously the aim of any government would be to have the price effect indeed to be a price effect and not an inflation effect. It becomes an inflation effect when the price effect is built into wages in such a system. One of the great difficulties in facing the option in this country, either today or in years past, of a transition from the direct tax system to indirect taxation is in fact in getting to a position where any price effect is not built into inflation and into wages and where that transition is then successfully accomplished without any damage to the macro-economy. It is important, therefore, that any indirect tax change that may be proposed is proposed in the context of tax relief, so that we would not be asking the work force to take a discount-in the normal sense a discount means less money-but rather a tax package that gives net tax relief; that is, it gives net tax cuts. Therefore, the prospect of net tax cuts is putting a very perverse construction on a discount to secure a discount for an increase in take home pay. Because of the comprehension with which the Government will address this measure, obviously anything that the Government may propose would be markedly different from what was proposed in the time of the former Government when indirect tax changes were really contemplated only as an add-on and not in any way for relief on the question of direct income tax. Through the summit processes, no doubt, these issues will be well and truly discussed. I fear that a lot of what the Australian Council of Trade Unions has said in recent days has either been misunderstood or in some way misrepresented-perhaps not intentionally misrepresented, but that could be the effect of it. The ACTU's position on taxation is that it has not developed a preferred position on tax changes. It has not seen the White Paper. It has not yet had the opportunity of discussing taxation in the context of the national economic summit on taxation. It is not locked into any position with the Government. I think that has been said over and over. However, each time it is said, it is said as though the position of the ACTU is hardening. The ACTU's position is quite open. It has said that it will require the testing of a number of options. Many of those options will in fact have a consumption tax element to them. So in that sense the whole question about the principle of moving to a consumption tax probably will be addressed by the ACTU itself in seeking to have options tested at the summit and through the summit process. If I were looking at the ACTU from the Opposition's point of view I would not be trying to put too gloomy a construction on what has been said but rather looking at the ACTU's position. It has had a formal position opposed to indirect taxation for a long time. It realises that there is now a tremendous squeeze on marginal tax rates. We have now got 46 per cent impacting at 87 per cent of average weekly earnings. The 46 per cent rate impacts, in fact, at the median income. It is not impacting even at average weekly earnings, which is about $22,500. It is impacting at $19,500. If there is no relief in this area, obviously the impact will be more severe on lower incomes as we move through the balance of the term of this Parliament. I think the ACTU understands that and, like any other body interested in its constituency, it is trying to see in which way it can secure that relief. That is essentially what the debate will be about. I think it keeps an open mind in the sense that it is prepared to look at options and have them tested. Some of those options have consumption tax elements to them and in that sense the ACTU, while having a formal policy of opposition to a movement to indirect taxation, is, I think, facing the realities of the Australian taxation system in the only intelligent way possible, and that is by keeping an open mind, looking at the options, not agreeing now to any formal positions and seeing how things fare with its ideas and the ideas of others in the summit process. COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM Mr O'NEIL —Will the Minister for Communications inform the House how the launching of Australia's communications satellite system will benefit citizens who live in the Federal electorate of Grey? Mr DUFFY —Honourable members no doubt were pleased to see what was essentially bipartisan support given yesterday in this place to the amendments providing for remote commercial television services. It is hoped that that legislation will lead to the granting of licences which will provide commercial television to 600,000 or so Australians who currently receive no commercial service or no adequate commercial service. A good many of those 600,000 Australians in fact live in the Federal electorate of Grey and no doubt it will be a great boon to them. I also advise the House that the planned launching of the satellites is on schedule, the first of which is to be launched in August. Further, all reports indicate that the Government's decision to adopt the B-MAC transmission format was well based and promises considerable benefits to the consumers. One of the aspects of Aussat not well understood here, but certainly well known to representatives of remote electorates, such as the honourable member for Grey, is that the current Australian Broadcasting Corporation satellite feed to remote communities such as Leigh Creek, which is in the electorate of Grey, will be able, for the first time, to emanate from Adelaide rather than from Brisbane, as at present, via Intelsat. When visiting Leigh Creek some time ago the local citizens forcibly informed me how much they resented the situation of receiving their television programs from Brisbane rather than from Adelaide. It was a sobering insight into the value placed by local citizens in broadcasting services being relevant and as far as possible relating to local needs and interests. In summary, I assure the honourable member for Grey that those he represents will be among the principal beneficiaries of the new broadcasting distribution system. EXCHANGE RATE AND WAGE INDEXATION Mr HOWARD —I address another question to the Treasurer. I refer to the honourable gentleman's answer to my last question-if I may say so, a very informative answer-when he effectively endorsed the principle enunciated by the then Labor Treasurer in the 1975 Budget Speech. Is it not a fact that a currency depreciation represents, in the words of his colleague, 'a redistribution of resources affecting the whole community'? Therefore, is it not a fact that the principle enunciated by the former Treasurer applies with equal force to wage adjustments following a depreciation as it does to wage adjustments following indirect tax changes? Mr KEATING —I would have thought that this question had been addressed many times in the Parliament in the last few weeks, indeed the last few months. It is a fact of life that, fortunately for this country, there is a framework within which an incomes policy and an economic policy have been established, that is, the Government's economic policy with the prices and incomes accord. In the context of that prices and incomes accord, we have a framework whereby questions such as depreciation can now be addressed. It is worth bearing in mind that at this stage in Australia's economic recovery, after two years, normally what would happen is that inflation would be rising and the current account deficit would be being very badly debilitated. In the days of the former Government there were no policy instruments in place to deal with both of those things, except to close the economy down. It dealt with rising inflation out of the second year of a recovery by imposing a radically tight monetary policy to stop an inflationary surge, which had the effect of closing the economy down. Secondly, it would have dealt with the prospect of a deterioration in the current account by again closing down the economy to stop the demand for imports. Either way, the result was that we were doomed to two-year recoveries. This Government has in place two major instruments for dealing with these problems. We now have a chance as a country of busting through the inflation and balance of payments constraints with two instruments-the accord in respect of inflation and the floating of the exchange rate in respect of the balance of payments. We have seen a change in respect of the parity of the Australian dollar with the trade weighted index which will allow a repair of that current account position and give Australia higher growth than it would otherwise have had through the balance of this decade, and we can see the tremendous success that we have had with the prices and incomes accord in reducing inflation, in the face of very high growth, from 11 1/2 per cent to 5 1/4 per cent. The fact is that the depreciation will produce much more growth in the Australian economy than might otherwise have been the case. We can look with confidence to our third year of strong economic growth in the non-farm economy and we will see stronger employment growth than we would have had. Quite obviously, after putting those achievements on the board thereby reducing inflation, the Government is not about to turn its back on the macro-economic influences which are part and parcel of this changed competitive position on the exchange rate. That means that we will address the issue of wage outcomes in the way I suggested in the May statement last week, in the context of the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is why it is this Government alone-this Party alone-in its constructive and conducive relationship with the ACTU, which is giving this country the prospect of a decade of prosperity rather than being damned to two-year recoveries and recessions by the economic incompetents opposite, who have learned nothing from the fact that they never had an incomes policy and that the only policy instrument in their hands to deal with the current account deterioration and inflation was to choke off growth in the economy; in other words, whose only remedy was to choke off growth, to choke off inflation and to choke off a deterioration in the current account. We have in place policy instruments which can leave our sails cast for growth. The difference between this Government and the former Government is that this is a pro-growth government. It is not a growth rhetoric government; it is a pro-growth government. The difference is that we have policy settings cast for growth and the former Government, while it wanted growth, had policy settings cast against growth. The difference is that we have an accord that will deliver us wage restraint in return for employment growth and growth in the living standards of Australia. It is that unique policy combination which offers Australia through the balance of this decade the kinds of stunning success it has seen in the last two years. That is why the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is an important one. He has himself said that the one great flaw in the coalition's policies was that it never had an incomes policy. That is true. It still does not have one. We do, and in the context of that policy we will address the question of the exchange rate. QUEENSLAND: HEALTH FUNDS Mr WRIGHT —I ask whether the Minister for Health is aware of the claim made by the Queensland National Party Minister for Health, Brian Austin, as reported in a telex that: The Federal Government would have to lift its health funds to Queensland by 143 per cent to reach the level given to other States. In view of the extremely generous funding given by the Hawke Government to Queensland in the health area since 1983, will the Minister advise the House as to how the claims by Austin line up with the facts? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for his question. The quotation from the Queensland Minister for Health is typical of the near total disregard for truth that this man has in these matters. Indeed, this quotation is so absurd as to be simply laughable. But I suppose that by now we can expect anything to come out of Queensland. I do not suppose that any of us should be surprised by actions in a State where civil rights are now so flagrantly disregarded that the private medical records of 47,000 patients have been summarily seized by the Queensland Government. These doctors' clinical notes are not simply details of services, but contain an enormous number of intimate details about patients' medical histories. Every Australian should be outraged by this kind of behaviour and I have certainly asked my Department to examine whether there have been any breaches of the confidentiality provisions of the National Health Act or the Health Insurance Act. Mr Porter —What about the leaks from your own Department? Dr BLEWETT —I am very glad of the question raised by the honourable member for Barker. Nothing done under the regime of the previous Government or this Government in relation to medical investigation compares with the breach of civil liberties in this case. There has not been a squeak about this behaviour of the Queensland Government from honourable members opposite, who on other occasions have been prepared to raise great howls about any infringement whatsoever of medical records. Let us return to the specific question raised by the honourable member for Capricornia. First of all, I point out that the Queensland Government to 30 June 1985 has received $105m in Medicare grants, money it would not have received for its public hospital system if the old insurance system had continued. Moreover, as Queensland already had a Medicare type of hospital system before the introduction of Medicare, this $105m represents not compensation but additional money to spend on the Queensland hospital system. The question the people of Queensland have to ask is: Where is this money going? What sorts of rorts, what sorts of pork barrelling, are taking place? This money is not all going into the hospital system. The Queensland Government has to account for where this extra $105m has gone. Of course, the Queensland Government cannot answer that question; so it has produced an argument that somehow it is terribly unfairly treated as against the other States, so unfairly treated that some $263m extra a year should be paid to it. We had an impartial arbitrator look at this nonsense and a full chapter of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is devoted to Queensland and Medicare. I presume that this document is banned in Queensland. It points out that, yes, Queensland has had a marginal disadvantage under health payments. Has it been underpaid $263m? No. Has it been underpaid $100m? No. Has it been underpaid $50m? No. It has been underpaid $10m in two years. I understand that the Minister for Health in Queensland presented his extraordinary speech to the Society of Accountants in Queensland. I have written to the Society of Accountants offering to send it copies of this banned document so that it can see the dubious accounting of the Queensland Minister. ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION Mr SLIPPER —Having listened to the nonsense from the Minister for Health-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get on with his question. Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the recommendations by Commissioner Costigan designed to stamp out standover tactics and extortion by unions, so relevant in view of recent lawless actions by the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and this Labor Government. The Attorney will recall Commissioner Costigan's accompanying advice that the Government should consult the union movement on his proposals. Can the Attorney advise the House what consultations took place with the union movement, what views were expressed as to the recommendations and what weight these views had in the Government's decision to procrastinate and prevaricate on every recommendation that Mr Costigan made in relation to unions? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There has been no procrastination with respect to the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Let me make it very clear to the honourable member, as a new member, that the reason we are in government is because of the Costigan report. One of the first questions asked of the Fraser Government in 1982 was why it was not tabling the first Costigan report. The reason was that the report showed that the administration of the Government had failed completely, not in terms of the original intention of the Costigan Royal Commission, which was to inquire into the union activities of the painters and dockers, but in terms of the disclosure that the union was a cover for organised crime in Australia. We can go further. When one looked at who was perpetrating the organised crime one found that it was many people who were closely associated with the then Government. Further, when it was disclosed from taxation records that there should have been pursuit of these people, no action was taken. There was not one prosecution in the period from the Costigan-- Mr Porter —You did nothing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are talking about procrastination. Not one prosecution was lodged in the period from the Costigan Commission initiative right through to the demise of the Fraser Government in 1983. It is only since then that the National Crime Authority has been established. There have been prosecutions and convictions. Mr Howard —That is not correct. Maher was arrested before the change of government, and you know it. Why don't you get your facts right? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There were no prosecutions. I notice that the honourable member readily comes to the aid of a person he has known. Mr Howard —Readily comes to the aid? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point: The question of- Mr Howard —You withdraw that. Come on! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Withdraw what? Mr Howard —Withdraw that allegation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If it offends the honourable gentleman, I withdraw. I want to make the point, though, that the whole thrust of the Costigan Commission was to indict the previous Government. The real reason for that was the previous Government's failure to deal with organised crime. From the point of view of the trade union movement, let me make it clear in respect of the Costigan Commission that those who were guilty have been dealt with quite severely. From the point of view of other recommendations, of course there is continual consultation with the trade union movement generally. But that has nothing to do with organised crime. The real issue and the real problem that the honourable gentleman has in Queensland relates to the behaviour of the State Government there. That is the real issue. The Government of Queensland is legislating in a way that is contrary to all known democratic practices. From that point of view, the honourable member should not blame the trade unions for the trouble in Queensland; just put the blame with the Government of Queensland. QUEENSLAND MEDICAL RECORDS Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the recent incidents in Queensland during which 47,000 medical records of an extremely sensitive nature were seized from two planned parenthood clinics. Has the Attorney-General seen a report in this morning's Courier-Mail that the names of 14 women are included in documents lodged with the Supreme Court Registry yesterday? Is it true that this action has been condemned by Sir William Knox, the Australian Medical Association and the media? What are the implications for human and civil rights in Queensland if that State continues to enforce its laws with such callous brutality? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a matter of national concern to find that 47,000 medical records of patients were seized in what was called an operation by the Queensland police against Queensland medical clinics. There would be no precedent for this. Obviously there is outrage because it is a severe interference with the privileges of people, particularly in the medical profession in which there are certain obligations of secrecy and privacy between patients and their medical practitioners. It is a fact of law that, if one wants a warrant to pursue criminal conduct, that warrant ought to relate to specific conduct and to a specific charge. Nobody in his right mind could justify a warrant which enabled 47,000 files to be seized. In no way could it relate to a specific charge or to a specific warrant. Further, it is a matter of record-of course, some Medicare records were seized-that there was this extraordinary behaviour in Queensland in that the police said they wanted to seize the records for only a short time and then would return them. I make the point: What happens to the records in the period in which they are seized? Who gets them? What happens to the knowledge of the names of the patients or other confidential factors? Are the police going to guarantee that the names will not be disclosed to anybody else? Therefore, there has been a severe invasion of privacy and the rights of individuals. It is also a matter of notation that, while the Queensland Attorney-General said that he was not going to publish the names of any of those people, within a matter of 24 hours the names of 14 people have been published. How many more are to come? Worse still, from the point of view of premeditated action, it was announced to television and the Press in advance that there was going to be police action. Road blocks were set up and 50 police were involved. A sign was displayed with the words 'crime investigation in progress'. The whole thing was on camera and was publicised well in advance. This is a direct negation of the rights of people and it in no way conforms with normal investigative processes by police. A practice has existed for many years that no one would dare encourage the issuing of what are called general warrants on the basis of going into people's homes or doctors' practices and seizing whatever one likes. From that point of view, Sir William Knox is perfectly entitled to indict the Government of Queensland. So is everybody else in Australia. ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUSTRALIA'S SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES Mr HODGMAN —Will the Prime Minister categorically assure the House that to his knowledge there was no link whatsoever between the drafting of the Australian Labor Party submission to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and the fact, as exclusively reported in the National Times of 2-8 March 1984, that two members of the ALP drafting committee of nine, namely Bob McMullan and Chris Schacht, actually dined with Soviet Union Embassy officials at the conclusion of the committee's first discussion? Mr HAWKE —I find it difficult to follow the honourable member's question. I cannot categorically deny something of which I have no knowledge and therefore I do not do it. I have no knowledge of the matter in the honourable member's question. Mr SPEAKER —I suspect that the question was out of order. SALE OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Government's attitude towards the Opposition's proposals to sell off public enterprises such as Trans Australia Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank, parts of Telecom Australia and the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. That question was completely out of order because a Minister cannot be responsible for Opposition policy. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. It is not a question of Opposition policy. Mr Coleman —I take a point of order. The question must be out of order in that the questioner asked the Minister for his opinion of the coalition policy. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Calwell whether he used the word 'opinion'. Dr Theophanous —No. Mr Speaker, I will repeat the question. The words I used are contained in a printed copy of my question. The words were: What is the Government's attitude towards the Opposition's proposals? Mr KEATING —The Government would be vehemently opposed to the sale of such authorities. I notice the attempts by the Leader of the Opposition and his Party to characterise some of the elements of the statement I put to the House last week in respect of the sale of the Belconnen Mall and the Tuggeranong shopping centre site as in some way paving the way for the Opposition's lunatic policy for the dismantling of Australia's great public authorities. I do not believe the Government should be in the business of running shopping centres. Lots of other people do that effectively. I see the prospect of their sale as quite reasonable. That should be compared with what is proposed as an economic policy on the part of the Opposition-to squib the really difficult problem of cutting recurrent expenditure of the underlying structural outlays of the Commonwealth, in a way to disguise it by selling off, say, the Commonwealth Bank or Telecom or the Australian Industry Development Corporation or Trans Australia Airlines-which is simply vandalism of Australia's great public authorities, which in no way deals with the problem of cutting recurrent expenditures. When this policy was first announced-we did not hear much about it at the last election; the Opposition announced this before the last election but apparently did not have the guts to carry on with it in the election campaign-it was supposed to be some sort of substitute for a tough crackdown on the recurrent outlays of the Commonwealth. The razor gang exercise, which was the Opposition's last great attempt, ended up being not $500m but $150m. That should be compared to about $3 billion which this Government has cut out of outlays in three Budgets. The fact is that the sale of these bodies is not in any way an economic policy. It is just a piece of ideological and intellectual aggrandisement on the part of the Opposition, because Opposition members believe that in some way they can pull off a Thatcherite policy. Let me make it clear that this Government has refurbished Australia's great public Commonwealth authorities. We have injected $150m of new capital into the Commonwealth Bank. We have made the Commonwealth Bank a taxpaying authority entirely. Let me tell Opposition members that the Commonwealth Bank has made revenue contributions by way of dividend to the Commonwealth Budget for years, despite the fact that the Commonwealth had never put anything into the Commonwealth Trading Bank. The Commonwealth Bank has operated successfully to provide banking services to hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Australian individuals and families over the years, to give them housing accommodation, farm finance, small business finance, and it is a very competent organisation. It is owned by the Commonwealth, but under statute it has a dividend requirement imposed on it. It has a 45 per cent dividend requirement, and it is met it for years. Telecom Australia is perhaps, in terms of size, the greatest of Australia's public authorities in the provision of telecommunications and technology services that are equal to anything in the world. What benefit would there be in selling off Telecom to some group of entrepreneurs? If that were to be the case, who would buy it? The same can be said of the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which was introduced by the previous coalition Government and which has provided a first class facility for industry financing in this country. We have substantially extended its capital and its borrowing limits so that it can now do much more in business financing and the lifting of Australian ownership throughout the economy. No matter where one looks, whether it be at TAA or the other authorities, there is no case for the Opposition's argument in economics, except simply to indulge ideologically in a Thatcherite, vandalistic splurge to try to destroy these authorities and to wreck the job security of their thousands of employees. To do what? To try to cover for the absence of any hard economic policy in terms of Budget recurrent costs or in terms of expenditure costs. To substitute for any hard policy the Opposition sits back and says that it will sell off Telecom, Australia Post, the Commonwealth Bank, or any of the others. The Labor Party will fight tooth and nail to keep these public authorities in the hands of the Commonwealth. We are about refurbishing them and keeping them strong. We are not about wrecking them and selling them. The great public services they provide will continue to be provided while ever this Government has the breath to defend them. SUGAR INDUSTRY Mr IAN ROBINSON —I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Government undertake official negotiations with the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales immediately the working party report on the crisis facing the industry is completed early in July, and is some action anticipated at that time? Mr KERIN —We have been in discussion with the sugar industry ever since we came into government. The big problem with the sugar industry has always been a political problem. As Opposition members know full well, the sugar industry has always kept the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government at arm's length. The sugar industry ran into a crisis when the coalition parties were in government and they did nothing about it. When the sugar industry came to that Government asking for an increase in domestic price, the Government did nothing about it. All it did was to give the industry two Industries Assistance Commission reports. The big problem has been that, if the Commonwealth had prepared a package, it would have been rejected by the industry on the grounds that it did not understand what we were doing or that there was not enough money, or it would have been rejected by the Queensland Government. The object of this Government has been to get the industry and the two governments working together. We now have that process under way. We now have under way a process whereby the industry, the Government of Queensland and the Commonwealth Government are working together in the interests of the industry. That process is going very well. We are actually doing something together for the industry instead of playing politics, and I think all members of this House should welcome that approach. When that report comes in, it will be looked at by the governments and the industry. If there is need for further discussions, consultations, negotiations or whatever, of course they will take place. ARMY TRAINING: BATHURST-ORANGE Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Defence aware of certain deceptive tactics that are being used by some members of the Central Tablelands No-Base Committee in suggesting to holders of property adjoining the proposed Army training facilities project area near Bathurst-Orange that the Army's land requirements are considerably in excess of 70,000 hectares in order to provide an appropriately designated buffer zone? Can the Minister provide the House with the precise details of the land requirements for this project in the Bathurst-Orange region? Mr BEAZLEY —I apologise to honourable members for not being here to take an earlier question. I was having demonstrated forcibly to me that I would never have made a fighter pilot. The question that was raised by the honourable member is a serious one that causes me considerable concern. There is absolutely no intention by the Government to acquire any more than the identified 70,000 hectares at that site. The only basis I can think of for such rumours, if the rumour mongerers are not simply being malicious, is that the original proposition for the development of an artillery complex and infantry school at that or any other site designated an area of 160,000 hectares to be acquired. That proposition floated about for several years prior to our coming into office. It was the proposition initially put to us in relation to not only that site but also a number of others. We undertook a thorough-going review of the real requirement and our view was that to meet all the Army's necessary activities an area of considerably less than 160,000 hectares-70,000 hectares-was required. That seemed to be the maximum requirement and it was the one we went for. It was a very well worked out decision that sent us down that track, and that is all we will want. Anybody who is going about the honourable gentleman's electorate attempting to throw panic into persons not currently notified of the Government's intention to acquire their land-if an environmental impact statement permits us to follow that course-is acting in a most malicious and ill informed manner. I give all assurances to the honourable gentleman's constituents that the Government's requirement has been placed before them in its totality. AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the Australian Science and Technology Council report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. TAXATION STATISTICS Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following paper: Taxation Statistics 1982-83, dated 23 May 1985, the supplement to the sixty-second report of the Commissioner of Taxation which was presented to Parliament on 8 December 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. FRUIT INDUSTRY SUGAR CONCESSION COMMITTEE Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-clause 3 (2) of the Sugar Agreement 1984, I present the final report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for 1984-85. AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the second report of the Interim Council of the Australian Defence Force Academy. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. BUREAU OF AIR SAFETY INVESTIGATION Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report prepared by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the crash of a Beech 200 Super King Air aeroplane, VH-KTE, at Adavale, Queensland, on 28 August 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. TOWN CAMPERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the town campers assistance program annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. PETITIONS National Flag The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Beale,Mr Brumby,Mr Halverson,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Mr Barry Jones and Mr Kent. National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. Sales Tax: Confectionery To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Hand and Mr Hodgman. Nuclear Free Zones To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia showeth: 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. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. Taxation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The richest 2000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/4 million. It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country (Bob Hawke 11.7.81 Sydney Morning Herald). The present provision of Social Benefits is absolutely inadequate . . . locking recipients into poverty (including 800 000 children of those on social welfare pensions or benefits. To enable all Australians to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming taxation reform to- 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000 2. Double the permissible income ($30 to $60) plus indexation. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30 per cent of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to CPI 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Further we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad based indirect tax thereby shifting the tax burden onto those dependent on social welfare and low income earners further increasing their poverty while allowing continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax. by Mr Aldred. Funding of Local Government 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: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21st March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be replaced before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill in the Senate 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 in the Senate to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. Petrol Price To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse effect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. Taxation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the government. To impose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. Pensions: Assets Test 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 iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Pensions: Assets Test To 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 Hawke Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies arising from the application of its assets test on pensioners, and the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test. The Government should itself act to scrap this unfair and iniquitous measure. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. Education 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 in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable, The Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Act 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Act so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Act be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. National Flag To the Honourable Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. 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 3 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 place in space. (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 the 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 Hodgman. National Flag To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 3 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 place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 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 its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. National Service: Reintroduction To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians strongly support the reintroduction of compulsory National Service. 2. That the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that the options of Military and Civil National Service ought to be available. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: forthwith pass Commonwealth Legislation for the reintroduction of compulsory National Service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. Foreign Military Bases in Australia and Nuclear Disarmament To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for 'Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Hollis. Taxation: Small Businesses To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not 'windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. Frozen Pea Industry To the Honourable the Speaker 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 Keogh. 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 USA by declaring our wild horse protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. Proposed Dairy Industry Plan To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the introduction of the Federal Government plan for the dairy industry will put thousands of dairyfarmers and even more people associated with the dairy industry out of work. Australian dairyfarmers, in particular Victorian and Tasmanian, are the most efficient in the world; the loss of such an efficient industry to the Australian economy would be devastating. The undersigned humbly petition the Federal Parliament to carry out an impact study with the dairy industry before an introduction of the proposed dairy industry plan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. Articles of the United Nations Convention on Women To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ''States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. Australia Post Agency, Joondanna, Western Australia To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. Family Allowance Scheme 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 Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Taxation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than 30 June 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bicentenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. Pensions: Assets Test 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 Fairfax 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 Adermann. National Flag 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 Fairfax in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisified 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 Adermann. Taxation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties would not be economically beneficial for Australia, as any introduction of such taxes would: First, adversely affect small and medium sized businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; Secondly, disadvantage the Australian economy by stifling employment in particular, which is heavily reliant on growth in small and medium sized businesses; Thirdly, any capital gains that might result when owners of small and medium sized businesses finally sell the business are not ''Windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; and Finally, the owners of small and medium sized businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representative oppose any attempt to introduce any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the nation, and repeal any existing capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which are to the economic disadvantage of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. Pinnaroo: Television Reception 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. Petitions received.ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported: Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill 1985 Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Amendment Bill 1985 National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill 1985 Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1985 Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985 Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill 1985 Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. HAWKE GOVERNMENT: LEADERSHIP Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The uncertainty and concern in the community by the Government's indecision and lack of leadership. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.01) —In this the first session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament this Government has abdicated its responsibilities to the nation as a whole and abdicated them in favour of the selfish, self-serving interests of its own factions and the trade union movement. It has survived on the philosophy that the way to retain power is not to make decisions but to avoid or defer them. It has failed totally to keep its promises. As a consequence, in the past three months we have had the unravelling of a government with no sense of real purpose, irreparable damage to the credibility of the Government and any real confidence in it both at home and abroad, and stagnation in the economy. I remind the House that at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament on 21 February the Government, through the Governor-General, promised that it would create and maintain a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society and 'national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction'. I pause there for a moment. The words 'reconciliation', 'reconstruction', 'conciliation', 'economy' and 'consensus' are interesting, but what do they have in them? Mr Hodgman —Con. Mr PEACOCK —Con. Does it not fit the bill and the judgment of the people of Australia on this Government today? The one constant in its program-it contains the term itself-is a con. The Australian people have seen through the Government. They have demonstrated it in giving vent to their feelings about this Government at present. Those were the Government's words. Those are the promises which the Government has broken. Let me pose a question to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table: Is it a stronger, fairer and more equitable society-to use the Government's terms through the Governor-General-when it is a society in which there is a punitive assets test which is wrong in principle and unjust in practice and which imposes a retrospective tax on the property, the savings and the investments of elderly Australians? Of course not. Have we achieved national reconciliation when a government, terrified of its left wing and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, refuses to act immediately and strongly to prevent breaches of the law in the blockade of an Australian State? Where is the reconciliation when one allows the ACTU to set itself against one State and the people of this nation? It is some reconciliation and some con all right! Finally, in reviewing this session of the Parliament, how can the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) still claim that the ANZUS Treaty and the United States-Australia relationship remain as firm as ever when, in the wake of the MX missile fiasco, he had to admit on 4 March that the ANZUS Treaty was no longer operative? In the terms of the Governor-General's Speech, one of the principal aims of this Government was to forge further that very relationship. Taken in any order, this catalogue of misjudgment and misadventure displays a government crippled by indecision, a government whose titular head is the prisoner of noisy factions which defy his instructions to remain silent and whose Ministers, in refusing to accept the doctrine of collective responsibility and in acting in their own interests, create confusion about what the Government is supposed to be doing and concern about its aims and its methods. Examples abound. Here are some of them. I look firstly at the economy. Despite the gung ho attitudes of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), an examination of the fundamental economic indicators, compared with the other 11 major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, reveals that Australia has the highest money supply growth; Australia has the second highest current account deficit; Australia has the highest real interest rates; Australia has the second highest annual wages growth; and Australia has by far the largest trade weighted exchange rate deterioration in the last year. No amount of economic jargon that the Treasurer has used and learned to recite by rote to demonstrate the superficial expertise can disguise those realities. There is one most significant example of the irreparable damage this Government has done to Australia's credibility and it is the judgment of the local and the international financial community, which has devalued the Australian dollar as a reflection of its devaluation of confidence. Preceding the devaluation of the dollar was the devaluation of confidence in this Government's policies. That is the major factor in bringing down the value of the dollar. The devaluation of confidence flows through the Government itself. I was intrigued with the economic statement which was made last week. We described it as illusory, because that is what it was in its net effect. Although individual cuts may help people, its net effect was illusory in economic terms. In the last week or so I have read that a dictionary has been amended to take account of Hawkespeak. Honourable members will remember that Hawkespeak originated as a term in this Parliament some two years ago. It has now found its way into the language. The Macquarie Dictionary is officially to include the new word 'Hawkespeak'. The word will come just before 'hawser', which means a load of old rope. Hawkespeak could be defined today, in terms of the economy and the outlook, as when the Government spends hundreds and thousands of dollars on setting up a Commission for the Future and then suppresses the long term forecasts of the Economic Planning Advisory Council because it suggests that as a government it does not have a future. No wonder the word 'Hawkespeak' is finding its way into a dictionary at this time. Let us also review what has transpired over the period of the sitting of this Parliament which has brought about the cause, concern and uncertainty. I just mention in passing the ACTU's illegal blockade of Queensland. It was an undemocratic, unprincipled abuse of union power which put more than one million Australians under siege. What did the Government do about it? It did nothing. It came in here every day and dumped it on the Queensland Government, but there was not one word of criticism of the trade union officials who were acting in this manner. The Government did nothing to stop that blockade. One of my more simple-minded friends, who is nevertheless possessed of some common sense, posed the question to me: 'It is rather strange with this Labor Government. It does not support the blockade by the United States of America of Nicaragua but it will support the blockade of Queensland'. That is about the only degree of consistency that is around. Ms Jakobsen —Never mind whether it is right. Mr PEACOCK —Did the honourable member say that it is right? Right as to wrong or Right as to Left in her book? I thought this Government was now comprised of Left, Centre Left and leftover, and right was never to be found-whether as to Left or as to wrong. The Government did nothing. It had the power to act under existing Commonwealth legislation, in particular sections 45D and 80 of the Trade Practices Act. The Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, did nothing. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister. I remarked the other day that it must feel dreadful to have an approval rating that is lower than the rate of the dollar at the moment. Mr Howard —You don't have to feel sorry for him. Mr PEACOCK —I do feel sorry for him. I suggest that in terms of his sinking approval rating perhaps we might float the Prime Minister. I said that here yesterday. I know there is a tendency in this country to cut down tall poppies. But I think there must be a new trend, they must be cutting down short poppies now. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to act under section 45D but did not do it. He had the opportunity to reactivate the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act which would have enabled the Federal Government to stand down public servants. We indicated in the Parliament that we supported the legislation, but again the Government did nothing. I touched on foreign affairs. I mentioned that the ANZUS Treaty is no longer operative. On the fundamental issue of tax reform the Government has been equivocal about what it believes are the necessary changes. What an example we saw of it the other day! It was no secret that the Opposition had a series of questions to ask the Treasurer. We worked on the normal assumption that Ministers will be in here to face questions at Question Time on a given day. The Treasurer was not here. Where was he? He was closeted in Melbourne playing the new game of Simon says. Simon says: 'Put up your hand', and you put up your hand; Simon says: 'Whack on another tax', and you whack on another tax. Do what Simon says! The Treasurer was being briefed by trade union officials. On the front pages of newspapers today we saw headlines proclaiming: 'Dolan will veto this program' and 'Dolan will veto that program'. The third Dolan Budget is going to be presented when we resume here in a few months time. The first Dolan tax summit tragically and inappropriately is to be held in this place when the Parliament is in recess. The Treasurer would not even front here because he had to race off to get his instructions. I will say this to honourable members: Most people remember that the current Treasurer of this country was the State President of the New South Wales division of the Australian Labor Party which was responsible for more political corruption than any other group in the history of this nation. It is all coming out. He was State President of that organisation during the time when that corruption festered and frothed to the top. We can imagine what will come out when we replace him in 2 1/2 years and discover what has been going on in the Treasury in relation to his deal with the trade union movement. Mr Howard —When they open the boot. Mr PEACOCK —When they open the boot! Was it the boot of Mr Anderson's car or was it his car? Was it at Mr Anderson's place? Can the honourable member recall? Mr Howard —I am working on it. Mr PEACOCK —Is Mr Anderson that well known property developer? Is Mr Anderson engaged in shopping centres? Mr Howard —He might buy the Belconnen Mall. Mr PEACOCK —Is Mr Anderson going to buy the Belconnen Mall? Let us await further developments. If the Government is not in favour of privatisation-it told us today how opposed it is-is it not intriguing that the one step it wants to take is into the Treasurer's croney's area-residential development and shopping centres as well? We will see what happens down the line. So reviewing the past tells us something of the future. The future so far as the tax summit is concerned revolves around a number of things. I remind the House that the Prime Minister in his first major statement on the summit said that it would be inappropriate to detail a preferred Government position. Not only was that an abdication of responsibility, it was also hypocritical. It was hypocritical for two reasons. The first reason is that the Prime Minister knows that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has a preferred position. He knows that he will accept that position no matter what anyone else says at the summit. The deal will be done. Everyone in this country knows that what will be presented as the preferred position will be the deal by the Labor Government and the ACTU. We do not bother asking the Government about its preferred position now because the Government will not tell us. It is necessary to find out what the ACTU preferred position is. That is the Government's position. Simon says 'It will be done'. The second reason is that the Prime Minister has allowed his querulous, mutinous Ministers and factions publicly to announce their own preferred positions, thus adding to the confusion and the anxiety in the public mind about the summit's outcome. This is not a government for all Australians. It is a government for some Australians. The major Australians or the sum total of them are the ACTU officials that this Government serves. This is being increasingly seen as nothing but an abject trade union government. It is abject in the sense of what it does when it is told to perform by the trade union officials and abject in its performance. It is not a government which has the nation's interests at heart. It is a government concerned only to appease factional and trade union bullies. We are not just a negative opposition. We have been spelling out during the period of this Parliament our commitment to repeal measures dumped on this nation. I refer to measures such as the assets test or any capital gains tax which the Government may bring in such as wealth taxes, gift taxes or death duties. Let us not forget about our commitment to return the tax on lump sum superannuation payments to 5 per cent. We will curb trade union power and we will curb the growth of the Public Service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I trust the House will appreciate that the situation as presently established denies the Chair the opportunity to demonstrate its impartiality. There is little material on my right to work on at the moment, but the Standing Orders do not provide for that eventuality; so the Chair has no option but to uphold the Standing Orders. Honourable members on my left are therefore reminded that they are subject to them. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.16) —Some years ago in this Parliament, I took time out to have a yarn with the former member for Gippsland, Peter Nixon. Mr Hunt —In a car park? Mr YOUNG —No, it was not in a car park, it was right here on the front bench of the then Government. I said to Peter: 'What do you think will happen to the leadership of the Liberal Party after Big Mal retires? What would be the odds on some of the foremost amongst the Liberals? How would you rate them?' I went through a few names such as John Howard, Ian Macphee and a few others. I said 'What about Andrew?' He said: 'Mick, the Liberal Party would never be silly enough to put Andrew up. He would be 100 to 1.' Peter Nixon was a pretty astute politician as Andrew would tell us. That was the view of the National Party of Australia at that time. After watching the anguish and the pain on the faces of those honourable members who sat behind Andrew today while he went through his paces for 15 minutes of this useless matter of public importance, one can see why Peter Nixon reached the conclusions that he reached. If Andrew had a 100 to 1 chance of becoming Prime Minister in Peter Nixon's estimation a few years ago, I am sure we would get longer odds with John Howard today. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) talked about indecision in government. Let us look at some of the things that have occurred since 5 March 1983 which go to make up this package of indecision. Firstly, it may be of some consequence to honourable members opposite-certainly it is of major consequence to people throughout this nation-that inflation is now half the rate it was when we came to government in March 1983. It is now half of what it was; it is now 5 per cent as against 11 per cent in March 1983. We have had two years of record economic growth. That is not a bad indecision. It is a bit of the indecision that the Australian people want us to continue with. Some 310,000 new jobs have been created in the last couple of years as opposed to the destruction of 285,000 jobs in the last year of the Fraser Government. Jobs were down 285,000 in the last year of the Fraser Government and were up 310,000 in the first two years of the Hawke Labor Government. That is not a bad bit of indecision also. The Leader of the Opposition tells us how bad the economy is going. Last Saturday a leader of the Mitsubishi auto company told me that that company is selling motor cars in this country at the rate of 750,000 units annually-which is 100,000 units above the predicted sales for 1985. That is not a bad sign in the Australian economy. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition took time to attack the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for the slimiest of reasons. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Treasurer was the President of the New South Wales Branch when perhaps there was some criminal activity in New South Wales. (Quorum formed) The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of criminal activity in New South Wales. Everybody in Australia should read The Prince and the Premier, which was published about six weeks ago, because it divulges the massive corruption in New South Wales under the Liberal Party during the Askin regime, involving not only the Premier but also the Liberal Party, police commissioners and the whole gamut of criminal activists in New South Wales at that time. What the Wran Government inherited at a State level, when it came to power in 1976, was not dissimilar to what this Government inherited in national criminal activity when we came to power in March 1983. The former Government might have exposed what was happening in Australia but it was left to us to do something about it. It did not set up the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to expose criminals; the former Government wanted to do something about the unions in Australia. When Costigan told the then Government about white collar crime it did not have any mechanisms in place to be able to do anything about it. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of leadership. Let us look at the Liberal Party leadership. Honourable members will notice that every night the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), with or without glasses, goes through the dining room shaking hands with every Liberal he can see. The Liberal Party accuses the Labor Party of having Left, Right and Centre factions, and so we have. People have different priorities and a different sense of urgency regarding policies. The Liberal Party has the wets and the dries. When members of the Liberal Party met at Thredbo, Andrew had to check the beds every morning to see who was wet and who was dry to work out the numbers for the day. That is how the Liberal Party worked out its policies. Things got a bit intermingled at Thredbo because that meeting followed Andrew's speech on the Sunday program: 'Whatever the Labor Party puts in its Budget in 1985 the Opposition will recognise it as being its right to pass it'. Out came the honourable member for Bennelong on the Wednesday and said 'We are not having any of that, Andrew', and pulled him back into gear. So the Leader of the Opposition had to get back on television on Thursday and say that that was not exactly what he meant. They met for two days of this intellectual challenge at Thredbo-every member of the Liberal Party. They made two massive decisions. They gave the honourable member for Bennelong the khyber off their policy committee. He went, and they were going to sell the Commonwealth Bank after 48 hours of discussion. They all came away rubbing their hands. On television on the Sunday night there was a picture of Andrew windsurfing. This was the culmination of the intellectual exchange between all the members of the Liberal Party, the members who participate in the national Parliament, about what they see as the future for Australia. They said that we are undecided about what we want to do because we are going to have a summit to discuss with everybody in Australia what should happen to reform the tax system. We said to the Opposition: 'Come along. We would be interested to hear your views'. I think the Leader of the Opposition was somewhat tempted. He said: 'Here is another platform, another photograph for the Women's Weekly. I will go along'. But not little John; he was too cunning for that. He grabbed hold of his Leader's coat tails and said: 'We are not going to be in that because we will have to say something. We will have to put forward a policy. We will have to say what percentage of broad-based tax we want. We will have to talk about what percentage of cuts in income tax we want. We will have to talk about compensation for people on social security and fixed incomes. We will not be part of that. If the Government is participating in a debate with everybody else in Australia, this once great Liberal Party is going to keep right out of it'. That is another expression of the way in which the Liberal Party has ruled this country. Do honourable members want to know the way Andrew, in a great speech- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister lapses into error. I remind him to refer to honourable members in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —One piece of Australian literature that I recommend for reading to every person in this country, particularly those who like to observe politics, is the Leader of the Opposition's speech when he resigned from the Fraser Government. I will tell the House one of the reasons he gave as to why he was resigning from the Ministry. He now talks about the economy and what the Liberal Party will do, all the plans it has for Australia, and all the mistakes we are making. Malcolm-as he was then, and as we affectionately called him in the Parliament-set up a number of economic committees within his Cabinet, and he left the then Minister for Industrial Relations off every economic committee. Mr Gear —Why was that? Mr YOUNG —Because he said: 'He is an economic bird-brain'. Why would they have him on a committee? Mr Fraser gave him the domestic portfolio of industrial relations and then left him off every committee. Here is another great little quote from the speech on 28 April 1981. The Leader of the Opposition said: 'I objected also. Cabinet Ministers used to be called into the Cabinet room.' He said that the Prime Minister would say: 'Right oh, most of you blokes, whiz off. Two or three of us here want to make a decision'. The Leader of the Opposition said: 'They would make a decision and then call us back in and say: ''That is what we have decided and you are all going to cop it'' '. The difference is that the Leader of the Opposition resigned over that matter but not the honourable member for Bennelong, because he was one of the two or three left in the room. Come the night of the long knives, when it is the honourable member for Bennelong, with or without glasses, versus the honourable member for Kooyong, with or without tan, we can back the honourable member for Bennelong. He will win this fight. When members of the shadow Ministry were announced after the last election, the Leader of the Opposition said: 'They have got 12 months in which to prove themselves. Those who do not do it will be rectified'. I think a few honourable members opposite on the back benches have other ideas about what will be rectified in 12 months. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) seems to be taking a very keen interest in the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, as is the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Old Richard III, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), has not cracked a smile since 1 December-since his demotion. He has plans for the Leader of the Opposition. Is the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) happy sitting on a back bench while some of the others are sitting on the front bench? The honourable member for Bennelong is cultivating a hand-shaking exercise. If honourable members go into the dining room tonight they will see him doing it. He cannot help himself. He walks in the members end of the dining room and waves. He is even shaking hands with some of the women who work there in case they get a vote in the Liberal Party party room. He shakes hands with everybody as he goes through. That is not being wasted. He says hello to the spouses and the children of members and he kisses the kids in cradles. It will not be very long before the Liberal Party has to sort out its leadership problem. When it is sorted out we will be able to have a political debate in this country. Everyone knows that the honourable member for Bennelong will have the courage to get up here and say: 'Yes, I am in favour of an assets test. Yes, I am against the decision of the court in the O'Brien Veterans' Affairs case. Governments of Australia cannot continue to pass out money in that way.' While we are faced with the leadership in the Liberal Party at the moment we will not get any definitive decision on anything at all. Those people should have courage and conviction about the views which they hold so strongly. God only knows, they have been a party for long enough-41 years. One would have thought that they would have worked out some sort of approach to taxation by now. The Liberal Party has been a party for 41 years-since 1941. That was the year in which the Leader of the Opposition was born, or was it a bit earlier? As I say, one would have thought that honourable members opposite would have worked out a position on taxation by now. Some of them spend enough time evading it. One would have thought that they would have worked out a position for the rest of us in Australia. But no views come forward at all. It is no use the Opposition bringing forward such futile exercises in debate in this Parliament until it is able to say what it stands for and what positions it will put forward which can be the subject of proper debate between the Labor Party in government and the Liberal and National parties in opposition. It is no good honourable members opposite putting their heads in the sand all the time. Mr Hodgman —You are out of touch with public opinion. Mr YOUNG —I am glad that the honourable member for Denison has come into the House because I want to remind him of what the Leader of the Opposition said: He has 12 months in which to prove himself. Many people are looking over his shoulder at his task. Soon he could well be sitting up the back next to the honourable member for Boothby. Mr Hodgman —He'll be in the Lodge; you'll be in the Soviet Embassy. Mr YOUNG —He might be in the Lodge as the guest of the Prime Minister. Sooner or later the Liberal and National parties will have to sort out not only their leadership but also their policies and put up their views so that we can have a proper debate. They should stop running away from all the hard questions. That is what they are doing at the moment. They will not put down anything in concrete form so that we can have a proper debate. Honourable members opposite have another three months to sort out their problems before we come back for the Budget. But I say to them: For God's sake, do not go back to Thredbo. They solved nothing in Thredbo. All they did was confuse themselves a little more. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The discussion is concluded. BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.32) —The purpose of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill is to increase the rate of freight adjustment levy on Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January and 1 March 1985 and then to express the amount of the levy as a fixed 65 per cent of the special freight allowance component of the import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil. The Bill allows for change in the levy by ministerial determination rather than legislative amendment. The levy collected is automatically transferred to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund. At present crude oil producers in Bass Strait are reimbursed levy payments calculated on crude oil movements over a base period of thirty months prior to the price adjustment. The amendments propose a base period of the latest six months period in response to the closure of the British Petroleum Co. of Australia Ltd refinery at Westernport in Victoria. The Bill introduces drafting amendments to give effect to provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The Bass Strait freight adjustment levy is a legislative attempt to rectify a perceived financial disadvantage suffered by Sydney and Brisbane refiners, compared with Victorian refiners, by having to absorb the additional cost of shipping Bass Strait crude oil to their refineries under the crude oil allocation scheme. The Bass Strait coastal freight adjustment arrangements provide some compensation to those refiners who face relatively high transport costs in shipping Bass Strait crude from Westernport to their refineries. The issue has been a divisive one in the industry. Existing arrangements represent a compromise reached by the Government to resolve this issue in 1983 in the light of the conflicting claims of the various parties and the long-standing inability of the industry to reach an agreed resolution. The amendments seek to enable policy changes outlined by the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, on 9 October last year in his announcement to introduce a partial allocation scheme for crude oil from 1 January 1985. The levy is to be fixed at 65 per cent of the special freight allowance component of the international parity price Bass Strait price. The levy will thus be partially indexed to the freight component of the import party price calculation. This adjustment of the levy has resulted in an increase in the levy from $1.26 per kilolitre to $1.39 per kilolitre on 1 January 1985 to $1.96 per kilolitre from 1 March 1985. Investment decisions by refiners have no doubt taken into consideration the existing arrangements. Altering these arrangements may have detrimental effects on the return on those investments. The Opposition supports the amendments. However, I must point out that the provisions will extend the regulatory distortions of the crude oil market. The crude oil market is characterised by extensive government regulation from the oil well to the petrol pump, as I am sure honourable members well know. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) of course will be addressing himself to this matter. Nobody in this Parliament knows more about this industry than the honourable member for Franklin. He is a thoroughly experienced person in the field. I hope listeners to the broadcast of this debate and those in the House will wait to hear him because what he has to say on this subject is total sense which has been hammered out after years and years of experience. Unfortunately, governments do not take enough notice of what he says in this place. I hope that ultimately people will realise that his experience in the field, actually at the petrol pump distribution level, is of tremendous value. We do not have many experts in this place. Mr Barry Jones —Why is he not in the shadow Ministry? Mr HUNT —I suppose that is his decision. The Minister for Science is, of course, an expert on a lot of subjects. At Question Time I wish honourable members would ask him more questions about general knowledge because he would floor the lot of them. But they should not ask him too many questions about science because he would take too long to answer the questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I ask the honourable member to refer to the Bill. Mr HUNT —The recent savage increase in the price of petrol and diesel is a good example of the distorting influence of government regulations. This increase in fuel prices was due to the Government's policy of picking the pockets of the farming community and motorists generally through the six-monthly adjustment of the excise to the consumer price index. Mr Deputy Speaker, you well know the suffering of those in the rural sector, particularly people living in Queensland, New South Wales and areas away from the metropolitan area. The indexation of this excise to the CPI has been one of the sadder chapters of this Government's administration. How the Government can live with a conscience and with an indexation system of this character I would not know. It is sneaking the Bill through this Parliament. The consumer is having his pockets picked every six months without a relevant piece of legislation going through this Parliament. The indexation of a tax of this character is a very sneaky way of raising revenue. The people it is hurting most are those people who have to use a vehicle to drive to and from work and those people who have to use fuel in order to earn a living: I refer to farmers. I think that indexation is a very unseemly thing for a government to undertake, particularly in view of the fact that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) prior to the 1983 election gave an undertaking to the Australian people that he would reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre. Lots of promises were broken, but no promise was broken more blatantly than the promise to reduce the price of fuel. Most adult people in Australia drive motor vehicles. Most people in Australia have been affected by this broken promise. The summit conference on taxation was set up by the Government to try to get away from the real issues and to try to get away from making a decision prior to the last election. The Government did not know what sort of policy to adopt in respect of taxation, notwithstanding the fact that the Australian worker receiving average weekly earnings was paying 47c in the dollar in tax. It did not know what alternative tax regime to adopt, so we ended up with a summit. That summit starts in July. There will be a very big protest meeting outside Parliament House on the day that the summit conference commences. Farmers and other people from country areas will come here in their thousands to make their presence felt and to voice their objection to any form of capital gains taxation, to voice their objection to the assets test and to voice their objection to taxes on fuel. I hope that in any review of the taxation system some consideration will be given to the way in which fuel is being used as a source of revenue in this country. It is doing untold damage to the export earning capacity of this nation. It is doing untold damage to the sugar industry, which is on its knees in Queensland, and to the wheat industry, which is almost on its knees in the wheat belt of Australia. The fishing industry and every other industry that is dependent on fuel are in great difficulty. In any review of the taxation mix this fuel issue must be addressed. I will address it a little more later. The recent 4c a litre increase in the price of fuel was entirely due to the 22 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar over the past few months. In the period from 1 March 1983 to 1 April 1985 the total Commonwealth Government excise per litre on diesel fuel rose by more than 56 per cent-from 6.155c per litre to 9.641c per litre. I repeat that the excise on fuel increased from 6.155c per litre to 9.641c per litre, which is a 56 per cent increase, in a period of two years from 1 March 1983. Only one cent of this was allocated to the Australian bicentennial road development program and, of course, the entire proceeds of that one cent per litre levy are to be channelled into the roads which motorists use. I have not heard much complaint about that type of hypothecation. When the crude oil levy and State taxes are added to the Commonwealth excise on fuel, more than 50 per cent of the cost to the consumer of a litre of fuel is accounted for by the Government's take. The Government's policies have hit the rural sector of the economy particularly hard. The Fraser-Anthony Government fully matched the gross excise on diesel fuel with a rebate for off-road users, but the Hawke Labor Government decided that it would index the excise without indexing the rebate. The Government bowed to pressure and eventually agreed to index the rebate, but only after it had fallen below the level of the excise. Each time indexation is applied by the Government, the rebate will fall further behind the excise. As a result, every litre of diesel the producer burns reaps another 2c-plus for the Government that was never intended under the original legislation. The Opposition strongly supports the full matching of the excise to the rebate as an immediate step that the Government could take to ease some of the cost pressures on our vital primary industries. It should do that as a matter of urgency. The problems of the freight adjustment levy for Bass Strait crude oil, indeed the necessity for such Government intervention, will be alleviated by the introduction of the free market for crude oil. However, the option favoured by the Government in its latest discussion paper of the preferred modified free market may in fact require some form of freight adjustment scheme for the allocation of oil production from small producers to refineries. The Opposition has criticised the freight adjustment scheme since its inception and supports the proposed amendments only as an interim arrangement on the basis that the scheme will be abolished as part of the early move to a free market in Australian crude oil. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(3.45) —First of all, I compliment the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) on the work that he has done on the petroleum industry. I know that it is a complex industry and it is difficult to unravel. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, is a highly competent Minister who has given a lot of thought to the petroleum industry. He realises it is a complicated industry. He realises that it is very difficult to sort out. As I have said many times in this House, if one drops a tin of oil on the ground one makes a heck of a mess and it is very difficult to clean it up. We support the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill. We do not know what the future holds for a few areas of the Bill. We are talking about having a free market and everybody seems to think that it is going to be the be all and end all and that it is going to make the price of petrol at the pump cheaper for the consumer. That is yet to be proven. The Opposition's position on the Bill has been indicated quite clearly by the honourable member for Gwydir and later in the debate the Minister for Science will sum up what the Bill is about. In talking about petroleum one needs to start at the very beginning. This industry needs reforming and we all know it, but everybody has found it very difficult to do so. At the moment there are variations in the price of petrol right throughout Australia and this is having an adverse effect on the economy. It is very easy to allot blame for this. It is very easy to say that the Fraser Government introduced import parity pricing for petrol and it nearly doubled in price overnight. The Fraser Government did it but, to be quite truthful, there were a few people who were apprehensive about it because no one likes to see the price of petrol increased to the degree that it will seriously affect consumers in Australia. No one likes to find great variations in the price of petrol from one State to another. No one likes to read in the newspapers, particularly New South Wales newspapers, that some discounters can sell petrol at 14c a litre below the maximum wholesale price. Mr Cowan —The State has a 7c tax on it in New South Wales. Mr GOODLUCK —There is a high tax on it in New South Wales. I believe the only State in Australia that does not have a tax is Queensland. Everybody talks about the States raising money. Everybody talks about the States having the ability to look after their roads, et cetera. The States have to get money for that from somewhere. There was criticism of Queensland in a debate earlier today. The consumers of Queensland should realise that they are not paying for it through the petrol pump at the moment. Other States have a tax and the people in those States are subsequently paying for their roads and paying additional costs to run their motor vehicles. It has always been said that the biggest investment a person makes in Australia after a wife or husband and a house is a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle involves a continuing expense. What most consumers look for in a motor vehicle is the ability to go for a Sunday drive and to use their motor vehicle for work during the week or the normal things that people require of a motor vehicle. After they have paid petrol tax, road tax, transport fees and all those other expenses, they look forward to being able to use their motor vehicle at an economic cost. While not trying to allot blame for the situation that exists, one could direct a fair bit of blame at the devaluation of the dollar, which has increased the price of petrol by 5c a litre. Many people ask me what the increase of 5c a litre means. I will tell them what it means. It means an increase of nearly 25c a gallon, which is a lot of money. Many people of the older vintage do not seem to be able to relate the litre to the gallon. Unfortunately, petrol is costing them a lot of money each week and they are not aware- Mr Hunt —Say it again. What is it? Mr GOODLUCK —There are about 4.5 litres to the gallon so if we multiply the increase per litre by four or five we find that the increase is about 25c a gallon. Once upon a time, if the price of petrol increased by 1c a gallon everybody went mad. But today people think that an increase of 4.5c a litre, or 22c a gallon, to 50c a litre is not so bad. They think that the increase is about 5c a gallon. It is having an adverse effect. My good friends from the Government must realise that we need to do something about it. We need to reform the situation. We need to do something whereby people do not see this wide variation from one State to another, because then they get upset about import parity pricing. We all knew why we went to import parity pricing. We knew that we wanted exploration to take place. We wanted additional wells so that we would not have to depend on that 30 per cent-it was 35 per cent at the time-that we import from other countries, particularly the Arab states. We do not want to be dependent on the Arab states. We do not want to be dependent on any other country for our fuel. We saw what happened when the shortages occurred. People went absolutely mad. They could not get petrol for their cars and they could not get heating oil for their homes. A wide fear flooded the world when that occurred. We need to be self-sufficient. That is why we went to import parity pricing. We wanted to conserve what we had and to make certain that in the future we could be self-sufficient and not dependent upon other people. Now it could be argued that it is a different ball game. There is plenty of oil in the world. As a matter of fact, in certain countries there is a glut. We know that. We are about 70 per cent self-sufficient now. We have increased our self-sufficiency from 65 per cent to 70 per cent and we have 30 per cent to go. I am trying desperately not to allot blame, but the devaluation of the dollar-- Mr Rocher —We are selling it overseas. Mr GOODLUCK —I know. It just does not sound right. The consumers of Australia, the battlers, the ones who are on the fixed income and who really depend upon that additional amount of money for the weekend so that they can get that little bit of pleasure, are the ones who are worst affected. It is a very important political point which is sometimes forgotten in this House. We argue about taxation in other areas but when a person uses a motor vehicle for his enjoyment, to get to work, et cetera, the price of fuel becomes a very important political point. The Government has a time bomb ticking away under it. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said on many occasions that taxation is going to be collected at the petrol pump-by stealth. Those words are coming home to haunt him. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said during the 1983 election campaign that he would freeze the price of overseas crude oil and reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. Mr Hunt —And everybody said 'Hip-hip hurrah'. Mr GOODLUCK —He got a lot of votes from it, because it was going to affect the hip pocket. Many people thought to themselves: 'Boy, here we have someone who is going to reduce the price of petrol'. All of a sudden we saw the pockets of discounting. We saw petrol being sold in one capital city for a certain price and in another capital city for another price. Unfortunately, in the way of politics, the whole thing was smothered. Today we have a problem and we need to sort it out. We need to look at alternatives. I mentioned to the Minister the other night that we were about 30 per cent not self-sufficient. As he knows, we export a heck of a lot of our liquefied petroleum gas to Japan and Korea. People in those countries are laughing all the way to the kitchen sink, all the way to the kitchen stove. Their cars are running on non-pollutant LPG. They are saying to themselves: 'Those suckers in Australia have problems with pollution. They are going to lead free petrol and paying a high price for it, and we are getting their beautiful, clean LPG'. With all the rot about LPG not being safe, thousands of cars in those countries use it. With all the rot I hear about our not being able to convert, with all these great theories about alternatives in motor vehicles, the Japanese said that they would produce an LPG car. They produced one, a Datsun, which was a failure. They produced a car which ran on LPG only. With all the criticism in Australia about safety, et cetera, they did not make a car with the dual system. They could have done it and started a market resurgence in LPG. Everybody buys motor cars with all the alternatives in seats, differentials, gear boxes, upholstery, et cetera. What about our having an alternative whereby we could run our cars on LPG or petrol? Why is that not possible? It would be of great advantage to Australia. Coming to work today I noticed that LPG sells in Canberra at 26.9c a litre and petrol is priced at nearly 60c a litre. Boy, we need to do something about it. We need to make up that 30 per cent. All those consumers in the electorate of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and my electorate in Tasmania are paying 60c a litre for their petrol when people in other States can get it for 50c a litre. I harp on this point because it is important. The oil companies criticise me. They use me as a buffer. I do not hate the oil companies. They employ many people in Australia but they have to play the game fairly and squarely so that we can support what they want to do. We need to support government intervention into an area that cries out for reform and has done so for many years. But we are too frightened to get our hands in that dirty pool of oil and make the industry good for all consumers in Australia. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(3.56) —The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985 are being debated concurrently. They provide the basis for decisions previously announced by the Government on the collection and disbursement of levy payments under the Bass Strait Freight Equalisation scheme. The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act in three areas. It seeks to adjust the levy to reflect new rates of levy being introduced. It seeks to provide for reimbursement to the producers of amounts of levy paid on domestic free market sales from 1 January 1985 and it seeks to introduce a new basis for calculating each refiner's share in monthly disbursements from the fund. I will now outline the amendments contained in the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985. These amendments are essentially technical adjustments. They arise primarily from changes in assessed freight costs and the need to correct anomalies in the rates governing the pattern of disbursements following the introduction of a partial allocation scheme for Bass Strait crude oil and the closure of the BP refinery at Westernport. In March 1984 I spoke in this place about the proposed closure of the BP refinery at Hastings in Westernport, Victoria. This refinery took oil from Bass Strait at virtually no transport cost, as a pipeline leads straight up to it. But BP, in its wisdom, closed this modern refinery down. On 1 April 1985 over 100 employees were retrenched-a fine example of BP's April Fool's Day sense of humour. Many of these people are still on the dole. Some have started new lives in completely different areas outside the oil industry. A small number, with their families, have transferred interstate. The lives of many people in and around Westernport have been affected by this callous decision. Over $25m was allocated by BP to remove the refinery completely. It has started to remove it, but I believe that it is going to leave some of it there. One wonders what positive projects BP could have undertaken with this $25m. The refinery is now shut down and I am told that some tanks on the site are to be used for the storage and treatment of ballast waste water from overseas tankers using Westernport. A refinery that employed a large number of people and, in turn, added to the local business community's prosperity, has been shut down in favour of becoming an expensive repository for another nation's dirty waste water. How can BP, the 'quiet achiever', justify this type of cold economic rationalisation at the expense of the innocent, who believe that BP, the 'quiet achiever', would provide work and stability for themselves, their families and the local business community? The irony of the situation is that BP has spent so much money in making these workers redundant, turning a productive refinery into an elaborate rubbish bin and in turn providing the need for these tankers to take our oil away to be processed. That oil belongs to all Australians-a resource which, while awaiting extraction, belongs to the people of Australia. However, as soon as this oil has been extracted it suddenly becomes the property of a multinational company. Oil is being removed and sold overseas from the Bass Strait field at the rate of about one ship load per week. That is the amount of shipping that is moving into Westernport at present. Only a week ago a tanker took out 30,000 tonnes of oil. Although we are told we do not have enough oil, this resource is being exported to somewhere else in the world. The Australian oil industry is ending up just like the mining industry-we are being left with just big holes in the ground. The oil industry, of course, has a slight advantage. We are receiving the waste water from the ballast of these overseas ships in exchange. This waste water, after some treatment, is discharged into Westernport Bay. No doubt honourable members have heard of the seagrass in the bay dying and the resultant lack of food for our magnificent penguin parade on Phillip Island. No doubt they have also heard of the lack of fish in Westernport Bay. When I was a youth I used to go out with my parents on Westernport Bay where we could catch as much fish as we could eat. Now it is extremely hard to catch any. Mr Hodgman —You are our northern neighbour. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, I have a connection with Bass Strait through Westernport. I believe that Tasmania is affected greatly by what happens at Westernport. The magnitude of this problem has become evident only in the last few years. One wonders whether this discharge of waste ballast water into the bay has any connection with the penguins' plight. No doubt honourable members can tell, by the tone of this speech, my somewhat dislike for multinational oil companies and their blatant disregard for the average Australian. This Bill actually seeks to compensate the oil cartel for closing down BP Westernport. Australia's oil industry and its consumers are still being manipulated by overseas companies. I have to agree with the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) that petrol in Australia does cost too much. The oil industry should be looked at because there is something wrong there. I believe that these multinationals do not play the game according to the rules. We have before us a package of legislation which is needed to adjust and rationalise freight costs and patterns of disbursement. This is another handout to the oil companies disguised as a levy to assist in transport costs. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the next speaker, I just point out that the Chair is allowing a certain latitude in respect of the debate on the Bass Strait freight adjustment Bills. These measures are not being debated cognately. However, because of the unusual circumstances, a certain latitude is being given to honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.04) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate, namely, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). I would like to recapitulate the issues that are involved in the debate on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985. The present amendments address unavoidable changes arising from the Government's decisions to increase the levy to 65 per cent of the special freight allowance, to apply the levy finally only to allocation liftings-that is, to reimburse levy payments on free market sales-and to take the closure of BP's Westernport refinery into account. As is stated in my second reading speech, the operation of the freight equalisations scheme and the question of whether there should be any further change in the levy redistribution formula will be further considered in light of the outcome of the Government's review of the desirability of accelerated moves towards a free market for indigenous crude oil. One piece of information must be fed into the debate. People complain about fuel prices. When we are talking about increases in fuel prices we look at the situation that we know best-namely, the rise in our own country. We lack any international benchmark for comparison unless we are constantly travelling and buying fuel in other countries. It is essential to point out that international retail petrol prices put Australia in a comparatively good position. Before I speak to that briefly, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of indicative international retail petrol prices as of 22 April 1985. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INDICATIVE INTERNATIONAL RETAIL PETROL PRICES (a) Australian cents US cents a litre a litre Italy 91 61 Japan 86 58 France 82 55 Norway 76 51 Spain 74 50 Austria 73 49 Netherlands 72 48 Sweden 71 48 United Kingdom 66 44 Federal Republic of Germany 43 64 New Zealand 63 42 Greece 60 40 Turkey 57 38 Canada 52 35 United States 51 34 Australia (b) 48 32 (a) International retail prices quoted are based on latest information received from Australian overseas posts. Automotive gasoline prices are for the most commonly used grade of automotive gasoline in that country, at 'full-service' prices. (b) DRE estimate based on latest available CPI price data for eight capital cities, subsequent Prices Surveillance Authority determinations, allowance for discounts, and advice from the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce. (c) The OECD countries not included in the table are Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Switzerland. According to the IEA all have average petrol prices above Australia's. Note: Prices have been converted for most countries at 6 March 1985 exchange rates. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the House. It does not matter whether we compare world prices in Australian cents or United States cents per litre. Because they are more familiar, I will use Australian cents per litre. As of 22 April, the most frequent petrol price in Australia was 48c per litre. I concede that the price has gone up since 1 May by another 4c or so. At that time the United States price was 51c per litre and the Canadian price 52c per litre. Generally speaking, we have always had about the cheapest petrol prices in the world, normally a little behind the United States and Canada. At the moment their petrol is dearer than ours. In Sweden fuel is 71c per litre, expressed in Australian dollars, and in the United Kingdom 66c per litre Australian. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries not included in the table which has been incorporated are Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Switzerland. However, according to the International Energy Agency-IEA-all have average petrol prices above Australia's. So without denying that in certain cases there will be a feeling that petrol prices are too high, the point must be made that Australian retail prices have increased by only 5 per cent in real terms since 1980. Before the next scheduled import parity pricing adjustment on 1 July 1985, the Government will review the scope for an early move to a modified free market in Australian crude oil. Late in 1984 the Government foreshadowed a move to a modified free market for Australian crude oil from 1988 with locally produced crude oil no longer being allocated to Australian refineries and the Government no longer determining the prices of Australian oil. Since then, the initial reduction in the volume of allocated oil and in the liberalisation of oil exports rules provided the industry with useful experience of operating in a partially free market and there appears to be scope to speed up the pace of change. So, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I look forward eagerly to hearing the same arguments put again when we are considering the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT TRUST FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.09) —Debate on this Bill follows, of course, the debate which has just been concluded on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985. Given that the House has only limited time to debate these measures because of the application of the guillotine it seems a little curious that these two Bills are not being debated cognately. I do not know why this is. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is because of the guillotine. Mr HUNT —Is it in fact? That is something I have learned. I am not accustomed to this sort of thing. The only time the guillotine has been used in the 16 years that I have been a member of this place seems to have been when Labor was in government. Mr Hodgman —And in trouble. Mr HUNT —And in trouble. The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985 provides for consequential amendments to last year's Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act. The amendments raise the adjustment levy on Bass Strait crude from 1 January and 1 March 1985. The amount of levy will now be expressed as a fixed 65 per cent of the special freight allowance components in the import parity price of Bass Strait crude oil. The levy is automatically transferred to the Trust Fund. Currently the producers of Bass Strait crude are reimbursed levy payments calculated on crude oil movements over the 30 months preceding the price adjustment. The amendments set a base period of six months, and this follows the closure of BP's Westernport refinery. I have canvassed these matters in detail in my response to the second reading speech by the Minister. I therefore take the opportunity now to draw attention to the overall impact of this Government's fuel pricing policy. Changes to the excise on petrol and diesel give honourable members an insight into the approach to fuel pricing, particularly as it affects rural Australians-I do not mean just people living on farms, but those people who live outside the great metropolitan complexes. Mr Hodgman —And Tasmania. There are Tasmanians in the gallery. Mr HUNT —The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has present in this Parliament today a number of his young friends from Tasmania. I hope that he will be speaking on this matter again because, as I said earlier, he is something of an expert on the subject of fuel and the way in which it impacts on the average household or the average user, the motorist. After all, most people in Australia are average motorists because most people have a motor vehicle of some description. Mr Barry Jones —I have heard you say that before. Mr HUNT —And I want to say it over and over again. I am like Chairman Mao, who said that one has to keep saying something over and over again, not only to convince the people but also to convince governments where they are wrong. Not only the present Government but also future governments will need to take heed of the fact that we cannot go on taxing fuel without doing great harm to the rights of people to move freely in their leisure hours from A to B. This also applies to people going to and from work, to farmers, and to others in the community who are trying to make a living and are using fuel in the process. The community is very energy-oriented, and that is why it is wrong to rely too much on taxes on energy and fuel. I mean that sincerely. More thought should be given to these matters, and the issue needs to be given a great deal of consideration at the forthcoming tax summit. As the father of a grown-up family, I know that many young people cannot afford to own a motor vehicle. Today it costs about $100 a week to service a motor vehicle, to repay the loan and interest, to cope with maintenance, registration, insurance, and to burn a tank of fuel. Let young people understand that before they can purchase a motor vehicle they will need to find $100 a week or more. That is assuming that the head does not blow off the engine or some similar disaster befall the vehicle. Fuel is becoming such a burden. If one is travelling on holidays or travelling anywhere outside the capital city to the country, one should not go without $100 or $200 in one's pocket or purse. The traveller will not make it unless he is lucky enough to have a Bankcard with him and is able to use it without causing difficulty and embarrassment. As at 1 January 1983-before Labor came to office-the excise on petrol and diesel stood at 6.155c per litre. It is now 9.641c per litre. On 1 July 1983 the excise was lifted by 1c per litre to 7.155c per litre due to the second stage of the Australian bicentennial road development program, which I initiated as Minister for Transport and Construction, and I make no apology for having done so. Mr Tim Fischer —A great achievement. Mr HUNT —It has been a great program, appreciated by people, because they could see that every time they used a litre of petrol, 1c in the first year and 2c in the second year went into the piggy bank for roads. People could see that roads would improve as a result. We must have good roads to ensure that there are fewer accidents, fewer quadriplegics and fewer crippled people. As Minister for Health, it used to grieve me to go to one hospital after another to see the results of bad roads. The excise was lifted to 9.027c per litre due to the Budget increase in excise tax of 1.5c a litre, and there was a further 0.37c per litre increase due to a consumer price index adjustment. This resulted in a further increase of 0.37c per litre, again due to the indexation to the CPI. Although, thankfully, the next indexation increase which was due in August did not come about because there was a downward movement in the CPI, there was no downward movement in the level of excise. So up goes the price of petrol when the CPI goes up, but when the CPI goes down the price of fuel does not go down because that would reduce the revenue available in the coffers. The six-monthly indexation merry-go-round gathered pace again in February this year, when the excise rose another 0.24c due to the CPI. It is now 9.641c a litre. Although indexation of the rebate has now resumed, there remains a gap of 2.3c per litre, and this gap will be maintained so far as primary producers are concerned. This is the result of a decision to freeze the diesel rebate at 7.155c a litre in the 1983 Budget. If ever there was a rip-off, that is one. The Hawke Labor Government is pocketing more than $20m a year through a sneaky, underhanded impost which was never intended under earlier legislation. The Hawke Labor Government has also increased the costs of liquefied petroleum gas and aviation fuel, again slugging country Australians very hard indeed. There is absolutely no excuse for ripping off our efficient, highly productive export industries and the people living outside our metropolitan cities in the way this Government has done since coming into office two years ago. The economic statement last week virtually resulted in dismantling the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme-the fuel freight subsidy scheme, as we have come to know it. In the electorate of Gwydir, a very important part of Australia which I represent, the price of fuel can now be expected to rise by nearly 4c at Walgett, down to 1c at Moree. It varies depending on the towns and their distance from a metropolitan capital. Country areas generally face increases of up to 4c a litre, depending on how remote they are from metropolitan centres. It is a decision which, once again, totally ignores the very serious trade situation facing the farm sector. Fuel is a major farm input, but Labor has constantly hit fuel prices without regard to their impact on this vital sector of our national economy. The Opposition, as I earlier indicated, does not oppose this legislation but makes absolutely clear the very deep concern of the people of Australia generally over the trend of fuel prices in the past two years. They are concerned for the very good reason that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he campaigned for victory in 1983, promised them that if he were elected to office he would reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre. That he has failed to do; indeed, he has increased it by no less than 35.4 per cent since coming to office. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.21) —I rise to speak on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985. The Bass Strait freight equalisation scheme provides a partial compensation to refiners distant from Bass Strait for the higher costs that are incurred in transporting allocated crude oil from Bass Strait to their refineries for processing. It redistributes among all refiners, in proportion to their freight costs, a portion of the special freight allowance component of the import parity price of Bass Strait crude. The following notes explain this: In 1970, the then Government introduced compulsory absorption of Bass Strait crude oil by the domestic market. One of the consequences of the absorption policy was the emergence of a transportation cost disadvantage for the refiners remote from Westernport, from where the Bass Strait crude is shipped, compared with Victorian refiners. This was not a major issue until import parity pricing was introduced in 1978. In the calculation of the import parity price, recognition is given to the fact that not all Bass Strait crude can be absorbed at the nearest refinery port-Westernport. In fact, none of it can be absorbed there now because British Petroleum of Australia Ltd has closed down its refinery. An allowance is made for the transport costs of taking the overflow to the nearest refinery, and so on, until the total quantity allocated-currently 350,000 barrels a day-is absorbed. This notional cost of transporting Bass Strait crude is deducted, as a special freight allowance, from the import parity price. All refineries benefit from it equally. The use of notional, rather than actual, shipping costs is justified because this puts pressure on the refiners to maximise exchange arrangements and minimise shipping, on the theory that those refiners closest to the field will want to maximise their lifting-because the crude is cheaper than the alternatives-and those remote from the refinery will want to minimise lifting because the crude is more expensive than the alternatives. In practise there is, however, a host of commercial reasons why remote refiners want access to particular crudes and adjacent refiners are unwilling to maximise absorption. Thus, cargoes of Barrow Island crude, for instance, are shipped on a regular basis to both Adelaide and Sydney. There is no special freight allowance for Barrow Island crude since it can, theoretically, all be absorbed at Kwinana. Ever since the initial application of the freight allowance to all Bass Strait crude from September 1970, northern refiners in Brisbane and Sydney have argued that it is inequitable to allow all refiners to benefit equally from the allowance. The northern refiners have been unable to recover their higher transportation costs because of the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Prices Justification Tribunal has continued to set uniform national prices for petroleum products for each company while market pressures are such that equal volume exchanges of refined product occur between companies, which gives the Victorian refiners a cost advantage in all markets in Australia. The northern refiners submitted proposals to government in 1971, 1978, 1982 and 1983 in support of some form of redistribution of the benefits of the special freight allowance to reduce their competitive disadvantage. In July 1983 the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, met with all the oil companies and requested them to propose a collective solution. The refiners were unable to agree on a scheme and submitted their individual views to the Government. The arguments put for and against a freight equalisation scheme were as follows: The purpose of the freight allowance was to help determine the appropriate price to be paid to the producers, not to allow for differences in the freight and costs of individual refiners. In this respect, Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd also overlooked the fact that the Melbourne refiners had made significant investments in a pipeline to avoid crude shipments and freight costs which were not reflected in the freight allowance. There was no evidence, taking one year with another, that the crude oil allocation system, as such, had disadvantaged the northern refiners. Many factors have an impact on the relative attractiveness of Bass Strait crude oil to the northern refiners, of which the availability and the price of alternative imports were probably the most important. It was noted that the reactivation of the coastal freight issue after almost a decade of dormancy coincided with a situation of surplus crude oil, intense competition among refiners and poor profitability. In a free market Bass Strait producers would still set their prices free on board at Westernport. All oil producers worldwide operate in the same way. The result is that in terms of freight costs the northern refiners would expect to remain disadvantaged relative to the Melbourne refiners. The location of refineries in relation to the Bass Strait fields was only one among many factors which affected the competitiveness of refiners. It was noted that the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd had concentrated their investments on expanding their Melbourne refineries to minimise Bass Strait crude freight costs and, as a result, move substantial quantities of the product and Bass Strait residue which was more expensive than the crude to freight, and in respect of which there was no suggestion of equalisation. It was also noted that petrol prices, as measured by the consumer price index and adjusted for State franchise fees, had been consistently lower in Melbourne than in other capital cities. This suggested that, to some extent at least, the higher costs of producing crude outside Melbourne were being recouped in the market-place. The arguments put forward in support of a freight equalisation scheme were that the northern refiners vis-a-vis the Melbourne refiners, suffered a location disadvantage in relation to the Government's policy of sequential distribution to refiners of Bass Strait crude oil. In a free market the higher costs of production in the northern refineries would be reflected in a higher price in those locations. Thus, Melbourne refiners, with a lower cost structure, were awarded prices higher than could be strictly justified in Melbourne but lower than strictly justified prices elsewhere. Due to competition and equal volume exchanges of refined products the price of petroleum products was often determined by the cost of production in Melbourne. The problem being considered was that of freight differences due to government policies while the other cost differences-for example, refinery configuration, efficiency, et cetera-were still irrelevant, as they were when the freight allowance was first introduced. On 9 December 1983 Senator Walsh announced the Government's decision that from 1 January 1984, 20c of the 35c a barrel coastal freight allowance component of the import parity price would be redistributed among all refiners on the basis of the transport costs to the refineries and the historical patterns of lifting Bass Strait crude oil. The decision to redistribute only part of the allowance recognises the investment made by the Victorian refiners in pipelines to minimise their costs. Legislation to give effect to the decision-that is, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984-received assent in April 1984 with effect from 1 January 1984. These three Acts constitute the Bass Strait coastal freight adjustment scheme. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.31) —May I associate myself at the outset with the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), in condemning the Hawke socialist Government for the incompetence of its legislative program, which means that these important measures have been guillotined. The other night, almost in the middle of the night-to be precise at midnight-this Government allowed this Parliament only 45 minutes in which to debate a measure affecting the entitlements of 650,000 veterans and war widows. Again, we have the guillotine on this important measure which is before us today. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who spoke before me, has just been sat down unceremoniously two-thirds of the way through his speech. At exactly 5 o'clock, come hell or high water, this debate will terminate. Mr Barry Jones —It is even worse; 4.45 p.m. Mr HODGMAN —That is even worse. The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill is an integral part of the policy which the Hawke socialist Government has inflicted upon the people of Australia. It has often been said that without water there can be no life. I would like to say that it is now the situation in this country that without petrol there can be no life-blood of industry. That great captain of industry, the man who brought to the people of Australia Bourke's and ACTU-Solo, has now presided over the greatest rip-off in Australian motoring history. As the figures which I will cite in a moment indicate, as a result of the policies these days of the Hawke socialist Government most people can afford to pay cash for their motor cars but have to pay for their petrol on hire purchase. This is the Government which got into power in 1983 on a firm and unequivocal commitment. The man who is now the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), aided and abetted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), went right around the country saying: 'If you elect us to power we will cut the price of petrol by 3c a litre'. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am certain that you, with your long standing parliamentary career, would not have been party to that cruel hoax, that wicked deception, that confidence trick inflicted on the people of Australia. They heard him and believed. The Messiah-the Prime Minister-said: 'The price of petrol will be cut by 3c a litre', and they voted for him. What is the situation? Since the Hawke socialist Government came to power on 5 March 1983, the excise on fuel has gone up by 56 per cent and the price of fuel has gone up by 34 per cent, which works out at about 3 per cent a month. The man who promised to cut the price of petrol by 3c a litre has presided over a situation where people in my home State of Tasmania are now paying nearly 60c a litre for petrol. The price has been increased by 17c since 5 March 1983. The Prime Minister has set a world record. We are not yet through May, but the 4c a litre increase in the price of petrol which came into effect on 1 May will be added to by that brilliant decision in the mini-Budget to cut out the freight subsidy. That means that the people in Tasmania and in the rural areas of the other States-I see that my colleagues from Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria are in the chamber-will cop an increase of 8c a litre for the month of May 1985 alone. As I said at the beginning, the young people of Australia can pay cash for their motor cars but they have to get their petrol on hire purchase. I think the situation has become outrageous. This year this greedy Hawke socialist Government will collect $4,000m in fuel excise and fuel levy at the well-head. Let us see how the statistics work out. This year the Government will rip $4 billion off the motorists of Australia. How many motorists are there? There are four million motorists. Mr Barry Jones —Four million cars, eight million motorists. Mr HODGMAN —I thank the Minister for Science. There are four million motor vehicles and eight million motorists. Whichever way one looks at it, it has to be one of the greatest tax grabs-that is what it is-in Australia's history. It would have made Ned Kelly blush. It is starting to make Malcolm Fraser look like Father Christmas. This Government, without shame, without contrition, ploughs on to drag every single cent it can out of the motorists of Australia. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has pointed out, that is not the end of it. The levy which was brought in by him as Minister for the bicentennial roads program will not go into roads. Mr Hawker —Where is it going to? Mr HODGMAN —It is going into Consolidated Revenue to pay for the extravagant policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Hunt —Isn't that shocking. Mr HODGMAN —It is disgraceful. If members of the Hawke socialist Government were a bunch of solicitors they would all be in Long Bay gaol. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr HODGMAN —I will come back to the point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is the classic tale of give a person an inch and he will take a mile. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never put you in the situation of being party to this. In fact, I exclude you. I even think that the Minister for Science, who is at the table, is an innocent abroad. I do not think that he was part of the scheming, the deception and the fraud which were inflicted. In the two minutes remaining to me I say that it is about time the Government came clean and told the motorists of Australia where the money is hidden; where it is going to. It is about time the people of Australia got the truth from the Treasurer who promised a 3c a litre cut in the price of petrol and has inflicted a 17c increase. It is about time that the people of Australia heard from the Prime Minister himself-the captain of industry; of Bourke's and ACTU-Solo fame-when he is going to stop robbing and ravaging the motorists of Australia. Due to the Moscow-type guillotine which has been inflicted upon this democratically elected Parliament-the commissars are coming into the chamber at this moment-the Minister has only six minutes in which to reply and one honourable member wishes to speak. I will conclude by saying: Shame on the Hawke socialist Government. The motorists of Australia will definitely remember it. They will show the Government what they think of it at the next Federal election. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.38) —It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill. I say at the outset, in response to some of the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) concerning the guillotine, that as the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has noted previously in this House, the guillotine that is being imposed on the debate for some of these Bills is nowhere near as severe as some of the guillotines that were imposed by the Opposition in government. Indeed, the debate on this legislation has allowed a good deal of contribution by both Government and Opposition members. The honourable member for Denison also made some outrageous claims in terms of other Bills which he suggested had been guillotined; for instance, the Bill which affected veterans' entitlements. He suggested that some 650,000 veterans would be affected by decisions made in the May economic statement. That is totally incorrect, as the honourable member for Denison knows. He insists on misleading members of the public who listen to the broadcasts of these debates and honourable members with what are blatantly untruths about the effect of Government legislation. I make that point quite clearly. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. I made the mistake of co-operating to let this idiot speak. I ask him to withdraw that remark. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will not call another member an idiot. Mr Hodgman —I ask him to withdraw that remark. If he wants to provoke a personal explanation he will get one. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Which remark? Mr Hodgman —That I had said a deliberate untruth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw. Mr BRUMBY —I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure which remark the honourable member is referring to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Just withdraw. Mr BRUMBY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. It is amusing and a little pathetic that the honourable member for Denison should talk about the time allotted to debate this Bill and then waste the time of the House with trivial points of order. I come now to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill because I want to answer some of the claims made about this legislation. In regard to the May economic statement and the effect of the changes to the petroleum freight equalisation scheme it was a remarkable and predictable fact that following the changes announced in that mini-Budget we saw a number of National Party and Liberal Party members travelling around electorates in Australia saying that petrol prices would jump 4c a litre. In fact, that sort of thing was said in my electorate of Bendigo. They tried to tell the voters in my electorate that the effect of the changes would be to add 4c a litre to the price of petrol. That claim is totally outrageous. It is typical of the types of claims made by the honourable member for Denison. The fact is that those changes had no effect at all on petrol prices for the people of my electorate who live in Bendigo and Maryborough, which represent more than 80 per cent of the population of my electorate. The worst effect that the changes in the May economic statement had in my electorate was to add possibly 0.2c or 0.3c to the cost of a litre of petrol. That was in areas such as Stawell, despite the fact that we had National Party and Liberal Party people saying that there would be a 4c a litre increase. I know my speaking time is very limited, so I conclude with one point. During this debate petrol prices and petrol price increases which have occurred under this Government have been raised. I do not think there is anyone who would argue that if the value of the dollar has dropped that devaluation ought to be reflected in the cost of petrol throughout Australia. We ought always to bear in mind that it was under the Fraser Government that the price of petrol in this country tripled in seven years from 14c a litre to 42c a litre. Let us hear no more of this nonsense from the Opposition about petrol price increases under this Government because under the Fraser Government the price of petrol increased by 300 per cent. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.42) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Fund Amendment Bill. I also thank them for their co-operation in getting the Bill through expeditiously. I need, however, to respond to what was said by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). We used not to have the lowest petrol costs of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but now we do. Honourable members opposite keep talking all the time about the absolute increase in cents but they ignore relative costs. I say to honourable members, as I indicated earlier in regard to a table incorporated in Hansard, that we have now the lowest petrol cost at the bowser of any country in the OECD. The Government has consistently followed the import parity pricing policy set by the Fraser Government. Movements have been almost entirely due to the fluctuations between the Australian dollar and the United States dollar. During 1983 the Government reduced import parity pricing twice. The recent increases follow the devaluation of the Australian dollar. As we are concluding this debate I refer to a matter concerning liquefied petroleum gas raised by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). LPG automotive use is growing at about 9 per cent per annum. It has become economic for high mileage vehicles such as taxis and fleet vehicles. The increase in petrol prices arising from the crude oil pricing policy is widening the differential in favour of LPG and so conversions are proceeding at a strong rate. The price for automotive use is not set by government. There is no need for the Government to subsidise it. The production of dedicated LPG cars is a commercial matter for the automotive companies. While Australia currently exports LPG, domestic demand for LPG is growing so rapidly we expect the surplus of LPG to disappear in only a few years. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. FERTILIZERS (SUBSIDY) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.47) —The Opposition supports the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill and wishes it a speedy passage through the Parliament. This is an urgent Bill and one of particular concern to the farm industries. The Bill was introduced into this House on Monday, and must pass before the House rises if fertiliser payments are to continue after the end of next month. The Bill continues for 12 months the existing payments of $12 per tonne of single strength superphosphate and $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen. About 90 per cent of payments totalling an estimated $55m this financial year will be made to users of phosphate fertilisers. Superphosphate is the dominant fertiliser used in Australia, accounting for 70 per cent of total consumption in 1983. The wheat industry is one of the largest users of fertiliser. The industry was the second largest source of export income last financial year. It is an industry which ranks among world leaders in terms of efficiency and productivity. Wheat is also an industry facing tremendous cost pressures, largely the result of a near 40 per cent increase in fuel prices since the Hawke Labor Government came to office. The loss of fertiliser subsidy payments at this time would have a devastating effect on production and grower incomes. I think the Government has made the right decision in extending the existing subsidy arrangement at least until the report of the Industries Assistance Commission is to hand. Australia has a vast land mass with enormous agricultural potential. Former Liberal and National Party governments have played an important role in encouraging development and farm productivity by encouraging the use of fertilisers. On a State-by-State basis, the largest user is Western Australia, applying on average about 40 per cent more superphosphate than either Victoria or New South Wales. The importance of the subsidy payments is perhaps best illustrated by referring to the brief period under the previous Labor Government when the payment of these subsidies was suspended, from January 1975 to February 1976. This action was typical of anti-rural attitudes and actions of Labor governments. The recent mini-Budget of the Hawke Labor Government was a further typical action. While the Government in its attempt to con the business sector of the economy and indeed the financial sector, that it had made a huge $1,200m expenditure cut, had in fact cut a mere $230m from actual expenditure. Where did the Government cut? It cut 77 per cent of the $230m out of the hides of people living in rural Australia. I believe that it has discriminated against people living outside metropolitan areas. Use of superphosphate dropped by half as a result of the Whitlam Government's decision and by 1983-the latest figures published by the Industries Assistance Commission-was only just reaching the consumption rate prior to 1975. This has really had a jolting effect for the farmers of this nation, not just for a year or two, but for a continuing period. Figures from about the time of the Whitlam Government's decision to axe the fertiliser payments show that Australia lagged behind many of its major export-competing nations in the application of fertiliser. Per capita total consumption was around the same as that of the United States. Australia and the United States are two nations with similar land masses but vastly different population levels. The per capita consumption of fertiliser in Australia was about half that of New Zealand. The application of superphosphate per hectare of arable land was in even more stark contrast. The rate of application in New Zealand was 24 times the rate of application in Australia. New Zealand is a very important primary producing country, but in many areas it farms more intensively than is the case in Australia. Of course, the use of fertilisers has, no doubt, done much to improve New Zealand's productivity and competitiveness as a producer of so many primary products. The extension of fertiliser payments for at least 12 months not only will help Australian producers get on with the job of improving their soil base but also reduce a heavy input cost on the agricultural sector. In bringing forward the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill the Government has rejected the interim recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission report, which I understand was delivered in mid-March. The Government has taken the only realistic course of action. The Commission is to report again by October and the extension of the two relevant Acts for 12 months will give Parliament and the industry time to absorb the recommendations of the IAC and present a well-informed response. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for taking up one of the arguments put by the Commission in its interim report summary that fertiliser payments compensate farmers by partly offsetting costs imposed by tariffs and other forms of government intervention on farm income. The simple fact is that the effective rate of protection afforded to primary industries is only one-third of that afforded to the manufacturing sector. Fertiliser subsidies are the single most important Commonwealth input to the agricultural sector, accounting for some 18 per cent of total outlays. Bounties to the steel industry will total $52m in this financial year, while textile bounties will reach $78m. The primary industries have been prepared to accept the challenge of cutting back on effective protection. That protection has been cut by two-thirds since the early 1970s. Although the Government has rejected the findings of the IAC interim inquiry that payments should be terminated, the assistance recommended by the Commission for local manufacturers will not be granted. In a joint Press statement on 16 May, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, stated that both recommendations would be rejected pending release of the final IAC report. The Government has failed to recognise the current disabilities of the fertiliser manufacturing industry which result from the high cost of shipping phosphate rock in Australian-manned Australian National Line vessels. I know that this contract was negotiated while the former Liberal-National Party Government was in office, but I think it is well to remember that when that contract was negotiated the freight rate was at a reasonable level, or a level comparable with freight rates applying around the world. However, since that time there has been an enormous slump in world shipping freight rates. There is an enormous surplus tonnage of overseas shipping freight capacity a in the world-there has been for some time-and, because there has been a substantial fall in shipping freight rates, that contract should be renegotiated in the interests of the fertiliser and the farmers. As it now stands, the existing arrangement is transferring quite a subsidy to ANL. AFL Holdings Ltd is among a very wide range of companies, individuals and government bodies to contribute to the IAC inquiry to date. The company makes the point-I feel it is a valid one-that a decision by early 1986 will be too late to allow accurate orders for raw materials to be placed for the 1986 season. There is ongoing concern that manufacturers and users of fertilisers continue to be disadvantaged by those arrangements I have mentioned between the British Phosphate Commission and the ANL. Mr Cobb —A dreadful monopoly. Mr HUNT —It is a dreadful monopoly and it is an unacceptable situation. Clearly, there is an indirect transfer of considerable proportions away from the users and the industry towards the Australian National Line. If that Line is to be given assistance it should be by direct subvention. We believe that already enormous quantities of funds have been wasted because I do not think there is much hope of ANL, in spite of all the capital injections it has had recently, trading at competitive levels and assisting our trading position as a nation. The Liberal and National parties in government had the renegotiation of those contracts under active consideration prior to the election in March 1983. It is unfortunate that this Government has not seen fit to renegotiate this contract, difficult as it might be, so that the fertiliser users are not subsidising ANL by an indirect transfer of subsidy benefits. If the Government cannot get out of the contract legally without making a compensation payment to ANL, let that not be the barrier. I say: Scrub the contract and make a direct payment to ANL, but do not leave the contract in place and expect the users and manufacturers to subsidise the Australian National Line by paying freight rates that are far in excess of the present world freight regime. The Opposition calls for a renegotiation with the British Phosphate Commission of the ANL contracts for freight rates. I know that other members of the Opposition parties would like to take this issue further, but on behalf of the Opposition I commend the speedy passage of this legislation and assent prior to the expiry of the current legislation on 30 June this year. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.58) —I rise to speak in support of the Government's intention to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the phosphate fertiliser subsidy schemes at current rates from 30 June 1985 to 30 June 1986. This extension is quite logical. For the Government to do otherwise at this stage would be quite inappropriate pending the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission, which is due in October this year. The Commission's report will address a wider range of issues than those covered in the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission. Assistance for the consumption of fertilisers goes back to the early 1930s. The current arrangements had their origin in 1963, when a bounty was introduced on domestically produced phosphatic fertilisers with the stated object of improving the productivity of farm lands and pastures and encouraging growth in rural output to improve the competitive position of exports. In 1966 a subsidy was introduced on the domestic production and import of nitrogenous fertilisers with the object of reducing costs of industries which were major users of nitrogen and encouraging experimentation with, and usage of, those fertilisers and improving the competitive position of exports. The fertiliser consumption subsidies were introduced in the 1960s as a means of expanding agricultural production to boost exports for balance of payments reasons. Since the early 1970s their retention has been sought for other reasons. The grounds for reinstating the phosphatic fertiliser bounty in 1976, after it had lapsed for a year, were that fertiliser assistance helped to keep resources in lightly assisted industries which made efficient use of Australia's resources but which were disadvantaged by tariff assistance provided to other industries. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech, agreed with the National Farmers Federation that the farm sector does suffer a cost impost arising from the protection of secondary industry by tariffs, quotas and other mechanisms. This has been the principal economic argument for the consumption subsidies. Fertilisers have been seen to be used widely and principally by lightly assisted, export-oriented rural industries. It has been claimed that if the subsidies were withdrawn resources would relocate in industries less suited to Australia's trading environment. This argument was recognised by the Industries Assistance Commission in its 1982 report on phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers. The report recommended that the subsidies continue for three years but that they should cease without further review on 30 June 1985. In the 1985 interim report on fertilisers by the IAC it is recommended that the assistance for the consumption of nitrogenous fertilisers and phosphatic fertilisers should cease on 30 June 1985 and that short term assistance for the production of fertilisers is justified. However, because the Government has requested the IAC to address itself to a wider range of issues than those encompassed by the interim report, it would be presumptuous for the Government to terminate the subsidy assistance at this time. It is interesting to note from the interim report that virtually all companies and organisations which made submissions to the interim inquiry advocated retention of the subsidies. Some submissions even took account of the job losses that would result if the subsidies were removed. I was interested to learn that approximately 3,000 people are employed in the fertiliser manufacturing industry. Of these about 2,000 are engaged in production and maintenance activities, some 700 people are employed in sales and 300 people are employed in administration. The National Farmers Federation takes the view that it would be inappropriate to be removing this fairly small item of assistance from the agricultural industry while very high levels of assistance are provided to other industries. The subsidy is a vehicle to provide assistance to farmers. It is an effective measure across the board in the absence of any general move on tariffs. Virtually all farmers use fertilisers in one form or another and it is a distortion of fact to say that the subsidy encourages farmers to use more fertilisers than they need. Research has shown that it does not influence increased use. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics recommended that the subsidies should be directed towards rural research. However, as honourable members opposite would recognise, the Government has already taken initiatives in that direction. In November last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that the Government would increase its financial contribution to rural research. The Minister for Primary Industry, in his second reading speech on the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985, stated: Rural research is, and will continue to be, a high priority of this Government. It is hoped that this will relieve the concern of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. All honourable members in this place are well aware of the contribution the rural industry makes to our export earnings and our national economy. This Government is very cognisant of that fact. I point out that, whilst the Industries Assistance Commission recommended the cessation of the fertiliser subsidies, it was interesting to read the view of the Balderstone report on agricultural policy entitled: 'Issues and Options for the 1980s'. The working group looked at the issue of whether the fertiliser assistance was being passed on to farmers and believed that the assistance did flow through to farmers. I will quote from the section of that report which states: Fertiliser is used by most farmers. Accordingly, the fertiliser assistance helps a cross-section of farmers. Nevertheless the group recognises that the level of assistance will differ between farmers because of different levels of fertiliser use. On balance the group believes the assistance for the consumption of phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers should continue, and, in both cases, apply to locally produced and imported fertiliser, without restriction. This comment reinforces my belief that the Government has taken the right step at this time in extending the fertiliser subsidy until at least 30 June 1986. That will provide us with an opportunity to examine the Industries Assistance Commission final report which is due in October of this year. We will have a chance then to deliberate on its contents. In the short amount of time remaining to me I will comment briefly on the manufacturing industry. There are six manufacturers of fertilisers in Australia. The domestic industry has sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet normal local demand for phosphatic fertilisers. But not for nitrogenous fertilisers. Australia is dependent on imports of potassic fertilisers, rock phosphate and sulphur. Imports of compounded high analysis fertilisers and specialised fertilisers have risen strongly in recent years largely as a result of oversupply and lower prices on the world markets. The trend today appears to be a change away from the single superphosphates towards the more high analysis phosphatic fertilisers. Most of our imports come from Nauru and Christmas Island, with the United States of America becoming an important source of supply because of its lower prices. Because of a widespread deficiency in phosphorus in Australian soils, superphosphate is the most important fertiliser used on both crops and pastures. The subsidy is paid to manufacturers with farmers benefiting from a reduction in purchase price of fertilisers. In conclusion, I support the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill and I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry for allowing what I might describe as a breathing space for the manufacturing industry and farmers, pending the outcome of the final report of the IAC. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(5.09) —I support the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill. I commend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) who has just spoken. I hope some of his colleagues have listened to what he has said. The problem farmers seem to have so often is to get the message through to people who have what we might call a more urbanised background in order to get them to realise that the support for the superphosphate and the nitrogenous fertilisers is, in fact, just small recompense to primary industry for the cost of protection to secondary industry. Mr Andrew —Very small. Mr HAWKER —It is very small, as the honourable member for Wakefield says. As has been stated, this Bill extends the bounty on nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers for another year, pending the Industries Assistance Commission's report which we expect to see in October. I think there is plenty of justification for continuing this bounty. In my view, it is a very crude form of compensation for the protection that is given to secondary industry through tariffs and various other support mechanisms. It is compensation for the added cost to farmers because of this protection. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for what he said in his second reading speech, probably more eloquently than I could. Mr Andrew —I doubt that. Mr HAWKER —I will give the Minister the credit. The Minister said: . . . the overall level of assistance to rural industries is low by comparison with other sectors. A comparison of figures for 1981-82- that was the latest year for which the Minister had comparable figures- indicates that primary industry assistance is 9 per cent compared to 26 per cent for secondary industries. I think that the National Farmers Federation figures have shown that both those figures have dropped slightly, but that does not alter the fact that the level of protection for primary industry is very much lower than it is for secondary industries. The Minister went on to say: In recent discussions on farm costs the Government has agreed with the National Farmers Federation that the farm sector does suffer a cost impost arising from protection of secondary industry by tariffs, quotas and other mechanisms, and while there has not been agreement on the extent of this cost impost it is in the order of $6,000 to $9,000 per farm per year. I commend the Minister for accepting those figures, even if there is some disagreement about where we are between the $6,000 and the $9,000. The Minister went on to say in his second reading speech: This is significant, given that average income per unit of family farm labour in 1983-84 has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at only $7,000 per year. If we work out the cost of the superphosphate bounty on a per farm basis we find that it is worth only a little over $300 per farm; so it is pretty small recompense for the cost of support for secondary industry. As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), part of this bounty is in fact given to the Australian National Line to support its shipping rates. I believe that a recent estimate of this support puts it at something like $7 a tonne. As the bounty is only $12 a tonne for superphosphate, more than half of it is going to subsidise ANL. The farmer really is not getting much of the benefit. It is interesting to note the value of bounty as a proportion of ex-works as it has changed over the last 20 years, as illustrated in a table which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP Superphosphate Price, Bounty and Consumer Price Index Consumer Price Index Bounty of (Base 1980- Superphosphate Bounty as constant 1983 Date 81=100.0) price (a) Bounty (b) % of price prices (c) No. $ per tonne $ per tonne % $ per tonne September 1963 28.7 25.47 5.91 23.2 26.21 June 1968 33.2 26.27 5.91 22.5 22.66 June 1973 42.9 27.13 11.81 43.5 35.04 June 1978 78.8 64.26 12.00 18.7 19.39 June 1983 127.3 112.10 12.00 10.7 12.00 (a) Average of States excluding Tasmania, price ex-works for bulk superphosphate. Price shown is price before bounty. (b) Bounty for periods prior to 1978 is metric equivalent. (c) Bounty in constant June 1983 prices. Adjusted by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Source: Chemical Fertilizers in Australia, Department of Primary Industry 7th Edition, March 1984. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Mr HAWKER —If we look at this table we see that in 1963 the superphosphate bounty worked out at something like 23 per cent of the price of superphosphate. By 1973 it was worth 43 per cent, because it had been increased. By 1983 it was back to just over 10 per cent. Since then, of course, the price of superphosphate has risen but the bounty has not. The bounty is now worth less than 10 per cent of the cost of superphosphate. This will be less because of the fall in the value of the dollar and the fact that the price of superphosphate will be rising fairly shortly. Before my time runs out, I should make one other comment which I think is pertinent. As I mentioned, this bounty does not work out at a lot of money as a percentage of the cost of superphosphate, although it is quite expensive to the Government. I suggest that farmers would probably be quite happy to see this subsidy phased out provided-I emphasise that-there was a compensatory reduction in other farm costs, particularly those caused by the protection to secondary industry and, as I have already mentioned, those caused by the cost of using ANL to ship some of the rock phosphate. Until then, as has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the Balderstone report of the Working Group to Provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture suggested that the subsidy should be continued. As the value of the subsidy has declined as a proportion of the price of superphosphate and, I guess, as it has declined in real terms because it has been held at a fixed rate for over 10 years-with the exception which has been touched on by the honourable member for Gwydir; that is, when Mr Whitlam very kindly removed it-it is not having nearly as big an impact on the cost of superphosphate. I think farmers would be happy if it was removed on the proviso that there was a corresponding compensatory reduction. Mr Andrew —A trade-off. Mr HAWKER —A trade-off in the level of protection for other industries which affect farmers' costs to such a great extent, as I have already mentioned. The Minister has acknowledged that it is of the order of $6,000 to $9,000 per farm. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 5.15 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Young. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.16) —The Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill is designed to give the Police Commissioner more powers. One in particular is the power to move below standard officers, and in certain cases to retire them. This amendment was one of the recommendations of last year's management review of the Australian Federal Police, and was made prior to the criticisms last year by Messrs Costigan, Redlich and Gyles that the force needed to become more professional and that the level of intelligence and attitude was disappointing. There has been much remodelling of the face of Federal law enforcement in recent times. Of course, as we know, such refurbishments are only a first step towards overcoming the existing deficiencies in Australia's law enforcement capability. As we are all aware and as pointed out by Special Prosecutor Redlich, there have been signs that our law enforcement and legal systems are struggling to compete effectively with criminal entrepreneurs. We on this side of the House will always support moves to increase the efficiency of the Force. If these amendments bring about greater efficiency, then we support them. We are particularly concerned at the length of time the Government has taken to bring about these amendments in an endeavour to improve the efficiency of the AFP. While I fully appreciate that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), up until the last election, was concentrating all his energies on trying to manipulate the voting system of this country, there really is no excuse for the delay that has occurred. The management review committee whose reports were submitted in February and April last year recommended the following timetable for implementation of its recommendations: 30 June 1984 as the target date for amendments to be made to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979; 1 October 1984 as the target date for amendments to be made to the Australian Federal Police Regulations; and 1 January 1985 be established as the target date for the full implementation of the recommendations in the report. It appears that many recommendations of the review have not been taken up. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us today as to what has happened to those reports and to those recommendations. The review recommended that an emphasis on graduate recruitment is necessary. This seems to be appropriate in view of a finding made by Special Prosecutor Redlich in his annual report. He said: The most lucrative areas of crime can generally be found within the Commonwealth avenue. If the Commonwealth is to make serious inroads into 'white collar' crime and other complex criminal activities, the capacity of the Federal Police will have to be dramatically increased. He went on to say: The antiquated resources available to those Federal authorities responsible for controlling such anti-social behaviour should be cause for the greatest public disquiet. I suggest to the Minister today that his delay in reacting to the many reports that recommend changes to the AFP really is a shameful performance. I would suggest that he spend less time in trying to boost the informal vote in Australia and more time on matters of substance, such as providing the AFP with the support and the resources that it deserves and requires. In 1981 the Minister then responsible for the AFP issued a set of guidelines for the police force. Perhaps now is a good time for the current Minister to provide us with a guide to the police role as he sees it. The Redlich report supports this view. I believe that this is needed because of the alarming crime statistics in Canberra and the obvious lack of manpower. Perhaps now is the time to ensure that members of the AFP do only that work related to Commonwealth matters or use special members in certain cases as recommended by the review. There is obviously a great need for more resources to be put into the investigation of fraud against Federal funds. Redlich pointed out: The volume of fraud committed on the Department of Social Security is unacceptably high. We heard in this Parliament this week the responsible Minister upping his estimate of the money needlessly or wrongly expended by the Department of Social Security in relation to fraud from one per cent to 10 per cent, which is a considerable increase. Obviously, all such cases of fraud have to be investigated by the Federal Police. Of course, it is not only in relation to the Department of Social Security that this takes place. I remember that during my time as Minister for Health what were deemed to be cases of fraud involving medical practitioners obviously had to be investigated by the Federal Police. Mr Young —Housing, as well? Mr MacKELLAR —Housing is another such area. There are a number of areas in which fraud is perpetrated against Federal Government departments. It costs the Australian taxpayer a very great deal of money and I do not believe that the resources are yet in place to deal with this situation effectively. While the amendments before the House are important to the increased efficiency of the force, I hope that the Minister will turn his energies towards attracting more and better officers to the force, better equipment, and, of course, more money. I am particularly concerned at recent Press reports that the Federal Police have been hampered in their investigations because of restrictions placed on overtime due to a lack of money. We read that the overtime allowance for the AFP at Melbourne Airport had been cut from 110 hours to 48 hours a fortnight. I remind the Minister that I placed a question on notice regarding this matter one month ago. As yet I have not received a reply. To bring the question to his attention yet again, I will outline it for him. I asked: (1) What is the allocation for salaries and overtime to the Australian Federal Police this financial year? (2) How much money allocated specifically for overtime remains unspent for this financial year? (3) Has any direction been given to any Australian Federal Police officers not to work overtime? (4) If such a direction has been given, what are the reasons? (5) Have any drug surveillance operations been called off due to overtime cuts? (6) Has any direction been given to any Australian Federal Police officer to assess crimes before investigation? All of these matters are of great concern to the community at large. How are we to stamp out this horrible and evil drug trade if we do not give the police sufficient resources? There are public statements around at present suggesting that those resources are being denied the Australian Federal Police. I wonder whether the Minister is having difficulty getting information from the police. Last week the Minister arranged to have a question asked in this place on organised crime. In his reply he threw around a number of figures to try to prove how great a Minister he is. Of course, I was unconvinced by that. Because I need to check statements made by the Minister, I had the Parliamentary Library check the figures for accuracy. As I understand it, the Library had some difficulty in getting a response from the AFP in relation to details of the Minister's statement. I hope that an organisation such as the Parliamentary Library has the utmost co-operation not only from the AFP, of course, but from all public utilities in seeking information which is of assistance to members of parliament, no matter on which side of the House they sit. Having said that, I certainly hope that the Minister will fight very hard to obtain additional funds for the force in the forthcoming Budget. I recognise the financial difficulties in which the Government finds itself. It will be difficult but the range of issues covered by the force and the gravity of the situation confronting the Australian people, not only in relation to some of the more minor crimes but particularly in relation to such things as the drug scene, place a great deal of emphasis on support for the Australian Federal Police. I believe that the AFP should set an example for other police forces in Australia. We obviously do not want any monumental blunders to occur within the force, as happened recently in Sydney with the illegal detention of members of the public by the New South Wales Police Force. We are all quick to criticise the police but all of us turn to the police force for assistance when we are confronted with a difficult and threatening situation. In times of distress we need compassionate assistance. The officers of the force must have many qualities, a major one of which is trust. Once that trust between the force and the public is broken, we have a breakdown in law and order. It is for this reason that the Minister must be diligent in his control of the force. I do not wish for a moment to imply by any of those comments that the Commissioner or any of his officers is acting in anything but a legal way. But the force must be answerable. I can assure the force that the Opposition will not tolerate any officer acting in anything but a legal way. We would especially not tolerate any illegal tapping of telephones or any action that impinges on basic human rights. The Opposition will not oppose this Bill, but we believe that the Government must be more diligent and active in assisting the AFP and must act with more urgency in reviewing recommendations of royal commissions and the like concerning the AFP. The delay is simply unacceptable. Implementation of many of these recommendations will raise police morale and increase efficiency. In fact, the Redlich report makes particular statements along these lines. I am sure that the public of Australia are sick to death of hearing almost daily announcements of crime against the Commonwealth. If we in this place can support the AFP, hopefully we will all go a long way towards stamping out the criminal element in our society which causes so much difficulty and brings so much unhappiness and distress to so many people. I believe that the efficiency of the AFP is increasing. I believe that it is a force of the utmost significance. Hopefully, the amendments will add to its efficiency and morale and to the capacity of the Commissioner to increase its effectiveness further. For those reasons, the Opposition supports the amendments. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(5.28) —I wish to pick up firstly the last point made by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). He talked about the morale of the police force and how the police should be supported and not subjected to measures which reduce that morale. It is of great interest to look at the role of the Australian Federal Police and compare it with other police forces in this community. The role of the police is very difficult. I am one of the very few people in this place who can speak with some authority on the way the police operate and should operate and on the way police morale can be affected by governmental actions. It is very important for police to be seen to be working with a community, not against it. When policemen operate in areas, particularly in street demonstrations and similar marches, where they perceive themselves to be operating not in the interests of the people whom they are being asked to police, but against those interests, there is always a big drop in morale and the police forces always suffer. I must confess that, as a former policeman, I have been very impressed in watching the Federal Police control demonstrations on the steps of this House. They operate effectively, exercise proper restraints and recognise the rights of individuals to free expressions of protest on the public streets of this capital city. It is of great interest to compare the way in which the Federal Police operate with the operations of the Queensland police. In talking about police and police roles, it is quite interesting to compare the Federal Police role, their restraints and their freedoms to operate in controlling people who are exercising their proper rights in the streets, with the unfortunate position in which the police are being placed in Queensland. There is a strong belief in all communities that certain rights are inherent in any community-the rights of individual citizens to express dissent and to have freedom of the streets they own. That is not just an easily expressed right; it is a right which is known to all constitutional lawyers and all political scientists and which I believe the late Professor Green clearly expressed in his book entitled Principles of Political Obligation. It is worth noting the rights which I believe all citizens should have. I quote the late Professor Green: But it is obviously very often against the will of individuals that the sovereign power is exercised over them; indeed if it were not so, its characteristic as a power of compulsion would be lost; it would not be a sovereign power; and the fact that the majority of a given multitude may consent to its exercise over an unconsenting minority, is no justification for its exercise over that minority, if its justification is founded on consent; the representation that the minority virtually consent to be bound by the will of the majority being an obvious fiction. On the other hand, the theory that all right is derived from a sovereign, that it is a power of which the sovereign secures the exercise to the individual, and that therefore there can be no right against the sovereign, conflicts with the primary demands of human consciousness. It implies the identification of 'I ought' with 'I am forced to.' Reducing the 'right' of the sovereign simply to a power, it makes it unintelligible that this power should yet represent itself as a right, and claim obedience to itself as such. No such theory indeed admits of consistent statement. To say (with Hobbes) that a law may be inequitable or pernicious, though it cannot be unjust, is to admit a criticism of laws, a distinction between those enactments of the sovereign which are what they should be and those which are not. And this is to recognise the individual's demand for a justification of the laws which he obeys; to admit in effect that there is some rule of right, of which the individual is conscious, and to which law ought to conform. That is a very fundamental principle to the role of police who operate within a given community. In Queensland, of course, the police are being placed in a situation where they are being used as a weapon as a result of the sovereign power of the Queensland Premier. It is fascinating to contrast that situation with the work done by the Federal Police who show restraint and to whom the Government has given the right of expression in this capital city. In Queensland people who are doing nothing other than walking down the streets are being arrested by members of a police force who are compelled to operate under the sovereign power of Premier Bjelke-Petersen. Policemen should not continue to be used for this purpose. If they are, the Queensland police force morale will no doubt collapse and disintegrate. We have already seen other situations in Queensland involving police. One involved policemen with tears in their eyes being forced to act when an old hotel was being torn down. I hope that this House recognises the imperative right and role of the policemen in our community. I pray and hope that this Government does not at any time operate like the Queensland Government and use the police force as a political weapon against dissidence in relation to this Government or any other government which may be in power. That is not, and should never be, their role. Honourable members opposite, and particularly those who are lawyers, should really question what is happening in respect of the role of the police in Queensland. They should really ask their own consciences whether they can support in this place the destruction of the rule of law in Queensland. This Bill goes a long way towards improving the Federal Police. It is a Bill which should be supported and I commend it to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.33) —We have a time commitment due to the guillotine. I am sure that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will not mind my saying at the outset that I am very proud, as one of five Tasmanian members of this place, to come from the State which, according to the latest public opinion polls, has the most respected police force in Australia. I take this opportunity to place on record on a completely bipartisan basis my gratitude to the Australian Federal Police. As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has pointed out previously, the Australian Federal Police resulted from an amalgamation brought about during the term of the Fraser Government. I believe the force has in fact gone from strength to strength over the years. In fact, today it is a force of which I believe all Australians can be justifiably proud. I was just saying to the Minister that one of the matters I wanted to raise was the need for greater utilisation of the resources of the Australian Federal Police in dealing with what I would call common crime as opposed to those areas of crime which are now specifically under the jurisdiction of the National Crime Authority. It is fair to say that there have been problems in relation to the apprehension of criminals and bringing offenders to justice because the present situation is an integral part of our federal system of government. As a long-standing supporter of the Federation, I recognise it is appropriate that State police forces have jurisdiction within their particular areas. I can speak from practical experience of 23 years at the Bar in my home State of Tasmania. I know that personal jealousies arise. We have had situations in which various forces have competed in relation to the apprehension of offenders. I was involved in a case where a person was being pursued by both State and Federal police. At the same time the person was being pursued by police from another State who were seeking an extradition order. I am sure that the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who has just resumed his seat, would know that this sort of thing can happen. In fact there was virtually a race between the three arms of the law to see which one would get the offender first. Of course, I might say in passing that in that case officers of the Queensland police force got the offender to the annoyance perhaps of members of the Tasmanian police and the old Commonwealth Police Force officers who were after him. As a result of extradition proceedings he was sent back to Queensland before he could be brought to justice in relation to matters in Tasmania. I note in passing that I lost a brief. It is important to comment-and I am keeping my remarks very brief-that it seems to me that we are entering an era of real co-operation. Certainly that co-operation varies from State to State. As far as Tasmania is concerned, I think the Minister will be pleased to know that in my opinion, having dealt with matters in my parliamentary office involving both Federal and State police, the degree of co-operation is better than it has ever been. I very willingly pay a compliment to the present Tasmanian Commissioner of Police, Mr Max Robinson. Mrs Kelly —A good export. Mr HODGMAN —He was a very good export from Canberra and has done a magnificent job. Without labouring the point and without in any way appearing to be political, I want to draw attention again, as the honourable member for Warringah has mentioned, to the degree of un- solved crime in Australia. The statistics are there for anybody to read. In the case of rape, something in excess of 70 per cent of offenders are not brought to justice. Of course, in many cases a complaint is not made. The last set of statistics that I saw indicates that the number is now down to about two out of 10 rapes being reported. The proportion of offenders apprehended for an increasing number of rapes in which the parties are unknown to each other and therefore identification is very hard is down to approximately 20 per cent. The conviction rate is down below 10 per cent. I remind the Minister-I am quite genuine and serious about what I am saying now and what I said in the House the other day-of a situation that occurred two Sundays ago. I have made reference in this House and elsewhere to what I thought was a very moving statement by the former Attorney-General of New South Wales when he appeared on the 60 Minutes program. The Hansard record shows that three years ago I raised in the Parliament the fact that the then Attorney-General of New South Wales, the Hon. Frank Walker, had publicly stated that pressure was applied to him as soon as he commenced investigations into the Nugan Hand bank. That coming from the first law officer of the State of New South Wales is a very serious matter indeed. As far as I am aware, the person or persons responsible for applying pressure-I remind the House of the comments made by the then Attorney-General as to the alleged payments to political parties and the fact that we are talking about big money; in excess of $100,000 was mentioned-have not been brought to justice. For the second time in his career, although no longer as Attorney-General of New South Wales, Mr Walker has indicated that he believes recent activities were brought about to apply pressure on him in his capacity as a Cabinet Minister. I have to say bluntly that, if people in Australia believe that they can succeed in applying pressure to politicians by intimidation or blackmail, parliamentary democracy will collapse. Finally, although I know that this is a New South Wales State police matter, I again ask the Minister when is something positive going to be done to apprehend the persons who deliberately attempted to murder a man who was not then but who is now a member of this Parliament? I feel embarrassed and ashamed, as I think do members on both sides of the House, when I see the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) in this chamber and in the corridors of this Parliament. Having appeared in 12 murder trials, I have no doubt at all that the injuries that were inflicted on him point to the fact that those people did not intend just to assault. I am satisfied on the forensic evidence that it was an attempt to kill. I wonder what the men and women of Australia feel about their safety at night and their right to the protection of life, liberty and property in view of what happened to a person who is now a member of this Federal Parliament. Everybody in New South Wales seems to know who did it, but nobody has done anything about bringing them to justice. I know that it is a State matter, but I conclude by asking the Special Minister of State to attend to the fact that the Australian Federal Police is underresourced and undermanned. No police force will ever get the resources and manpower to which it is entitled, but I am sure that the honourable member for Warringah, who shadows the Minister's portfolio in this Parliament, supports the provision of resources and sufficient manpower for it to do its job. I would be grateful if the police could bring to justice the people who intimidated, stood over and blackmailed the Hon. Frank Walker, who is not a politician of my Party, and the people who stood over and blackmailed Mr Peter Baldwin, and who then, having failed to get their way, attempted to murder him. It is a scourge on justice in Australia that these perpetrators of such outrageous crimes are permitted to remain at liberty. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.42) —I appreciate the Opposition's support for the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill and I shall reply to some of the matters that have been raised. First, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) knows that the matters he raised are not within the province of the Australian Federal Police but are in the State jurisdiction in New South Wales. Obviously I cannot reach the same conclusions as he has in relation to those matters, not having been asked to and not having the professional ability to do it anyhow. The Australian Federal Police has grown rapidly in the last few years and it is continuing to grow, as I made clear in the commitment I gave last week in Parliament. In the next three years another 420 personnel will be added to its strength. In terms of the tasks the AFP has been given around Australia, as we become more aware of criminal activities in this country it will always be a case of the AFP setting its priorities. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) raised the subject of overtime in Victoria. The amount of money that was allocated for overtime in the AFP this year was $10m. According to the people in charge, that will not impose any great difficulty on their activities in Victoria. Of course, the AFP sets priorities. It is also true that a lot of crime is not solved-Federal crime, social security fraud and so forth. Mr MacKellar —Have they cut overtime? Mr YOUNG —No, they have not cut it, but if they get a number of problems they set different priorities. People might be taken off one case and put on another. That is a management matter, it is not a matter that comes across my desk every day. I do not sit down every morning as Minister and work out which number of police will work overtime in what areas of Australia. All I can do is to battle in the Budget process, in the same way as does every other Minister, to get the total resources that I believe the AFP needs. It will have been noticed that in the last couple of Budgets the AFP by general standards has done pretty well. Mr MacKellar —So you will answer my questions on notice? Mr YOUNG —We will answer them. The honourable member for Warringah also spoke of the Parliamentary Library not being able to get figures. If the honourable member as a shadow Minister comes to my office I am willing to provide him with any figures he may require or with briefings from the Australian Federal Police. Mr MacKellar —You need to check your own figures. Mr YOUNG —They are okay. The honourable member also mentioned Canberra. With the approach of the debate about self-government in Canberra, any change will have an enormous impact on what may happen to the Australian Federal Police. By any standards in Australia, the city of Canberra, or the Australian Capital Territory, is much better policed than any other area of Australia in terms of the personnel who are available. What will happen in the future, if Canberra has self-government, in terms of the responsibilities of the AFP outside as opposed to general policing duties inside Canberra will have to be sorted out by the authorities here, perhaps in the Assembly, with the Federal Government, taking into account the views of the AFP. There are other matters to which I should refer, but perhaps I will get the opportunity to do so on the next Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. COMPLAINTS (AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.45) —The amendments to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill are designed to augment the legislation brought in by the coalition Government in 1982. The idea behind the original legislation was to protect the civil rights of citizens in their dealings with the police, while at the same time upholding the morale and discipline of the force. The legislation established the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, and it is on the specific advice of the President of the Tribunal that many of these amendments have come about. In putting this debate into perspective, I feel that an observation made by Sir Robert Mark in 1978 in his report on the organisation of police resources in the Commonwealth area is appropriate. Sir Robert said: A police force discharging the duties assigned to the AFP-indeed any police force in a genuinely democratic society-will not enjoy public confidence and trust unless it is accountable and moreover is seen to wish to be accountable. Accountability to the criminal law, the civil law and its own police authority, even though that be the Government itself, is not enough. Nor should the object be to satisfy complainants, some of whom will never in any circumstances be satisfied. The object should be to satisfy the public that every complaint is investigated thoroughly and impartially, that if there is evidence of crime the decision whether or not to prosecute is taken by a member of the Attorney-General's Department and that in the event of acquittal, a decision not to prosecute and all complaints not amounting to crime, the possibility of discipline proceedings should undergo the same meticulous examination. That is a little like Hawkespeak. It is not perfect English, but Sir Robert's intention was clear, namely, that the police force will not enjoy public confidence and trust unless it is accountable, and moreover is seen to be accountable and seen to wish to be accountable. As we all know, the police have difficult tasks to carry out, tasks that must be handled at times with diplomacy and compassion, yet also with firmness in order that the law can be carried out. The tasks of the police force lead from time to time to members of the public complaining about the manner in which officers carry out their duties. Police work at times places officers in very difficult and public positions. As we know, not all complaints against the police are justified. However, because of their position of trust, it is important that members of the public with a genuine complaint have the avenue to bring to the attention of the Commissioner any matters that may reflect poorly on the force. I have been most impressed with the actions of the AFP in dealing with the public in a manner which, at all times I have seen, has been consistently firm, fair and yet not at all inflammatory of the situation. There are those occasions when police officers for one reason or another may act in a way which members of the public believe is beyond the line of duty. Therefore, there must be an avenue for complaint about the individual police officer or officers. On the other hand, it is most important for the force to have protection from complaints that may be vindictive and not justified. As we all know, there are a number of people in the community who have great reason and need to fear the police force, because it is the police who will bring them to justice. Unfortunately, there is opportunity for vindictive complaints to be brought from time to time and the force must be protected from such complaints. As I stated earlier, because of the public profile of the police, we in the Opposition believe in the protection of innocent police officers, but we will not tolerate or protect any officers who act dishonestly and bring discredit to the force. We firmly expect that the Tribunal and the Commissioner will deal most severely with officers who breach the trust that has been placed with them. We know from experience, and from inquiries which have been held in Australia and overseas, that on occasion police forces have used many powers which parliaments did not give to them. They have used de facto powers and, in many cases, have been able to get away with that because judges and courts often are not prepared to doubt their evidence or statements. We have in the past come to rely, for the control of police and the keeping of them within the law, on the belief that the courts will reprimand or stop the police when they go beyond the law or will refuse to admit evidence improperly obtained. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I feel that the problems involved can be summed up quite well with this quote from the book Freedom in Australia: The fact that such heavy reliance is placed on the courts to control police activity does present some difficulties. Law-making through judicial decision depends very much on the accidents of litigation, it operates retroactively, it does not permit any others, besides the parties to litigation, to make representations, and it is confined to the issues immediately presented for decision. Where the legality or propriety of police action is called into question, it is not always a case of applying settled law to disputed facts. What may be in dispute is the applicable law. The police officers whose action is challenged may have proceeded on a not unreasonable assumption that what they were doing was legally permissible. Their action may even have been sanctioned or suggested by police administrators. But if the decision goes against them, they are branded as lawless men. For police that stigma is particularly serious since the expectation is that they, as the principal law enforcers, will enforce the law against themselves as scrupulously as they enforce it against others. It is important, therefore, that the police have this Act to protect them from unjust complaint. I believe it is important, as I said in an earlier debate, that the Australian Federal Police, with powers throughout the land, set an example to other police forces in the country. It is important that the AFP not become tainted with rumours of corruption and illegality, as, unfortunately, a number of State police forces have been branded with. In particular, I refer to the corruption that appears to exist in New South Wales. In that State we hear of police verballing-a most corrupt and disgusting practice. We hear of police receiving payments to protect illegal gambling and prostitution. We also learn that the police have been involved in the drug trade and in disposing of stolen goods. Perhaps one reason why the courts have not stopped the illegal practices in that State is the fact that corruption in New South Wales seems to be so entrenched that it has also touched the courts and the Parliament. This abuse of authority must not be allowed to infiltrate the Australian Federal Police. If the force does not have powers to fulfil its investigations, it should approach the government of the day and that government must act swiftly to give the police the necessary powers. However, we must always have in mind the need to strike a balance between the requirements of law enforcement and the need to ensure that basic human rights are respected. I do not wish to single out New South Wales. I should also mention Victoria briefly. We must remember the outcome of the Beach report and the rumours that have surrounded the Queensland police. We have heard of some of those today. The way in which the police approach their task is most important, particularly because of the way in which the view of the public at large will be coloured. Recently, a complaint against the police in Canberra was brought to my attention. A resident of Canberra, as is his right, wished to pursue a certain matter with the force. He was offered a meeting with an inspector who, unfortunately, did not exist. This piece of deception by the force, whose members should have more public relations sense than to do that, only caused the complainant to become more insistent in meeting with a senior officer. This resulted in an investigation by the internal investigations division and the Ombudsman, letters to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and the Commissioner, and a personal interview with me. All this time and money was wasted because one officer did not do what was expected of the force by the people of this country. I do not think it was a major matter, but it was a silly thing to do. The person exposed to this action took the matter through all the channels and a lot of money and time was wasted. It did not do the image of the force any good either. Mrs Kelly —He could have come to me. Mr MacKELLAR —Obviously, he had better sense. He realised that if he came to the Opposition something would be done. As soon as he came to the Opposition the matter was fixed. I understand that the complainant has received an apology, but that is the silly sort of action which can bring a force into disrepute. I am sure that the Minister and the Commissioner will impress upon all members of the force the need to build trust with the community at large, to listen to complaints, to treat them seriously and, even when they appear to be a bit vexatious and difficult, to put themselves out a little more to deal with the public in general whom they serve. I repeat that the Opposition supports this legislation. We hope that it will enable the force to build its reputation and that the morale of the force and its individual officers can be lifted. If we can, as a result, build trust between the force and the public at large, the community of Canberra will be better served. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(5.56) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill as the member representing so many people in the Australian Federal Police and also having first hand experience in dealing with many of the complaints against the Federal Police. Before discussing the legislation, I commend the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is responsible for bringing this Bill forward, and the work he has done in raising morale and assisting the Australian Federal Police. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) referred to the joint management review of the Federal Police which was conducted. I am pleased that, of the 100 or so recommendations, at least 96 have been implemented. I understand that the Minister is pleased to make available to the Opposition an updated report on the implementation of the recommendations of that joint management review. I was surprised when the honourable member for Warringah referred to a case that he had dealt with. In my time as the member for Canberra I have dealt specifically with many complaints brought by my constituents against the Federal Police. The cases vary. Sometimes people feel that they were not treated fairly or that the police threw them out of Woden Police Station and did not hear them fairly. Others feel that they have been persecuted by the police. Every one of the accusations I have referred to the Federal Police has been investigated. Some matters have taken a little more time than I would have wanted, but they have all been heard fairly. I have been very pleased with the communications I have had, particularly with the Australian Capital Territory component of the Australian Federal Police, Deputy Commissioner John Johnson and the internal investigations division. In Canberra we provide an example of how police in the rest of Australia can work and have a close working relationship with their communities. If members of the Parliament have taken the opportunity to watch television in Canberra on Saturday nights, they will have seen in prime viewing time a series called Police 7. A local policeman talks to the community about things that may assist people. For example, he tells people how to protect their homes against burglary, what to do when they are riding their bikes, how to turn to the right and all sorts of other things which help relations between the police and their local community. I particularly commend the police in the Australian Capital Territory for the community watch program which they have instituted. I presume that the program also exists in the States. The Australian Capital Territory component of the Federal Police has done a marvellous job in gathering together members of the community to support themselves and to assist the police in stopping burglary and robbery. It has amazed me, wherever I have gone to such meetings, to find that even on a cold winter's night two or three hundred people from the local community have gathered together to listen to the police in order to find out ways in which they can help themselves to avoid being robbed. The program has been a remarkable public relations job. I think the police should be congratulated on it. Also, the hierarchy of the Federal Police should be congratulated on being prepared to give over their resources for such a valuable community project. The Australian Capital Territory has very few examples of the sorts of newspaper headlines which appear in the other States about criminal activities of the police and police corruption. I hope that situation will always remain. However, until this legislation becomes law the Federal Police can be subject to a situation which penalises the charged person twice for the one offence and leaves the onus of proof with the charged. I quote from the 1982-83 report of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal to which this Bill owes its genesis: During the year two appeals were filed . . . by members of the Australian Federal Police who had been charged by the Commissioner of Police with disciplinary offences. The Tribunal heard both matters together and found both officers guilty of the disciplinary offences charged. The proceedings were remitted to the Commissioner of Police on 17 November 1982 for imposition of penalty. The appeals were filed in the Federal Court on 7 December 1982 but, at the request of the parties, have not yet been heard pending the determination of other proceedings instituted by the the same two officers in the Federal Court. These other proceedings are applications filed by the two officers for an order . . . seeking to review the conduct of the Commissioner of Police and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of each of them. The applications were filed on 8 February 1983 and were heard by a single Judge. Judgment was reserved on 28 June 1983. The above series of proceedings in the Federal Court seem to raise some anomalies. . . . On the one hand an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal may be brought to the Federal Court on questions of law. . . . On the other hand it seems that at the same time an application may be made to the Court . . . in respect of the same decision of the Tribunal and that this application may be heard by a single Judge of the Court. Under the regulations associated with this Bill, application of the criminal standard of proof will be applied to all disciplinary offences. The importance of this Bill and its regulations is that members of the Australian Federal Police will henceforth be afforded protection from being penalised twice for the one offence. Our police are particularly vulnerable to having various charges made against them. The majority of those charges are found to be trivial and vexatious. Of course, the one thing that police and politicians have in common-an occupational hazard, if you like-is that charges can be made. Often in our situation we do not have the opportunity to be able to answer them. However, we do have to be able to attract the very best people to the police force. It is important that they have the protection of the law. Before I conclude, I again pay tribute to the Australian Capital Territory component of the Federal Police. It serves the community in the Australian Capital Territory well. I hope that the legislation will assist the police to continue to do so. I hope that future recruits will continue the very high standards which have been set. I hope that we will never have in this Parliament a situation in which the sorts of allegations that have been made against the police in some of the States of Australia are being made against the Australian Federal Police. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.03) —The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) made reference to allegations that are made against police forces in some States. I would state right at the outset-recognising that those allegations are made, as she says-that I speak as an unashamed advocate and supporter of Australia's police forces. As Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan fame, said: 'A policemen's lot is not a happy one'. I believe that by and large the police forces of this country do a great job. The Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill and the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill are being debated cognately, but, because of the guillotine, they necessarily follow successively. I wish to refer to the importance of the police adapting their methods to modern technology, particularly microelectronic technology, in respect of both the 'economical and efficient use of the Australian Federal Police', which is the thrust of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill, and in the complaints situation, which is the thrust of the second Bill which is before us. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, recently introduced a measure which provided more funds for the use of computers and computing methods by the Australian Federal Police, on a model pioneered by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I want to stress the importance of modern tape recording technology in police work, both investigative and interrogative work. I seize the opportunity to do so because technology of Australian origin is in the foreground of world developments in this area. Some years ago a report was prepared by the Australian Law Reform Commission, under the then chairmanship of Mr Justice Michael Kirby, stressing the importance of the tape recording of interviews in the context of interrogative work. His recommendations were embodied in the Criminal Investigation Bill which is the province of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Bill was introduced by former Attorney-General Ellicott. Subsequently it went through some variations and I believe the present Attorney-General is interested in it. At the moment we are concerned with the activities of the police. I believe the use of tape recorders-not necessarily video recorders, although that may be the ultimate development-in obtaining evidence is very important from the point of view of the credibility of the police, the confidence of the public in the police, and the efficiency and greater expedition of court proceedings. At present a great amount of time is taken up in resolving disputes about confessional evidence and, where tape recordings have already been used, about the authenticity of a tape recording. As I said, the use of tape recording facilities would be very important in terms of greater credibility for the police. The police come under attack in respect of so-called verbals, when it is alleged that the police virtually have applied pressure and have concocted a confession. I refer to the police station context, the interrogation context, which leads to a statement. The greater use of tape recorders would be important also in terms of the confidence of the public in the police and, as well, the efficiency of court proceedings. The vision which I think we need to look to is that of a small pocket tape recorder which every policeman would have in his pocket. The tape recorder could be utilised at the scene of the action or even covertly, say, in a pub situation. In this way a more important record of evidence would be available. Traditionally, a policeman has used a pencil and a notebook. That system relies a lot on the policeman's memory, and on the capacity of the officer to assemble his thoughts in that way. The use of a notebook and pencil by police officers was the nineteenth century method. At this stage, in the twentieth century, we ought to move beyond that. I believe the tape recorder is the key to it. Referring to the subject matter of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill, which is presently before us, I suspect that for the honest policeman, which is the overwhelming majority, the best defence in a compliant situation, as in other aspects of investigative and interrogative police work, would be the use of the tape recorder. As time is short I mention that two objections have been raised against tape recording. One objection relates to the cost of tape recording and the second relates to the authenticity of tape recordings. So far as cost is concerned, I think it is necessary to recognise that the introduction of tape recording on a wide scale would represent a considerable saving in time to the police. During the debate on the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill we were talking about the efficient and economic use of police time. A saving of 10 per cent to 20 per cent in time for the Australian Federal Police would represent a saving of quite some millions of dollars. The other point concerned the question of authenticating police tapes. I referred to the development of technology in Australia to establish the authenticity of a tape. That is an important issue. As there is another speaker, I conclude my remarks. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.12) —In the few minutes left for debate on the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill, I would like to say that the Bill is based on recommendations put to the Federal Government by the Australian Federal Police Association. This Bill also deals with matters raised in the 1982-83 annual report of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Australian Federal Police Association has claimed that the practice of the profession of the police officer is by its very nature both demanding and exacting. In a submission dated 27 February 1984 to the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, the President of the Australian Federal Police Association, Mr John Sexton, stated: Inherent dangers existing within (the police) occupation inevitably lead to conflict with the public, and often produce a complaint. Police in the course of their normal work are often called upon to stand in the 'firing line' of a situation, and indeed it is beyond doubt that many of these situations are explosive and demand that police react, and it is this reactive position that leads to conflict. Serious complaints become an occupational hazard carrying severe consequences. It seems to our members fundamentally unfair that society expects them to stand in the firing line of every situation that may occur, expects them to react to those situations, and yet where serious allegations are concerned, expects those allegations to be dealt with at a lesser level of proof in the disciplinary area. The penalties capable of being applied by the tribunal constituted by a president or deputy president, include promotion and dismissal. These penalties are most severe in their financial and career impact. They are particularly severe when imposed by way of a finding arrived at on the basis of a balance of probability. The Australian Federal Police Association has always asserted that members of the Australian Federal Police should enjoy the same rights and privileges as do members of the community whom they serve. The Association has declared that every deliberate and proven act committed by a member of the Australian Federal Police inevitably involves a breach of discipline, but that not every breach of discipline involves a criminal act. At present the standard of proof in determining guilt in disciplinary proceedings against Australian Federal Police members is the standard of proof obtaining in civil cases, that is, satisfaction on the balance of probabilities. It is generally acknowledged that the civil standard of proof of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities affords inadequate protection to members of the Australian Federal Police who are under investigation. The Association has submitted that in these matters justice demands that the standard of proof in criminal cases-that is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt-should obtain. The President of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal has no objection to the criminal standard of proof applying to all offences. The Hawke Government has accepted this submission. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) stated in his second reading speech that the amendments to the principal Act and to the regulations thereunder constitute a single package of improvements to protect the rights of members of the force and to improve the operation of procedures. In view of the fact that there are only some seconds left in this debate, I sum up by saying that this Bill is designed to ensure that the Australian Federal Police will continue to be a model police force based on standards of excellence. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the dedicated Townsville contingent of the Australian Federal Police in their relentless and dangerous fight against so-called white-collar crime. This has the complete support of the Hawke Government. The law abiding people of north Queensland salute them and pledge their total support for their magnificent work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(6.16) —The purpose of the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill is to make a number of amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act which will enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to establish subsidiary commercial companies, partnerships and other ventures jointly with the private sector, to formalise the position of the staff elected director on the ABC Board, to appoint unattached officers to the ABC and to deem certain officers to have retired from the ABC as a result of prolonged unauthorised absence from work. That is a rather quaint way to go about removing people from the ABC. It seems an extraordinary thing that people could stay away from work for six weeks before they were fired. The Bill also removes the power of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to prohibit the broadcasting or televising of any matter by the ABC, the Special Broadcasting Service or commercial licensees. One might reflect here on how television broadcasts are to be transmitted from South Africa in those circumstances. The Bill should allow the ABC to become more competitive- Mr N. A. Brown —The Minister overruled the Prime Minister on that. Mr MOORE —They do not necessarily see eye-to-eye.The Bill also allows the ABC to become more competitive to establish a more effective and profitable operation within the limits of the definition of 'authorised business' which is confined to the current range of the Corporation's permitted activities. The Bill does not therefore widen the categories of its business but allows it to become more competitive. The Opposition agrees that these additional powers for the ABC are essential for any corporation permitted to function competitively. However, the Opposition has certain misgivings concerning the competency of the ABC Board to guide this public utility successfully. It must be remembered that the Corporation is publicly funded and as such is accountable to Parliament. Unfortunately, certain aspects of this seem to elude the Board and management. As evidence of that I refer to answers given to a Senate Estimates Committee. With the establishment of the Corporation in 1983 it was thought that there would be a streamlining of old Aunty and of the image that had been associated with the ABC over the years. However, these expectations were short-lived and the ABC settled back into its former pattern. It has failed to emerge in the way it was expected. The ABC suffers from an identity problem. It lacks forward planning and projected goals to be achieved. This is despite the expenditure of some $50,000 to advertise the ABC Board's statement of purpose and organisational goals which contained a lot of rhetoric such as 'striving to be a valued and vital part of Australian life'. With regard to this identity problem I quote from one of three feature articles published in the Melbourne Age. In particular, I refer to the article of 7 May- Mr Duffy —They have not published my reply. Mr MOORE —That might even be better. The article stated: The ABC board is aware of the identity problem, and the confusions inside and outside the organisation. Late last year, it asked one of its members, economic planning consultant Richard Boyer, to prepare a draft philosophy for the organisation, a philosophy stating unequivocally the basis upon which the ABC wanted to be assessed. There have been numerous drafts, and the final version will be presented to the next board meeting later this month. A copy of the penultimate draft has been obtained by The Age. The essential question is . . . whether there is now a role for a public broadcasting system such as the ABC which justifies the cost it involves-- the newspaper admits it- . . . and if there is such a role it is important that it be clearly apparent in a publicly stated philosophy . . . with a clearly enunciated philosophy Parliament and the community generally would know better what to expect of the ABC and be better placed to judge its worth. Mr Boyer says the ABC is required by legislation to serve all Australians. 'It does not exist solely-as its competitors and audience sometimes insist-to serve only minorities or special interest groups at the expense of the wider community'. But it does not have the money or the facilities to serve all the people, all the time. The priorities that therefore need to be established by the ABC's board require certain value judgments to be made, he says. 'The Board has an obligation to articulate its philosophy so that these judgments are explicit and consistent. In the absence of a corporate philosophy, individual judgments will prevail'. This would suggest that the Board must get its act together and come up with realistic goals and guidelines. There appears to be a lack of communication between the Board and management. This is evidenced by the ABC's rather abortive entry into the ratings game, in particular with the National. This news coverage promised so much but has delivered in only a slight way. In some respects it has been roundly criticised. In relation to its foray into the ratings game, Mr Molomby, the staff-elected member of the Board, when speaking about the setting of a 20 per cent target rating stated: In May last year, we were presented with papers supporting a proposal that we should look for an audience of 20 per cent in television between the times of 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. Most of the information given to us to support that proposal did not come in the papers. It came over the table during discussions. So we had no notice of it. That really put us in an impossible position of trying to assess something on the run. It sounds like a Cabinet meeting. Mr Molomby continued: The original proposal was substantially modified in a way that satisfied most of my reservations about it at the time, although now I believe I was caught on the hop and did not get to see some things. That was said by the staff-elected member of the Board. This reeks of sloppy management and is an indictment of the business and policy practices adopted by the Board. One could be forgiven for thinking that sometimes the ABC might be adopting the management manual of Australia Post. A private enterprise could not hope to exist under these conditions and would soon go to the wall, taking with it shareholders' money. This type of management principle borders on recklessness and the fact that the Australian taxpayer underwrites the ABC's activities does not give it carte blanche to conduct its business with gay abandon to the detriment of its shareholders, the Australian taxpayers. I think all Australians are conscious of the role the ABC plays. Over the years its contribution has been significant. However, very few would see the ABC's role these days as fulfilling the concept originally planned for it. I have come to the view that, rather than attempting to represent minority groups, it is now attempting to represent minority interests, a distinction which should not be lost. The Australian taxpayers, who fund $400m a year to this organisation, require some accounting. A rough appraisal of what I have seen to date-I admit it is very limited-reveals that the Corporation has very considerable assets. Answers given to a Senate Estimates Committee indicate that even now the ABC is still working on an assets register. The management admitted to me that knowledge is slight of assets owned by the Corporation-age, the degree of depreciation, and forward structure. In a commercial sense, I had a very strong feeling that if I were to walk into the ABC in my old capacity as a private entrepreneur and buy the lot I could make a lot of money and turn in a far better performance than is currently being turned in. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(6.25) —The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill is a very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I will not have enough time to address all aspects of it. Two important points enshrined in the legislation are the staff-elected director and the ability of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to form companies so that it can be a little more aggressive in the corporate area. The ABC will be able to form companies for all sorts of things-whether it be for selling its tapes and books, or whether it be in the area of film and television production. It will be able to form companies to make programs with private entrepreneurs and private companies such as Crawford Productions Pty Ltd, to name just one. That is a very important step for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It will encourage the Corporation to venture out, to be a little more progressive. It will take it out of the 'Public Service mould' in which it has been for so long. I wish to make a few general comments. It is very easy to slam the ABC. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) slammed it on the one hand, but he did not offer a lot of constructive criticism on the other hand. I have criticisms of the ABC, and I am the first to admit that it has not performed as it should have, particularly in the corporate area. It has become an overgrown giant and has not performed as it should have in the broadcasting and television industries. Geoffrey Whitehead and the Board have an unenviable task. I do not think one could ever pay them enough money to unscramble the eggs and after half a century of broadcasting by the Corporation-mostly under the guidance of conservative governments in this country-to make it an aggressive and progressive broadcasting corporation. That does not happen overnight. It does not matter who the government is, it takes several years. At present the Corporation is in the middle of its first ever three-year corporate plan. That is an indictment of past administrations of the Corporation. I am pleased to see that Whitehead has incorporated that plan. It is progressing. In a few years time we will see staffing levels drop from around 7,000 to around 6,000. With this legislation and with encouragement from people outside and from the Board and the Managing Director, we will see a more progressive and entrepreneurial ABC in programming. I make just one more comment in regard to the ABC and its direction, which the honourable member for Ryan quite rightly raised. It is not quite sure where it has been or where it is going. It must move in a more entrepreneurial way. It must move into the broadcasting and programming areas. However, it would assist the ABC to know whether it will have one or two networks. I have said in this House on many occasions that I think in the future the ABC should be run a little like BBC 1 and BBC 2 or Radio 1 and Radio 2 here. That would be much more beneficial in a broadcasting sense and in service to this country. I have come to the conclusion that the sooner we get to that situation-it might be better sooner than later-the sooner the ABC will be able to plan. It is not much good running it off down one track now and in 10 years time saying: 'We have changed the plan. You have got another network'. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr CHARLES —I will just recap quickly what I was saying before the suspension of the sitting. I was talking in particular about the future direction of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, its corporate structure and its planning in regard to programs. I was saying how that may well be affected by decisions of government in regard to whether the ABC has one or two networks similar to BBC1 and BBC2 or, in the Australian context, Radio 1 and Radio 2. I have spoken about that on many occasions in this House and said that I firmly believe in the two-network system. In the past I have looked at this decision as being a fair way down the track. A report tabled in this House not long ago-the Connor report of the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, which inquired into multicultural broadcasting in this country-has, I think, really accelerated that process. One of the Connor report's recommendations was that the Government form a multicultural broadcasting corporation. What I am about to say is my opinion only. The Government has not formed an opinion on this. I feel that this Government or any government would have to have rocks in its head to agree with that recommendation. To formulate a completely separate public broadcasting corporation would be complete insanity. I think that recommendation really raises the question of amalgamation in the not too distant future. The capacity is there to share these facilities between the present Special Broadcasting Service and the ABC so that we would have that rationalisation. I think there will be a growing over the next decade of the two-network system. The ABC can plan for the future to rationalise its services and run its operations on similar lines to what ABC Radio 1 and Radio 2 do now. That is not to decry the management or the efforts of the SBS at present. It does a wonderful job. I just think that for the overall good of broadcasting in this country it would be eminently sensible to follow the route about which I have just spoken. I surely believe that the Government will reject the Connor report's recommendation. For the good of broadcasting I think it is sensible to have that two-track network which could be facilitated by the sorts of measures I have just mentioned. Mr JULL(Fadden)(8.03) —I suppose that one of the great pities of this last day of sitting of the House is the fact that the debates have been curtailed to such a great degree. One of the major debates around the world at the moment is, in fact, on the funding of public broadcasting systems, whether they be in this country, in Great Britain or elsewhere. It seems to me that in the very near future it might not be a bad idea if this House in fact took the opportunity to debate this whole area of public fund raising. There is no doubt that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a major user of the taxpayers' funds. When we consider that $400m goes into the ABC annually, I think we would all agree that there must be some sort of accountability for that and some way in which we can get down to having some serious discussions about the future funding of the ABC. Certainly I noticed that on ABC Radio 2 just last weekend there were programs discussing that very issue. The public funding issue is one of the major topics in Great Britain at the moment. Of course, the future funding of the British Broadcasting Corporation is coming under scrutiny too. There are a number of aspects of the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), has certainly pointed out those various issues and supported the concept of the Bill which endeavours to make sure that the ABC has that capacity to compete in the real world. But I think it is true that there are some very real misgivings on this side of the House as to the ABC's capacity to be able to deliver the goods. I think it would be fair to say that a great number of Government members share that concern. I do not say that lightly. I say it after reading the evidence of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. That certainly confirms that attitude. I should say that it is now 10 years since I worked in the radio and television industry; admittedly, that was with commercial networks. However, it seems to me that many of the problems that bedevilled the ABC in those days are still very much in evidence. I found it interesting recently to re-read my maiden speech to this House early in 1976. A couple of the points I made in that speech related to the lack of real talent in the ABC, especially in its middle management areas. It was interesting that the ABC people, before the Expenditure Committee, admitted that that area was still of very real concern. One would hope that, in addition to the report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the great public debate that has gone on regarding the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, some very real efforts will be made towards looking at improving its manpower requirements. As the honourable member for Ryan pointed out quite correctly, the structure of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has to be overhauled as a first priority before we can go anywhere else. He mentioned the fact that there is not even an assets register within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That comes as a complete surprise to me. It is no wonder we had cases as we did in Queensland just a couple of years ago when staff members of the ABC were before the courts for the misappropriation of all sorts of goods that had gone missing from their studios. I hope that by now most honourable members will have received a copy of the pamphlet entitled 'A New Direction for the ABC'. That and the ABC's other public relations exercises, certainly sound very grand. At least this legislation will give the ABC an opportunity to become more competitive. There will at least now be an opportunity for a greater utilisation of the ABC's equipment and resources, and better funding of a number of its projects. Perhaps the best thing that could happen right now for the ABC would be for it to hire some top-line cost accountants to go right through the organisation. As I said previously, when one reads the high-sounding words in the publications now put out by the ABC, one wonders, on its record, whether its present personnel have the capacity to be able to clean up the place. The whole situation of the ABC in terms of the property it holds and the diversification of its various areas of operation-for example, the ABC has 10 locations in Sydney from which it tries to operate-has caused some very real problems. It is not a case of tearing the ABC to pieces and starting again, but, for the first time in 50 years, of making a very close examination of where it is really going. When one speaks to members of the ABC staff one finds that some of the very great problems it has surround its equipment requirements. For so long now the ABC has been wrapped up in the whole idea of empire building rather than buying equipment. It is true that, with that sort of fat in the organisation, moves must be made soon. In the debates on the ABC not enough attention is given to ABC radio. In defence of the Corporation I say that we should pay great tribute to ABC radio. To my mind, ABC radio is still one of the finest radio broadcasting systems in the world. When one examines the whole operation of the ABC, it seems that it is the radio area that is probably of least concern. I notice that in the publication I mentioned some quite interesting ideas were raised, such as the idea that ultimately the ABC will be looking towards having yet a fourth radio network. That is a fine idea. One would hope that the division between Radio 1 and Radio 2 and the FM fine music station will stay as it is. I wonder, in regard to the ABC's new direction, whether it is right to be looking at concentrating on an audience under 25 years of age for the possible fourth network. One would think that the commercial organisations would pander very well to that market. There could well be a need for the fourth network to go into the general information area. One could envisage the proceedings of this House being broadcast on a fourth network. Rather than go into another 2JJJ exercise, I would think the money needed to establish a fourth channel would much better be exercised in establishing a general information channel. After all, the spectrum is a precious commodity. There is not much room to move and, whichever band is used, it would seem to me to be much more constructive to leave the under-25 market to the younger brigade and to provide Australia with a really good information system. That certainly is one of the things that do not exist in Australia at the moment. Our debates have been grossly curtailed tonight. Many aspects of these Bills before the House should be canvassed but cannot be canvassed because of those time restrictions. Therefore, I think that we should be looking in the very near future to having that debate I was speaking of earlier. We have had controversy about the privatisation of the ABC. I do not necessarily support that. We have had a lot of argument about whether the ABC should go commercial and, if it should go commercial, whether it should go all the way or whether it should be selected commercial sponsorship. They are very real issues that should be examined by the House and by the community at large. The ABC is a major user of the taxpayers' resources-$400m a year. The accountability and the services that are provided to the taxpayers of Australia for that $400m should be of vital importance to all us all. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.11) —in reply-There are only a few moments available for the rest of this debate. I simply mention that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) outlined the purpose of the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill in his contribution and I do not propose to go through the second reading speech again. I am pleased to see that the Opposition does support the fact that powers have been given to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to form, or to join in the formation of, subsidiary companies and joint ventures. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) raised some of the issues which are currently under discussion, namely, the funding of public broadcasters and the fact that we are looking at about $450m a year in relation to funding of public broadcasting in this country. It is obviously a matter that is worthy of consideration and it will be considered in a rational context. However, I note that the honourable member for Fadden, who of course has a particular interest in this area, mentioned the question of privatisation. I think that is just probably part of the current hang-up that the Opposition has. We have not reached the stage of considering that. It is a question of looking at some of the more commercial aspects that the ABC may be able to get into in order to take some of the burden of funding off the Budget. I can assure honourable members that the question of privatisation is not a matter that has been considered and nor is it likely to be. Mr MacKellar —That would be right. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Ryan interjects that of course that would be right, that it would not be considered. Mr Moore —I did not say that at all. Mr DUFFY —I am sorry, it was the honourable member for Warringah. Having expressed, as the honourable member for Ryan did, his support for these measures he then decided to engage in a little bit of blood sport, which seems to overtake those opposite in relation to the ABC, and the ABC got a decent old bagging. I was pleased to see, however, that he indicated that with his business acumen, which is of course well known, he would not mind buying the ABC if it was available for purchase, which it is not. The ABC cannot be quite as bad as the honourable member for Ryan indicated if he is prepared to go to that stage. One of the things which seem to me to have been totally overlooked by the Opposition in criticising the ABC is that when the ABC was established, it was really established-with a couple of minor alterations-along the lines that the Opposition, the then Fraser Government, proposed. The honourable member for Ryan and the honourable member for Fadden made the point that there was no assets register. I find it extraordinary that that matter is highlighted by the Opposition. One would think that the ABC came into existence when the Hawke Labor Government took office. The concern that the Opposition now shows about those matters in fact could have been directed at the ABC management level and the Board level for a long time because the problems have existed for a long time. One of the main factors was the question of capital needed by the ABC in relation to both equipment and property. I think that people are being far too critical of the ABC's performance in the sense that there is a contradiction, because every time anything happens in the ABC there is a tremendous uproar throughout this country. So a lot of people are still listening to the ABC and still watching the ABC. It was pleasing to hear the honourable member for Fadden pay tribute to the radio service of the ABC which he indicated, in his view, was one of the finest in the world. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.16) —The Bill before the House, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, deals with a number of matters which seem to me to be common sense. It deals with the question of currency hedging which would be natural in relation to any organisation with a floating currency, particularly the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Telecom Australia and, to a lesser degree, Australia Post, which have very considerable outlays in terms of offsets and business which are running behind moving exchange rates on a daily basis. Therefore the proposed amendments to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 are not only appropriate in relation to hedging but the amendments that subsequently came, which recognise that hedging is not just a one way street but a two way street, are also appropriate for what has occurred. The Opposition will support the legislation. I hope that the guidelines suggested and set out by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) were thoroughly understood in relation to commercial activity as well as speculative activity. I am sure the Minister would understand that. I think the leasing of property is eminently sensible. The declaration of pecuniary interests is also sensible. The provision concerning the retirement age of directors of the OTC does not strike me as being particularly earth-shattering. We have to ask who is involved, and I understand one of the persons involved is a man of some stature, so I have no objection. The licensing of recently developed systems in the infra-red spectrum is sensible and appropriate. It is obviously a growing area of use and the Opposition supports it. The other areas covered by the Bill's amendments relate to some aspects of the report of the Vincent Review of Matters Affecting the Australian Telecommunication Commission, which show that Telecom was being used for illegal purposes, particularly in relation to starting price bookmaking. Its co-operation will be sought by the State regulatory authorities and the police. The Opposition has no objection to those amendments. The only thing which I found strange about the proposed amendments was that the words that have been withdrawn in relation to description of use, such as 'indecent, obscene or offensive communications' have been withdrawn and substituted with other words. I have a fairly simplistic view that once people become used to certain words, once they accept those words, to change them for, shall we say, more up-to-date or trendy words does not do a lot to improve community understanding. While I raise this matter and mention those words which are objected to, I see no real reason to move away from the words used. The words proposed are certainly more contemporary but I wonder whether they are as well known and as legally based in community use as the current words. I proposed to go into that matter more deeply, but because the time limits are upon us and because everyone, and the Government in particular, wants to shut down the House and go home, I will not have time for that. This is an appropriate occasion for me to speak once again about Australia Post. Honourable members will have seen in today's Sydney Morning Herald a report about Australia Post. As I said the other day in a debate on a matter of public importance, not a day goes past on which I do not receive some complaint about the performance of Australia Post. It is worth recalling the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald on what goes on. It states: If you post a letter in the City today- that is, in Sydney- there is only one chance in two that it will reach its suburban destination tomorrow. The declared policy of the post office is that a letter will be delivered the next day. The article continues: One letter in seven won't make it on Monday. But you're not likely to have much better luck with a letter from one suburb to another-fewer than two out of three will arrive before the weekend, and one in 10 won't make even the Monday delivery. We are talking purely about Sydney-Sydney city and Sydney suburbs. The article continues: These are the facts about Sydney mail deliveries revealed by Australia Post's own checks and made plain by the Federal Minister, Mr Duffy, who have privately termed AP- I will not quote his words, but it is a considerable personal problem for him. The article goes on to deal with the position of the State manager, who has been forced into the area despite the protests of the union. The managers are telling State-wide staff meetings in New South Wales: Remember, if we don't work to make the business a success we may not have a business to work in. That is a very telling comment. It does not really matter what the union might think of the situation; what occurs is a darned disgrace. The workers do not strike; they work to rule. The consequence of working to rule is that they have to work overtime to clear the mail. As a consequence of their working overtime to clear the mail, the people of Australia, who are paying 33 cents a letter, do not get a letter to its destination anywhere near the time prescribed in the Australia Post timetable. If honourable members opposite think that is a suitable behaviour to perpetrate in a monopolistic sense upon all consumers in Australia, they are wrong. Consumers will rebel against this situation and use alternative services, as they are beginning to do. Hence the flourishing development of courier services and the like. I shall quote further from this article because I think people ought to be aware of the situation. It says that the State manager and his team are referring to it as the Redfern Factor, 'a virus more deadly than Legionnaires' disease'. That is not a bad comment. It certainly says something about manager-employee relations. It certainly indicates why things are not what they ought to be in the New South Wales post. New South Wales is the nation's biggest user of Australia Post. I am told that four out of 10 mail articles posted in Australia are affected by the New South Wales post. If that is the case, honourable members can understand why the whole of Australia is held to ransom by this behaviour. The Opposition has a quite clear approach to this matter. The article states further: Their fight was made easier by the Hawke Government's removal of the Fraser Government's no-work, no-pay legislation. The militants have shown themselves masters of imposing work bans to make the mail system seize up, then piling up huge amounts of overtime, to clear it partially, all the while claiming the system is undermanned. I am afraid that that situation applies to many areas of government enterprise. The Opposition proposes a straightforward three-point plan for Australia Post. First and foremost, it involves the reimposition of no work no pay bans. Secondly, a plan would be put to the Board of Australia Post to consider what it should do to make one of Australia's major service institutions work, with a timetable. This having been agreed by the Minister of the day and by the Board of Australia Post, it would then be required to carry that out. If it failed to do so within the timetable proposed, we would get rid of the Board and move to other areas. Australians are sick to death of paying a high price for no service. Thirty-three cents for an ordinary letter which takes days-nay, weeks sometimes-to reach the delivery point is simply not good enough. I have been apprised by business people that letters concerning business transactions, which, if delayed, can cost the recipients of this service thousands of dollars in terms of interest or other services, are dealt with in an absolutely scandalous fashion that shows lack of responsibility. I call upon the Government to do something about this matter rather than wringing its hands in great pain and not acting at all. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.26) —I thank the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) for working to our timetable arrangement tonight. I know that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) also wish to contribute to the debate. We can work to that timetable quite effectively. In the five minutes I wish to spend on the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, I need to raise a couple of matters. Already canvassed by the honourable member for Ryan, but a matter which I believe is very important, is the capacity of Telecom Australia to operate in the financial markets according to prudent financial practice. This is very sensible, and I am pleased that the honourable member for Ryan spoke about it as being a common-sense approach. It will enable what is a very large and important organisation to operate in financial markets in such a way that it can best practise its corporate responsibility. That makes sense. I am pleased that this amendment is embodied in this legislation. Telecom and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission will certainly benefit from being able to indulge in currency hedging and through making some other arrangements for financial futures contracts. Telecom is a very important and effective corporate organisation. One issue which we will have to address very seriously down the track is the matter of servicing the capital needs of Telecom properly. Clearly, there will be a continual need for government to ensure that capital needs are satisfied so that Telecom can deliver high quality services and continue to deliver those services to the community. The second important matter is that Telecom will be able to move into property leasing arrangements for periods greater than 10 years without the need for the Minister's approval if the cost to Telecom is less than $2m. In the case of Australia Post and the OTC, this will apply if the cost is less than half a million dollars. That is very important again because we are treating the organisation as a mature corporation. It is important that Telecom be able to make some prudent and sensible financial decisions and not always have to seek ministerial approval. I add that that precludes Telecom from operating in a speculative fashion, but it means that Telecom can meet its corporate needs-and they are very important. The third matter is one of considerable concern to me. We raised it with Telecom during 1983-and it was successfully concluded-for pensioners who, at that stage, did not have a telephone connection, to pay their connection fee by instalments. I am pleased to say that Telecom now allows pensioners to do so in two instalments but I still feel that we ought to make it four instalments, because it would make it a much lesser burden on pensioners. I am pleased that Telecom has moved some of the way in our direction. As far as we are concerned, pensioners who have what we call pensioner health benefit cards-in other words, eligible pensioners-should be able to pay their connection fee in four instalments. I also believe that a case can be made for giving pensioners specific assistance in other areas, particularly in respect of their capacity to connect a loud extension bell to their telephones. At the moment they are charged the market price for this item. I believe that a very strong case can be made for Telecom subsidising the cost of this very important aid. Many pensioners are hard of hearing. Because they suffer a hearing loss it is important that a loud bell be installed, perhaps in another part of the house or in the garden, so that they can hear the phone ringing. This is a matter which we should be addressing. We should also be addressing the need to subsidise pensioners with respect to telephone extensions. For instance, pensioners may need a second telephone near the bed, particularly if they suffer ill health. I think Telecom has a responsibility to consider those matters. I believe assistance in this area would make a great difference to pensioners. It would also give Telecom a more human face. We are talking about Telecom as a mature corporation; we should also be talking about it as having a more human face. I believe that those areas deserve the attention of the House. I wish to speak very briefly on one final matter. The Opposition talks about privatisation. I think there is a real problem with privatisation for people in country areas. Telecom underwrites its services in country areas and I believe it is important that this practice continue. I would not want Telecom to cease doing that. I think one of the problems the Opposition has to address in the argument between the dries and the others in the Party is whether or no it wants country services subsidised. I am very clear and the Government is very clear about that matter. We believe that country people suffer enough disadvantages. We would not want to add to those disadvantages, through a process of privatisation, by making country people pay the market price for the services they receive. I believe that this Bill contains many commonsense provisions, some of which I have raised. I believe that there are a couple of other areas to which Telecom could pay attention. However, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.32) —It is my pleasure tonight to speak to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Many people in outback Australia listen to Radio Australia in particular, because it is one of the few services they can get in the isolated inland. It is amazing just how many people tune in at night to Radio Australia, which transmits to our near neighbours. Of course, we run a very good service in that area. The Bill deals with currency hedging, financial futures and contracts. It is interesting to see a Labor Party continuing to privatise some of our socialised departments, and of course I support that. We did that with the Australian Wheat Board when we were in government and it is now able to trade in futures. I give a warning to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) said, not only can one win when trading in futures, one can also lose quite a deal of money. The Queensland grain growers lost $30m eighteen months ago. Of course, it is public knowledge that Tancred Brothers, one of the big private meatworks operators in Queensland, lost $35m hedging on foreign exchange markets. A whole range of rumoured amounts have been lost in other areas. So it is not just a win situation; one can also lose. I think that government instrumentalities have to be very careful when trading in these markets. The Bill repeals the requirement for ministerial approval of property leases in excess of 10 years. Telecom can enter into a lease now if the contract does not exceed $2m. Likewise, Australia Post can operate in this way if the contract does not exceed half a million dollars. I guess that that provision eases the burden on the Department of Communications and the Minister. The Bill also provides for the disclosure of pecuniary interests of officers. I would have thought that that requirement would have applied at the moment, but apparently it does not. The Bill also provides penalties for people convicted of menacing, sending false information, harassment and obscene and offensive communications. Of course, we know that quite a deal of that goes on. The Bill seeks to amend the Postal Services Act 1975. I condemn Australia Post and Telecom Australia for the part they played in the blockade against Queensland. Australia Post has not been prepared to deliver telegrams to the Premier of Queensland. He has been denied messages from constituents all over Queensland and no deliveries have been made. I call the blockade the Clayton's blockade-it was one of those things that were meant to happen but did not happen. Mr Saunderson —Why are you worried about it? Mr IAN CAMERON —Because the unions and Australia Post are meant to deliver the mail. The mail has not been getting through and it is meant to be delivered. I am winding up. I can see that the Minister for Communications is getting anxious. I inform the Minister that out in the bush we have very high frequency radio. We have 40 channels on the citizen band network. We wish to increase that number to 80. Apparently the Department of Communications has been approached and asked to increase the number of channels. I ask the Minister to look at this matter. This is real grass roots stuff. We run our businesses, we operate from headers and tractors, et cetera, and talk to one another on the radio. There is a great need in many areas, particularly in close farming operations, for the channel network to be increased from 40 to 80. I also put a plug in for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I am the only Federal Member of Parliament to operate a high frequency radio telephone from my motor car through the Flying Doctor Network at Charleville. I come in contact with many people operating on that system. Many of them were in Canberra recently to seek more funds for the service. It does a wonderful job for the outback. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(8.36) —In speaking on the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, I wish to respond to some of the comments of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). As I take a keen interest in this area, it always amazes me that the only policy the Opposition can come up with in relation to public statutory bodies is simply to bash them on a union basis or a performance basis. Once again we heard the honourable member for Ryan attack the Australian Postal Commission, mercilessly driving in his points. He spoke about the problems of the mail deliveries in New South Wales. He failed to tell everybody that while his Party was in government, for most of the time since 1955, it did absolutely nothing to assist Australia Post to develop and to resolve some of the very difficult technical problems that existed, apart from the union problem. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said today, this Government has done more to assist in the improvement of services in Australia than any of the conservative governments have done in the past. The problems in New South Wales are very complex. They are very difficult, and none of the policies that the honourable member for Ryan espoused tonight would do anything to assist at all. They would simply help to create more problems. Instead of just bashing the unions the honourable member for Ryan decided to bash the Commission management as well. He said he would sack the lot. The honourable member for Ryan, in his opening remarks, also made comments in relation to the Vincent Review of Matters Affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Once again he perpetuated the misinformation and mistruths in relation to what has been happening in Telecom. He said that the Vincent report concluded that Telecom was being used to assist starting price bookmaking. It is a matter of public record that the Vincent report concluded that the allegations of substantial corruption within Telecom lacked anything remotely approaching an adequate evidentiary base and that any involvement by Telecom employees in assisting SP betting was absolutely minor. In an organisation that has nearly 90,000 employees around Australia there are bound to be some difficulties in that area. To continue to suggest Telecom was being used to assist and to give the impression that it was even assisting in SP bookmaking is just perpetuating the lie that exists in the community. If people were to have a look at Telecom they would find that it is one of the most respected organisations in the communications industry around the world. It has performed an enormous task and has achieved very great results in the communications field in Australia. To illustrate how important Telecom is, the growth in demand for Telecom services is getting very close to 20 per cent right across the board. Telecom hopes to spend an additional $100m on capital works. The work involved will lead to the creation of some 1,200 jobs in Telecom alone, and the spending of some $70m in capital works, equipment and material, most of which-between 80 and 90 per cent-because of Telecom's pro-Australian policy, will be spent in Australia. That will go directly to companies in Australia and help to create not just 1,200 jobs in Telecom, but thousands of jobs out in private industry. Therefore, rather than criticise these great public institutions, Opposition members should applaud them for the great results they have achieved. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.40) —in reply-The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) dealt with the question of the hedging of contracts. I thank the Opposition for supporting the amendment which makes that position clearer, and which was well understood by the honourable member. It is not going down the privatisation route, as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) suggested, and it will not, as indicated by the honourable member for Ryan, be engaging in speculation. It merely seeks to allow the financial risks associated with foreign currency fluctuations to be offset by a series of arrangements to spread the risk on foreign currency markets-a matter well understood by the honourable member for Ryan. The honourable member for Ryan was concerned about the use of the words 'indecent' and 'obscene'. The question of obscenity and indecency is a concept well known to most people, but it is practically impossible to get two or more people to agree on what precisely they mean. The new test will offer clearer guidance to the courts on a very sensitive matter. The new test adopts the reasonable man test, which is a well known and constantly applied legal concept. It defines the standard to be applied by requiring the alarm or affront to be serious, and also requires all the circumstances to be considered. I would remind the honourable member for Ryan and other Queensland members that one hopes it will avoid instances such as the seizure for obscenity in Queensland some years ago of posters featuring Michelangelo's David. That is the sort of absurdity we are trying to overcome by introducing this aspect of the Bill. The test was introduced in the Radiocommunications Act 1983 and it was included here to address the same deficiencies that I mentioned and in an attempt to ensure consistency within the portfolio Acts. The honourable member for Ryan moved towards an attack on Australia Post, a course not unknown in this place. All I shall say in the few moments that are available to me in this debate is that to anyone who is listening to this debate this evening I commend the report of the debate which took place in this House on 14 May 1985. On that occasion the honourable member for Ryan led the Opposition's attack on Australia Post. In speaking in that debate I was supported by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) who then, and again tonight-I thank him for his contribution-defended that great public enterprise institution, Telecom. There are a couple of matters of which the honourable member for Ryan must again be reminded when one examines the accusations he makes against Australia Post. The facts are that the industrial position in Australia Post is a great deal different from the position in the days when the coalition Government was in office. Mr MacKellar —You just give in all the time. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Warringah is without doubt at times one of the silliest members in this House. If he listens for a moment, I will tell him what the record is. When the coalition government was in power the memorable period was 1981-82. In that year Australia Post lost 323,000 working hours in industrial disputation. The headlines then were 'Communications chaos', 'Million mail items pile up', 'Long distance calls hit'. What is the honourable member talking about? Since the Hawke Labor Government has been in office the average number of working hours lost has been a little under 20,000, compared with 150,000 hours under the Fraser Government. The honourable member for Warringah should not come in here, as I said to the honourable member for Ryan the other day, and talk to us about industrial relations. In closing, I look forward to the reconvening of Parliament in the Budget session. We can then have a long debate on this issue when again we will highlight the hypocrisy of Opposition members coming into this chamber and telling us how to run industrial relations, in the face of the most appalling record of the coalition Government throughout its whole period of office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) In Committee Mr MacKellar-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. Under the terms of the guillotine applied earlier this day-by the Government, I hasten to add-the time allotted for the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill was to expire at 8.45 p.m. There was no question before the chamber at that time and there was no amendment moved by the Government before the chamber; so I submit that it is quite improper at this stage for the House to go into Committee when in fact the time for the guillotine has passed. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! In answer to the honourable member's point of order I suggest that he read standing order 92 (e). It is quite a long paragraph. Mr MacKellar-I have read it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —It states: (e) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on the expiration of the time allotted under any motion passed under any of the preceding paragraphs of this standing order, the Speaker or the Chairman shall, at the time appointed under the motion for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith any question already proposed from the Chair and any other question requisite to dispose of the business before the House or committee, including any amendments, new clauses and schedules . . . copies of which have been circulated by the Government among Members 2 hours at least before the expiration of the allotted time. I believe that answers the point of order which the honourable member raised. Mr MacKellar-On the point of order: I have been in the chamber for the entire duration of this debate. No amendment has been proposed by the Government during the debate. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The amendments were circulated in the House at 5.21 p.m. That answers the point of order. Amendments have to be circulated only two hours before the expiration of the allotted time. Mr MacKellar-I will pursue the point a little further. I recognise that the Government is in some disarray in relation to this matter. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I am advised by the Clerks that the position of the Government in this instance is in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr MacKellar-Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your ruling. Does the fact that the amendments are in the House constitute the moving of those amendments? There has been no mention publicly, vocally, of the amendments that the Government seeks to introduce. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Yes, before the time expires. That is in the Standing Orders. Mr Spender-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman, and seek your ruling. The guillotine was moved by the Minister who gave the most considered reasons for it. Did he guillotine a host of matters, including the Committee stage of this Bill? If he did, the time having elapsed, under standing order 92 that is the end of it. It is a matter of great distress. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I say again that the amendments have been circulated. They were circulated more than two hours before the expiration of the allotted time. I rule that the Government is in order. Mr MacKellar-Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I will allow one more point. Mr MacKellar-It will not necessarily be the last point. Under the guillotine all stages of the Bill have to be dealt with by the allotted time that was agreed to by the House at an earlier stage this day. We are now sitting in the Committee stage of a Bill, the time for consideration of which by previous order of the House this day has expired. So there is no provision whereby this Committee can sit. The House earlier agreed that the time for the consideration of all parts of this Bill should expire at 8.45 p.m. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —When the time expires, all the questions have to be put. Because the amendments were circulated more than two hours before the expiration of the allotted time, at 5.21 this afternoon, the questions have to be put. Mr MacKellar-Again, I raise a point of order. How can we move into Committee when the time has expired? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —It is not up to me to explain the position any further. I believe that standing order 92 (e) explains it. That is my ruling. Mr Moore-Have the amendments been moved? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —They do not need to be moved. They have been circulated under Standing Orders. The question is: That the Bill and the amendments circulated by the Government to the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Circulated amendments: (1) Clause 6, page 2, line 18, omit ''other than'', insert ''including''. (2) Clause 6, page 3, line 8, omit ''other than'', insert ''including''. (3) Clause 16, page 5, line 25, omit ''other than'', substitute ''including''. (4) Clause 16, page 6, line 13, omit ''other than'', insert ''including''. Mr MacKellar-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman, I hesitate to make this point, but the fact of the matter is that at an earlier stage this day the House decided, on the motion of the Government, that all stages of certain Bills had to be completed by certain times, including the Committee stage. One of those Bills was the one which we are presently discussing. The expiration of the time for this Bill was at 8.45 p.m. It is now past 8.45 p.m. Under a resolution previously accepted by the House, all stages of this Bill had to be completed by 8.45 p.m. It is now 8.55 p.m. and we are sitting in Committee in a situation which the House previously decided would not occur. I ask you to rule that this present situation is out of order. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I rule that the debate had to be concluded by that time and questions could be put after that time. I will now put the question again. Mr Cadman-Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Standing Order 92 (e) distinctly says 'the Speaker or the Chairman'. It does not say 'the Speaker and the Chairman'. This chamber moved into the Committee stage after the guillotine was applied. I ask you to rule whether it should be 'the Speaker and the Chairman' or 'the Speaker or the Chairman'. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I am ruling that it is a proper thing to do. There was difficulty for the Government-- Mr Cadman-That is the Government's problem; it is not ours. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Anyway, I rule that it is. The question is: That the Bill and the amendments circulated by the Government to the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The question is: That the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. Mr Sinclair-Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been in Committee and there is no provision under the our Standing Orders for you to go into Committee. Consequently, the proceedings that you have just conducted are not in accordance with our Standing Orders. There is a procedure which allows you to pass the Government's amendments, providing they have been circulated two hours before, but unfortunately you have been in Committee. I therefore suggest that the whole of the proceedings of the last quarter of an hour are totally out of order and, as they are out of order, I suggest to you that the result of that is that the proceedings have been invalidated. If they are invalidated, I put it to you that we are therefore in a position where you cannot take the Government's amendments as either being put or being passed. There are procedures under our Standing Orders which must be followed or the amendments are not correct. The procedures have not been followed. You have been in Committee. There is no procedure to go in to Committee. If the amendments have been dealt with in Committee, they are invalidated and I put it to you that there is no basis, therefore, to put them as being passed. The Bill is passed; the Committee amendments are not. I suggest to you that there is no way by which we can proceed on the present basis. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will have to have a minute to think about that. The House should not have gone into Committee, and I suggest that what I do now is put the question: That this Bill be now read a third time. Those of that opinion say 'aye', to the contrary 'no'. Mr Sinclair-Just a minute; you cannot do that. What is the Bill which you are putting to the House on the third reading? The Bill is the Bill without amendments. If you had put them in the proper form- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —To put the whole thing in order, I will put the question: That the Bill in all its remaining stages be agreed to. Mr Sinclair-Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a problem; that is, we have had a procedure which is invalid. As it is invalid, we go back to the proceedings that took place before the Committee amendments were moved. We are about to move the third reading. Without the amendments- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think it would make very good common sense-I think that common sense should come to the fore-if I put the question. The question is: That the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. Mr Sinclair-The Bill is the subject of the guillotine. We cannot debate it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are not going to debate it. I am putting the question: That the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr Moore-I raise a point of order. Can I ascertain from the Chair whether the Bill which has just been passed contained the amendments or not? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, it did. Mr MacKellar-I take a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, you should make it absolutely clear to the House that the Bill that the House has just agreed to is the one without amendment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question I put before the House was that the remaining stages of the Bill and the amendments circulated by the Government in accordance with standing order 92, circulated two hours earlier, be agreed to. I put the question and the House agreed to it. The House will now consider the next Bill. Mr MacKellar-I do not think it did agree to it. Mr N. A. Brown-Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I see Mr Speaker wishes to take the chair. Perhaps the problem would not have arisen if he had been here. I do not mean any reflection on you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I trust that the honourable member is not reflecting on the Deputy Speaker. Mr N. A. Brown-Certainly not. If there appears to be any reflection I instantly withdraw it. I simply wish to say, by way of a point of order, that in case this matter goes further, it should not be simply a case of putting a question to the Chair but a case of putting to the Chair an assertion that there is a widely held view among members on the Opposition side of the Parliament that the Bill which has just been passed was passed without the proposed amendments. That is the view of many members of this House. It should be stated for the record in case there is litigation, or whatever, following this event. Mr SPEAKER —I have allowed the honourable member for Menzies to make that statement. The usual procedure, when consideration of a Bill is closed under the guillotine provision, is that the question is put that the remaining stages of the Bill, with the amendments circulated to the House in accordance with the Standing Orders, be agreed to. That is the question that was put. I will allow no further discussion. We will now move on to the next item of business. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, you have ruled on the matter in accordance with facts that are not before this Parliament. After the conclusion of the second reading debate, we proceeded to a Committee stage on the Bill. Under our Standing Orders, there is no procedure for a Committee stage. The amendments were submitted during a Committee stage, which is not in accordance with our Standing Orders. Therefore the procedure to which the honourable member has just alluded is one which excludes the amendments which have been put to the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —No. My understanding is that the amendments were circulated at the appropriate time, before the question was put. Mr MacKellar-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —I will accept a further point of order, but I remind the House that the debating time on the next Bill is being reduced. Mr MacKellar-I understand that, Mr Speaker, but I think this is an important point. As I understand it, under standing order 92 (e), the two-hour notice rule applies only if the question is put at the Committee stage. We were not in Committee when the question was put because we could not be in Committee under the guillotine that then applied. So in fact 92 (e) does not apply. Mr SPEAKER —My understanding is that the precedent in these cases is that the question that is put is that the remaining stages of the Bill, with the amendments circulated, whether they are Committee amendments or a second reading amendment be agreed to. The Deputy Speaker put that question from this chair. COMMONWEALTH BANKS AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Keating. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.06) —The Opposition will support the passage of the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. It gives the Opposition a chance to say a couple of things about the return to Australian Labor Party orthodoxy enunciated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at Question Time today. The Treasurer took the opportunity of making it perfectly clear that the Australian Labor Party will not have a bar of selling to the Australian people any of the great public utilities of this country. We on this side of the House absolutely welcome the fact that the Treasurer has stated in such unequivocal terms the opposition of the Labor Party to a policy of selling to the Australian people some of the great public utilities of this country. Because the Commonwealth Bank is one of those utilities, it is an opportunity to observe the differences which now emerge between the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party on this issue. The Commonwealth Bank is a very fine Australian institution. It has amongst its employees and within its management some of the most competent and skilled people in the banking business that this country has seen. Nothing that the Opposition says about considering the Commonwealth Bank as a candidate for sale to the Australian people in any way reflects upon the quality of the people who have run that bank over the years, who run it now and who are likely to run it in the future. It is a very fine institution and deserving of the respect and support of members on both sides of the House. But, unlike the Labor Party with its new embracing of its own historical orthodoxy on this subject, as so finely enunciated by the Treasurer-I must say, to the disappointment probably of some of his colleagues-we have no trepidation about the idea that one should sell ownership of some of these utilities to the Australian people. We do not regard selling utilities such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and perhaps the Commonwealth Bank as in some way throwing away or giving away the assets of the Australian people. We regard such an act as taking the Australian people into the ownership of those assets. Of course, if the Government does not like that, it must have some very significant mistrust of the Australian people. I remind the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), both of whom are very interested in this debate, of how successful this policy of sale has been in other places. As I reminded the House the other day, when the British Government decided to privatise British-- Dr Theophanous —Oh, no! Thatcherism! Mr HOWARD —Oh, yes! My good friend, the honourable member for Calwell, immediately sparks to life whenever I mention the name of the British Prime Minister. Like a Pavlovian dog, he immediately comes to life. He says: 'Oh, no. Don't talk about Margaret Thatcher'. Mr Punch —What about Francis Pym? Mr HOWARD —He can stay with his soccer team as long as he likes. I can only say that Margaret Thatcher will outlast Francis Pym. She might be doing badly in the polls at the moment but come the next election she will wipe the floor with Arthur Scargill and all the others. But let me return to her exercise in privatisation. All the same arguments were used. All the unions ran around the country saying what an absolutely dreadful thing it would be to sell British Telecom. They spent hundred of thousands of pounds running expensive television advertisements in Britain saying: 'You must not get rid of the assets of the British people'. Dr Theophanous —That's right. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says that that is right. They had a terrible advertisement showing Mrs Thatcher cutting the telephone cables. It said: 'Save our telephones'. While all that was going on, what were the members of the British Telecom unions doing? They were busy buying their shares. There were riots in the street. Ordinary Englishmen and Englishwomen were so eager to buy shares in British Telecom that there were crowds outside the underwriters' offices. Something like three million ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom purchased shares in British Telecom. What is more significant, 92 per cent of the employees of British Telecom took up their entitlements to the issue. So while their union dues were being used to run stupid, wasteful, unproductive television advertisements against the sale, they were busily voting with their pounds to buy shares in British Telecom. I say to the honourable member for Barton, to the Treasurer, to the honourable member for Calwell, and to all his little mates from Hindmarsh and elsewhere, that if the same thing happens in Australia their silly, stupid union bosses will spend hundreds of thousands of their dollars advertising against the sale. What will the ordinary rank and file of the Australian Telecom unions do? They will be there with the best of them to buy their entitlements. They will realise that it is a good deal. They will realise that the idea that ordinary Australians should have the right to buy a share in our great public utilities is not to dismantle those utilities but to involve ordinary Australians in their ownership. I therefore welcome very warmly the fact that the Treasurer decided at Question Time that this is something about which he can take on the Opposition. We are absolutely delighted because we think he is wrong, we think he is out of date, and we think he has totally misread the mood and the different attitudes people now have. The idea of selling these assets to the Australian people is an idea that will have a great deal of currency. As I said in an earlier debate, if the British Government can undertake the privatisation of the catering services of British Rail, the cause of privatisation knows absolutely no bounds. Anyone who has experienced the catering services of British Rail will realise that it is a marvellous exercise in entrepreneurial risk-taking to try to privatise the catering services of British Rail. I think the same thing could be said about the catering services of the New South Wales Government Railways or VicRail, or, indeed, the catering services, such as they might be, of the Australian National Line. Mr Milton —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are supposed to be dealing with the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. I put it to you that this is nothing to do with that Bill. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —If the truth be known, the honourable member probably took up some shares in British Telecom. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition return to the Bill. Mr HOWARD —I say to the House that if the Treasurer thinks he is on a winner opposing us on this he is utterly and completely wrong. The whole philosophy behind considering the sale of these assets is not to get rid of these great public utilities. It is not to take them out of the ownership of the Australian people but rather to involve the Australian people in their ownership. I look forward with great enthusiasm to the debate that will undoubtedly be undertaken on this issue. We look forward to watching all the great, dedicated public ownership members opposite taking up their entitlements when the issue is made. One by one honourable members opposite will be there with the best of them early in the morning to take up their entitlements. What is more, they will be very happy to sell their shares to the pension funds at a nice capital gain. The only problem will be that under the tax package they will have to pay tax on that capital gain, and they will not like that very much at all. The Opposition supports this Bill. We think its provisions are quite sensible. We welcome the decision of the Government to expand the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank. We seek an assurance from the Treasurer that in the process of doing that the Government will not in any way crimp the long-standing support it has given to the Australian rural sector, which has been a principal beneficiary of the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Government has done enough to give it in the neck to the Australian farmer over the last few months. We hope that in the process of undertaking these necessary reforms it will not in any way stint the Australian farmer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no- Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —I think the ayes have it. Mr Spender —A point of order. Mr SPEAKER —The question has been put and carried. Mr Spender —No. Mr Speaker, I raised a point of order before you put the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney can address the House when he gets the call from the Chair. He now has the call. Mr Spender —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The point I wish to make is this: For 15 minutes this House was in confusion as a consequence of the Government's inability to understand what it was doing. We therefore lost 15 minutes of debating time and the Government should, therefore, allow debating time to be extended for a further 15 minutes so that one of its own members can be heard and so that I can be heard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. RETIREMENT OF CLERK, MR D. M. BLAKE, VRD Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the impending retirement on 31 July 1985 of the Clerk of the House, Mr Douglas Maurice Blake. Honourable members will realise that I do so with a great deal of regret as I have much appreciated his support and advice while I have been Speaker. I will not try to outline his whole career in the Public Service and the Royal Australian Navy or his community involvement, except to say, with regard to the latter, that although he may be an excellent adviser, as a former rugby player and international rugby referee, he has not been able to convince me of the superiority of that code over Australian rules football and soccer. Let me concentrate on his involvement with the Parliament. He entered the Department of the House of Representatives in 1950. He became Serjeant-at-Arms in 1956, Clerk-Assistant in 1970, Deputy Clerk in 1977 and Clerk of the House in 1982. In this position he has carried out his procedural and administrative duties at a very high level. Members have learned to value his advice and friendship, which have added to their understanding of parliamentary procedures and, indeed, in improving their parliamentary performance. The parliaments of the Australasian and Pacific regions with which he has had continuous involvement for over 20 years have learnt his value. The Parliament of Papua New Guinea recognised his role in the development of that Parliament by awarding him the Papua New Guinea Independence Medal in 1977. With regard to international parliamentary bodies, he has been Honorary Secretary of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association since 1982. In recognition of his service to that Association he was made an honorary member in 1984. He has served as a member of both the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table of the Commonwealth Parliaments and the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments. He was elected a member of the Executive Committee of the latter body recently. He has accompanied a number of Australian parliamentary delegations to other countries and parliaments and has proved a most valuable companion to those members who have been with him. I have sat in this chair and the Chairman of Committee's chair since 1972 in various capacities. During that time I have valued Doug Blake's friendship, advice and guidance. I believe that he and I have developed the rapport which is essential between a Clerk of the House and the Speaker. At times, I must admit, it becomes almost a mind reading exercise. When a point is raised we are able to look at one another and the guidance is gained. Mr Sinclair-You do not do that to me. Mr SPEAKER —I sometimes read your mind and what I read worries me. The Clerk has been well supported by his wife, Pat, who is in the gallery tonight, and his family of six daughters and one son. I am not sure how many of them are present tonight. I know that he has bought a unit at Moruya on the south coast which will be used during his retirement. I am sure that there he will fully engage in his interest in bowls and fishing. I remember being with him and Pat on one visit when he and the former Clerk of the Papua New Guinea Parliament, Tony Elly, went fishing off Kieta near Bougainville. It must be said that the party did not dine on fish. May his retirement bring more success in that sphere. On behalf of the House and all his friends, I wish him a long and happy retirement with his wife and family. I hope that he will not forget to visit us. Well done, Doug. You may be justifiably proud of your service to this Parliament, its members and the community in general. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(9.23) —I move: That this House places on record its appreciation of the long and meritorious service to the Parliament by the Clerk of the House, Mr Doug Blake, and extends to him and his wife and family every wish for a healthy and happy retirement. I feel somewhat envious of the Clerk for receiving this acknowledgment, which is certainly his due. For most of us mere mortals who serve in this Parliament, the nice things people say about us come at a most unfortunate period in our lives. I just wish I could be here. I am going to leave a provision in the Standing Orders that everyone can have an extension of time. I have had the experience and great privilege of serving in this Parliament for a number of years. I became a member when Norman Parkes was the Clerk of the House and I found him to be a great friend and a great adviser. During the period in which I have been a member of the Parliament Doug Blake has participated on all occasions in the advice which has been given, not only to the new members but also to the old members who are still looking for new tricks. In the period I have been here he played a part in the publication of House of Representatives Practice. Not everything is in it; nor should it be. Nevertheless, it is a great guide. It was published just before he took up his present office, but he certainly had a part in its publication and it is a great tribute to that period. We rely extremely heavily upon the professional advice that is given to us by people in Doug's position. On occasions I do not envy the way in which he has to carry out his job as Clerk, especially when he is breaking in new Deputy Speakers and is trying to ensure that the procedures of the House are working smoothly. One must give due respect and acknowledgment to the role Doug Blake has played. The House has worked smoothly during his period as Clerk of the House, which is an extremely important position. As the Speaker has said, Doug, one of your past professions has helped you enormously in dealing with many of the ruffians from the Liberal and National parties-that is, being a former commando. You do not necessarily need those qualifications in dealing with those of us on this side of the House. I am sure, from what the Speaker has said, that you have many outside interests which will keep you in full time leisure in a well-earned retirement once you leave this place. However, I have had occasion to talk to Norman Parkes since his retirement and I find that one tends never to leave this place. It becomes ingrained in one's system and one keeps an eye on what is happening in the Parliament. I look forward to the invitations that I am sure all the past Clerks will receive to the opening of the new Parliament House so that you can witness the great day when the members of the third Hawke Government take their positions in the new Parliament House. I know that many other people wish to speak; so I say to you, Doug, and to your wife and family: We wish you all the very best and thank you sincerely for your contribution to the workings of this national Parliament. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(9.22) —Mr Speaker, I certainly wish to associate the Government and myself with your remarks and those of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) about the retiring Clerk of the House. Since Federation this Parliament has been very well served by its Clerks whose professionalism, integrity and application have been absolutely impeccable. Doug Blake has been a very worthy successor to all those men. Mr Speaker, you have reminded us of the Clerk's career and I will not repeat your remarks. But I do wish to draw attention to the outstanding aspect of Doug Blake's career. He has always given consistent, loyal and dedicated service to the institutions that he knows and loves-his church, the Navy and this Parliament and the parliamentary system. Doug Blake has given us 35 years service in this House, 26 of them at the table of the House. In that time he has earned and retained the trust and respect of all sides of the House. That has been no easy task, the difficulty of which, Mr Speaker, you would well understand. The position of Clerk requires unfailing discretion, judgment, thoroughness and honesty. Doug Blake has shown all of those qualities in abundance. He has been a vital link in the chain of the parliamentary system in this country and has served with professionalism under Speakers and Prime Ministers of both sides of politics. He has also made time and taken pains to assist parliaments elsewhere. His service in Papua New Guinea from 1964 onwards deserves very special thanks and the commendation of this House. All of us in this House demand a very great deal of the Clerk. We have expected a lot from Doug Blake throughout his career. We have demanded precise and professional advice off the cuff. We have demanded a cool head and good sense under intense pressure. We have demanded hard work over extremely long and arduous hours and Doug Blake has certainly met all those demands; he has not let us down. Compared with many people in this House, I am a relative new chum. I came here in 1980 from forums and institutions which did not have quite the same formalised rules of procedures as those that have been built up here over so many years, so I was not able to call so readily upon that experience to behave myself and conduct myself according to the codes of conduct and procedures that apply here. Therefore, Doug, from an early stage I had cause to call upon you frequently and I want to pay a personal tribute to the way in which you helped me and, I hope, improved me. It was not only the information and the knowledge that you helped me to acquire, but it was certainly the manner of your so doing that endeared you to me, and I thank you for it. I am sure that all honourable members join me in wishing our Clerk a most happy and long retirement. Doug's family will now have a chance to enjoy his undivided attention and so too, I understand, will Canberra's bowling greens and the district's trout streams. Mr McVeigh —And rugby union. Mr HAWKE —This is a time of unanimity. The honourable member cannot help being his usual divisive self! Just behave yourself! Mr Donald Cameron —I thought you loved all sport. Mr HAWKE —I do, particularly when played in the right place. Doug, I know that I speak for all honourable members on both sides of the House in wishing you well in all that you do and in thanking you for all that you have given us in help, support and guidance over so many years. All the best in the future. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(9.31) —I join the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the matter before the Parliament. On behalf of the Liberal Party I wish Doug Blake a happy retirement. If I might say so, far more important is our expression of appreciation for all that he has done. The Prime Minister has mentioned many of the qualities that are required in a Clerk, they being long honed. Despite the fact that the Parliament had very few powers in the fourteenth century, my recollection is that the appointment of Clerk-- Mr Kent —You can remember then? Mr PEACOCK —Do not worry; I might remember a lot, but I have a lot to do in the future too. There will be much to comment upon in many years to come. The appointment of Clerk goes back to about the fourteenth century. I do not know how efficient Clerks were in the fourteenth century in Britain, but they have very long memories. I came into this place some fourteen years before the Prime Minister, and I will outstay him for a longer period. I recall wishing to be escorted by a Minister to be sworn in following a by-election. I was reminded of that by Doug the other day when he came to tell me officially that he was retiring. The Clerk of the House on that occasion told me that it was unprecedented for a Minister to escort a newly-elected member following a by-election. But I demanded that it be done, and it was. When I told a relative of mine who had close connections with the Parliament what I had done, he told me that I had a short political career ahead of me because, if I may say this without any disrespect to others who are of the Christian faith, the Clerk, in his terminology, was 'second only to JC'. I think that is probably correct. I mentioned when I rose that the Prime Minister had talked about the qualities of a Clerk. They involve tact, persuasion and patience, way beyond a knowledge of the Standing Orders themselves. You personify all those things, Doug, together with great common sense. There is not a person on both sides of the Parliament who has served in this Parliament and who has had dealings with you who has not trusted and accepted your advisings. You have done that with a faithfulness, with a diligence, with an honesty of purpose, with a sincerity and with an objectivity which mark the role of Clerk-a most demanding role which clearly you have occupied, we feel and have noted, with very great distinction. Mr Speaker and the Prime Minister have mentioned your service to the Parliament of Papua New Guinea. I was very lucky many years ago, well over a decade ago, to serve this Parliament and the nation as Minister for External Territories. I think I am the only surviving politician with such direct links with the Papua New Guinea Government. I know how well regarded you were and are. It is typical of your dedication and your sense of purpose that you gave so much to that country. I know that you retain close personal contacts with its parliamentary officers. Perhaps if they were here tonight they would be saying something along these lines: 'Ol i hamamas tumas long lukim yu; ol i tinktink yu gutpela nambawan'. Doug, you are thought of with very great affection in this place. You have shown stamina, patience and understanding-all the qualities that go with the fact, which both the Speaker and the Prime Minister mentioned, that you played and referreed hundreds of rugby union games in Canberra, including eight international matches, as I understand it. Of course, it is the Speaker's role in the House to blow the whistle when the rucks and mauls get out of hand, but on the rugby field it was Doug Blake's role. I suppose he must have wondered at times whether there was any real difference. Doug, I know that you will look back on your service with some pride, and look forward to a contented retirement. You have dedicated the overwhelming period of your life to this Parliament, apart from your dedication to your family. Yours is a role that is essential. Doug, your name will be recorded, along with those of such great officers as Frank Green, Allan Tregear, Alan Turner, Norman Parkes and Jack Pettifer, as a man who served this nation's interest with a quiet dedication and very manifest skills. The Opposition wants to place on record its appreciation and gratitude to you, which is deeply felt. We warmly support the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. We thank you for your long and meritorious service to this Parliament. I extend to you, and to your wife and family, wishes for a very happy time during your retirement. We extend our heartfelt wishes for a very lengthy and happy period on this earth. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.37) —I support this motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I guess that, like a few of us in this place, I have heard the referee's whistle and wondered whether the judgment was ever valid. My first recollection of Doug Blake was in a rugby match between the Parliament and the Press. Somewhere in my archives there is a photograph of Bill Hayden, Doug Anthony and me in the front row. I might add that Bill was the hooker. I thought it was a role he performed with considerable skill and some dexterity. The only trouble with the three of us was that we had Doug Blake as referee. I think we won that game and I thank you for that, Mr Referee. But there have been other occasions when your judgment and advice to Mr Speaker- Mr SPEAKER —You won because he was the referee and he was the coach as well! Mr SINCLAIR —He professed some other attributes. Doug Blake has, like many of those who have worn the mantle of Clerks of the Parliament, played a quite extraordinary role. Like many of you, I happen to prefer the Westminster system as adapted in Australia. It is a system which has a difference. We are not the British House of Commons. We are not like the Houses of the State parliaments. We are a House of Representatives with a number of peculiar characteristics. Those characteristics have been built up over the years since 1901 by a succession of Clerks of the Parliament, Speakers and members of this place who have adapted May's Parliamentary Practice to the point where Doug and his colleagues have produced a volume which is now our bible of reference. It is a bible of reference because those who wear a wig and gown and sit at the table give the Speaker of the day advice which ensures that there is approximately equal opportunity for members of both sides. Just occasionally I would like to have the numbers. Putting that aside, they give to this place a character and opportunities which I think we are all prepared to fight hard to preserve. Doug, to you and your colleagues who have made it so, I would like to extend my thanks. It is a difficult job. All of us know that the Clerks sit mute, not by persuasion or because they would prefer it, but because the obligations of their office require it. They sit through those interminably boring speeches that most of us give. Unfortunately, they have to listen to the spoken word and not read the corrected Hansard version. They sit in a way which at times must be more than trying, not only for their backsides but also for their minds and their mental agility. They do it in such a way that, if anything erupts, they are always on hand. For that I admire them. However, there are many other things, Doug, that you have achieved in your life, apart from sitting here and commenting on us when the Speaker requires it. You have been a good adviser, a good friend and a very loyal colleague. All of us respect the dispassionate advice you offer when requested. If our system is to survive, we need those with ability who have a far better knowledge of Standing Orders than any of us acquire. Albeit that some of us try hard, there is little doubt that if we turn to the Clerks they can still tell us when we are wrong. It is important that we have that advice. For that I thank you. As a man, I respect you, Doug. You have been not only a good rugby player but also a member of the Royal Australian Navy. There you have served your Queen and country and done it with distinction. You have served this Parliament with admiral capacity. To Pat and your family I say that you, the children, have a dad of whom you can be inordinately proud and that you Pat, have a husband with whom I am sure you will enjoy many days of happy fishing in the future. Doug, thanks for the service you have rendered this Parliament and for the advice that has enabled many of us to stand up here and have others think we really know what we are talking about. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(9.41) —Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to Doug Blake on his retirement. The change in the relationship between members, Clerks and officers of the House that has taken place even in the short period I have been here has been quite notable. There used not to be the same friendly banter-although there was friendship-or the type of relationship that exists now with the officers of the House and the Clerks when Alan Turner was the Clerk at the table. I think it is true to say that when Doug was the junior of the table officers and Alan Browning was Sergeant-at-Arms, there was almost a royal commission of inquiry if they actually got in the chair during the sittings, with the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk out of the chamber. That situation has changed materially in recent years and I think it has changed for the good. I suppose that I have had as close an association as most members with the officers of the Parliament, particularly with Doug Blake. We had an early association which was not responsible for Cyclone Tracy, but it may have been a clairvoyant act on someone's part that Gordon Bryant appointed me the person to be responsible for drafting the rules of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Doug Blake was the Clerk attached to the jaunt when we went to Darwin to study the Northern Territory Assembly a few months before Cyclone Tracy occurred. I think Doug is the first of the Clerks of this Parliament who has had no association at all with Melbourne. I do not think Jack Pettifer worked there. However, he did have an association with the Parliament in Victoria. We have now moved to a break in that link. I know of Doug's ongoing commitment to the Royal Australian Navy-he never stops telling me about aircraft carriers! Just so that there is agreement everywhere, I think he served his King and country, rather than Queen and country-but that is a matter of judgment. I wish Doug well in retirement. He has indeed served this Parliament well. He had to survive the internal politics of the Department of the House of Representatives in order to become Clerk. He has been a stayer-one does not become Clerk of the House of Representatives unless one can stick at the one job, no matter what, for some 20 or 30 years. I wish you well in retirement, Doug. I am sure that we will see a lot of you around Canberra, if not around the Parliament. I do not think you will be one of those who haunt the place after retirement and I am not sure that you are old enough yet to be playing bowls on a regular basis. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.43) —I would like to associate myself with the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I suppose that the best and most vivid recollection I have of Doug Blake's service to the members of this Parliament is the help he gave me in 1974 and 1975 when I was the representative of the shadow Attorney-General in this place during the time of the Whitlam Government. There was a fair amount of legal legislation from the then Attorney-General, Kep Enderby, and the Opposition resources on moving complicated amendments to legal Bills were pretty meagre. Doug was of enormous help to me as a very inexperienced shadow Minister. I formed an instant and continuing respect for his openness, his friendliness and his help. That is a quality that he has exhibited to people on both sides of the Parliament and in that sense he represents a very great tradition in the Australian Public Service in its broadest and best sense. I join with other members in wishing him and his family well. I know that he will continue his great passion for involvement in and knowledge of rugby union. Many honourable members on this side of the House and some on the other side of the House follow that sport and will continue to follow the fortunes of that sport with some closeness, recognising that in recent times Australian rugby has seen some of its finest days. No one in Australia would have rejoiced as much as Doug Blake in those fine days. In particular, we wish him continued enjoyment of that game. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.45) —I join with other members in congratulating Doug Blake on his splendid contribution to this Parliament. I think it must give him a sense of satisfaction to know that he has served his country so well and so ably in so many fields-in war, in sport and, most importantly, in the national Parliament. It would be of some joy to have members of his family here this evening. Our congratulations are extended to them upon having such a splendid leader of the family. He has had to listen to many issues being debated here, and I have often wondered what his real contribution would have been if he had been allowed to make a speech. I just hope that as he writes his memoirs he thinks of us in charitable terms and not so much of the things that we have done wrong. We all get very temperamental. I have had the doubtful distinction of being the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. Having represented both sides of the House I can say with conviction that I have always valued Doug's advice. I might say with a sense of amusement that I think his advice was better for us in opposition than it has been since we have been in government because his advice then enabled us to get where we are now. Mr Peacock —You are coming back again. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Despite those horrible interjections, which are always out of order, we are not going back again; we have learnt the ropes. It is a great learning process. One has to be pretty fast on one's feet and has to understand the temperament of what is happening here. We cannot do without the Clerks. Doug Blake is a distinguished member of a long line of Clerks who have gone before and who are yet to follow. I think all who occupy that position play an outstanding role in the interests of democracy. I wish Doug every continued happiness in his retirement. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.48) —I rise to remark briefly upon one point of Doug Blake's career and that relates to Doug's time in Papua New Guinea, where I first met him 21 years ago. I agree with the other sentiments expressed about Doug-his objectivity, his love of rugby, his camaraderie and so forth. However, Doug made a most important contribution and has continued to make a most important contribution to the depth and quality of the relationship between our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, and this country. We are fortunate in having a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) who have had very close working relations with the current and previous Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and others-- Mr Peacock —As you have, too. Mr MACPHEE —As I have, as the Leader of the Opposition points out. That in itself is helpful to the future relationship between our country and our nearest neighbour, but the depth of work done by Doug over the years, which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have alluded to, I can testify to. After the Menzies Government adopted the report of Lord Caradon to establish the Papua New Guinea Parliament, Doug went up there year in and year out to guide that House of Assembly. He not only guided the Clerks of that Parliament; he guided the present Prime Minister, his predecessor and many others who have been the key figures in making the transition. We all know, without being patronising, that it was a transition in one generation of a country, the majority of whose people lived in what the rest of the world would regard as primitive, Stone Age conditions, into a most complex, technological twentieth century age. It was the contribution of people such as Doug Blake which made that transition so smooth and has continued the relationship so strongly. It is not only rugby and other interests that bind people in this chamber to Doug, important though they are on a personal level. It is the fact that he billets in his own home people who come from the Papua New Guinea Parliament and takes an interest in that country. He will be in Papua New Guinea again in September for its tenth anniversary. These kinds of relationships make this man a very important figure for this country and for the binding of relationships between Australia and Papua New Guinea. I pay tribute to Doug for all the things he did beyond the call of duty to this Parliament for the good of mankind and the relationships we have with our nearest neighbour. I think, Mr Speaker, that he deserves his retirement not only for what he has done for this Parliament, but also for what he has done for another part of the world, where tonight they will be saying to him: 'Thank you, Doug, for the great friend you have been'. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(9.51) —I rise to support the motion moved by my very honourable and learned colleague, the Leader of the House (Mr Young), and supported by all members of this Parliament. It is lovely to see all honourable members here to support the motion this evening. Mr Speaker, I had the very good fortune of being present at a dinner hosted by you and your charming wife this evening in honour of Mr Blake and his wife and family, and I thoroughly enjoyed that dinner. I am very proud to have been at the dinner. It is probably one of the last dinners Doug will have in the Speaker's office, but I assure him that we will invite him to many more dinners in the members' dining room. I am sure that all honourable members will be happy to reach into their pockets to entertain Doug and his family to dinner. He has assisted more members and Ministers of this Parliament than any other person I have known since I entered this chamber in 1978. When I was a lowly back bencher and had to go to him for advice, he was always willing to give it. When I was the lowly Deputy Whip in the Opposition he was also happy to help me. When I was the lowly Acting Whip in the Opposition he was also very happy to help me. Now I am the lowly Government Whip and he is still happy to help me. I hope all honourable members take note that they are losing one of the very great persons of the Parliament. Doug has always stood for democracy and he has always been happy to help those on either side of this chamber. He leaves this Parliament with dignity and respect. I wish him and his family very well. I can assure him that we will miss him tremendously. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(9.53) —Mr Speaker, I should like to add my appreciation and tribute to Doug Blake. Tonight we have heard of his participation in the transition of Papua New Guinea to self-government. I would like the Parliament to remember that he had a part in another historic occasion, and that was the transition to self-government for the Northern Territory. Having gone through the Papua New Guinea experience and the Government having made the agreements, signed the protocols and done all those sorts of things, when we had to go to the Northern Territory and into the House of Assembly to do all the formal things that go with the handing over, Doug Blake was there. It was Doug who chose the dispatch boxes on behalf of this Parliament. It was Doug who was there when the presentation was made, and it was Doug who was a tower of strength in yet another handover to self-government. I had the experience of going on only one Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip with Doug Blake. I will not give the details of that trip but I formed a friendship with Doug then. It was in cold Geneva, and honourable members should ask him to show them the cap he bought there to keep his ears warm. I regard Doug as a fine officer of this Parliament. I owe him much and I would like to express my appreciation. I regard him as a personal friend. My very best wishes, Doug, to you and your family in your retirement. May God richly bless you. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(9.55) —My remarks will be very brief. As the newest Chairman of Committees in this House, I thank Doug personally for the enormous amount of help and advice he has given me and for his patience. Other members have spoken about his advice, but they forgot to mention how patient he is after 35 years of experience and knowing what is going on. He copes with all of our stupidities with a patience and courtesy that I respect and appreciate enormously. The other thing I say to him and to the House is this: What I find so wonderful about all the Clerks, and Doug in particular, is that, whether one is a member of the Hawke socialist Government, whether one comes from cockies corner or whether one is a member of the Liberal Party, they are prepared to give their advice confidentially and impartially. I think that in such a politicised House as this that is a quality that adds to the democratic institution of parliament. I think it is something that Doug has had a big hand in, and I am quite sure that that tradition will be carried on by the Clerks who follow him. We should all value enormously the fact that there are in this House people to whom we can go for advice knowing that our conversation will not be, as normally, leaked somewhere and appear on the front page of something the next day. I thank Doug for that. I think that is an enormous contribution to make to a democratic institution. I wish you and Pat very well in your retirement. I hope you manage to sort out the 24 hours in the day so that you share some of it but do not get on each other's nerves. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(9.56) —I speak on behalf of Liberal Party Whips, past and present, both in government and in opposition. Doug Blake has always been a friend and confidante to us all, as he has equally been to Whips in all other political parties. Doug, your departure has come as a shock to most members of the House of Representatives but we wish you and Mrs Blake well. We know that in your retirement you will be participating in your great love, fishing. We recognise that your great success as a husband and family man revolves around your practice of always cleaning the fish before you bring them home. Doug, thank you for your great service. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.57) —I pay tribute to Doug Blake on behalf of those of us who, as novice members and novices in the chair, have received Doug's support and friendship. Thank you, Doug. You have made this cold chamber a very warm place. You are a nice guy. I hope that in the coming years you and Pat have the wonderful time together which you deserve. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(9.58) —I thank the House for its indulgence in permitting me a few moments in which to wish a colleague and friend farewell on his retirement. I might say to my colleagues and to you, Mr Speaker, that it is a somewhat daunting experience for a novice Deputy Speaker to come to the presence of the Clerk of the House. One is instantly reminded of one's inadequacy. The Clerk seems singularly aloof as the fountain of quintessential knowledge. But this discomfort is immediately replaced by the willingness and preparedness of the Clerk in a very human way to make his services and his knowledge available to the incumbent of the chair. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, viewed from this distance, the Clerk seems to be in comfortable proximity to the chair, but it is rather strange that immediately one comes up to the eyebrows in crisis the Clerk seems to disappear with extraordinary rapidity into the middle of the Sahara. As a consequence, Doug has become a wonderful communicator. With a quarter swivel of the bosun's chair and the raising of an eyebrow, he could say 'What are you going to do about that?'; with a slightly benign smile, he could say 'You are not doing too badly'; or, with an unbelievable grimace, he could silently curse his fate at being inflicted with the insufferable ineptitude of the Chair. He has been an exquisite communicator. He has a very human and puckish sense of humour. We are very much indebted to him. I wish him and his family a happy retirement, smooth seas, clear skies and tail winds. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.00) —Doug Blake was born and bred in the electorate of Lowe. Mr SPEAKER —I can assure the honourable member for Lowe that none of us holds that against him. Mr MAHER —Doug Blake was raised in the lovely suburb of Concord. He went to De La Salle College, Ashfield, the school I attended, and I believe that his character, his gentleness and his kindness were moulded in that area. We have much to thank Doug Blake for. I entered Parliament just before he became Clerk. For me, he was a guide and mentor. I believe that there will never be another Doug Blake. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.01) —I should like to thank Doug Blake for all his kindness, impartiality, decency, good humour and wise advice. He will be deeply missed. He has displayed all these qualities in equal measure to all honourable members here. For his future and that of his family, I wish him happiness, health and luck. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.02) —Much has been said tonight by those in senior positions in the Parliament about the remarkable qualities of the retiring Clerk. As a new member and as the most recently appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees, I owe a great debt to Mr Blake. On behalf of the new members, I want to express our appreciation not only for the role he has played in convening and involving himself in the new members' seminars, which have been a remarkable way in which all of us have learnt something of the procedures of the House, but also for the assistance he has given me and all the other new Deputy Chairmen of Committees. A tribute has been paid to his tact, common sense, sincerity and impartiality. I simply want to touch on the one remarkable quality which he has brought into this chamber and which is so rare-the quality of humility. It has been that which has made him so accessible to all of us. We are very appreciative of it. We wish him a long and happy retirement. Mr SPEAKER —Before I put the motion, perhaps I should comment that at dinner I suggested to Doug Blake that I was relaxed enough to bend the Standing Orders to allow him to say a few words in response. He replied that as Clerk of the House he would not permit the Chair to do that; that would be his advice. He has passed me a note, which says: Mr Speaker, on behalf of my wife, family and myself, may I thank you, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party, the Leader of the House and other members. We are overwhelmed. Question resolved in the affirmative. PRIVILEGE Mr SPEAKER —During debate on the motion to take note of the report presented yesterday by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the Aboriginal Development Commission the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised as a matter of privilege the provision of the draft report of the Committee to counsel who had been briefed at an earlier stage by the Committee. The unauthorised or premature disclosure or publication of committee evidence, documents, proceedings or reports is a breach of standing order 340, and is a traditional category of contempt. I refer to House of Representatives Practice, pages 660-1; and May's Parliamentary Practice volume 20, pages 153-4. On 9 April 1985, following a request from the Chairman of the Committee, I approved the appointment of a specialist adviser 'to assist the Committee in respect of evidence taken in the 33rd Parliament concerning the Aboriginal Development Commission'. The purpose of the engagement of Mr J. Coombs, QC, the adviser selected by the Committee, was to examine material collected in the course of the Committee's inquiry into the Aboriginal Development Commission and to: (a) assess the quality of the material; (b) evaluate the material and indicate whether, if proven, the allegations made therein would indicate criminal conduct on the part of any person; and (c) make recommendations as to the possible referral of all or any of the allegations to an investigating authority and, if so, to which authority. The question that must be addressed in considering the complaint raised by the Leader of the National Party is whether or not the action of the Chairman of the Committee in making the draft report available to Mr Coombs constitutes an act of unauthorised or improper publication. Clearly there is no difficulty in the disclosure to Mr Coombs of 'the material collected in the course of the Committee's inquiry into the Aboriginal Development Commission', as, by the terms of his engagement, he was a consultant to the Committee for the very purpose of examining this material. I turn now to the substance of the matter raised by the Leader of the National Party, that is, the making available to Mr Coombs of a copy of the draft report. The Chairman of the Committee freely advised the House that he had circulated a copy of the draft report to Mr Coombs. It would appear that, in making the circulation, the Chairman believed that he was acting within the terms of Mr Coombs's engagement to assist the Committee. I am not in a position to judge the belief of the Chairman in this respect. However, it is hard to imagine that the Chairman would have freely revealed that he had sent the draft report to Mr Coombs if he believed that he was acting in contravention of the standing order. In summary, the unauthorised disclosure of committee evidence or reports of a committee which have not been reported to the House is a contempt. However, there does not appear to be a precedent paralleling the matter now before the House. In these circumstances, if the House wishes to pursue the matter further, I am prepared to allow a motion to have precedence. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —I will permit that indulgence. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I think in the circumstances, having just dealt with a valedictory motion for the Clerk of the House, we are all a bit overwhelmed by the nature of the responsibilities we bear. It is very easy in this place to play politics. I feel quite strongly that no chairman of a parliamentary committee should act without the authority of the committee. I am concerned that the Standing Orders should be complied with in any committee proceedings if our committee system is to survive. I think all of us in this place are conscious that the Senate has developed a committee system-a system which has somewhat usurped that in this place. No one here would want to see this place in any way playing second fiddle to the other chamber. In those circumstances, it would be easy for me to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges. I am loath to do so because I believe that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure acted in good faith. I think, however, that every member of this place would want it to be put on notice that we on this side of the House do not believe that any member of the Government should act without in any way consulting with the members of his committee. In a divided committee, particularly one divided on a resolution of a committee's proceedings which we on this side of the House feel very strongly needs to be pursued further, I think it is even less appropriate that the matter be considered the way it is. Therefore, I would not propose at this stage to refer it to the Privileges Committee. I believe it is important that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) and every other chairman of a committee of this place act in accordance with Standing Orders and in particular that they ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LEO McLEAY —Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. I also thank the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) for his remarks. When the Leader of the National Party raised what he felt was a matter of privilege, I assured the House last night that I was of the firm opinion, as I still am, that Mr Coombs was in the employ of the Standing Committee on Expenditure. As Chairman, in preparing my draft report for the Committee, I had the right and the entitlement to speak to him-as one would speak to any other Committee staff member-on my views, which I did. I accept the remarks of the Leader of the National Party. I too would do my utmost to see that no one breached the Standing Orders. As Chairman of the Committee, I assure the House that it would not cross my mind to do that, purposely or not purposely. I thank the Leader of the National Party for his understanding in this matter, and I thank the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr YOUNG —I concur with and appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed by the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I think that there can be no doubt that what has occurred raises questions that may bring about further debate on the Bill that is to be presented to this Parliament on parliamentary privilege, the use of consultants and the way in which matters such as this come to light. I do not think that there is any difference in view or attitude between the Opposition and the Government on compliance with the Standing Orders. The manner in which the Manager of Opposition Business approached this matter is the common-sense way to approach overcoming the problems that have been presented by this specific case. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —I think the House would agree that it is fair for me to allow indulgence to honourable members to comment briefly on this matter. The honourable member for Warringah may proceed. Mr MacKELLAR —Mr Speaker, you referred in your remarks to the fact that there was no precedent. The only point I make is that this matter should not be seen as constituting a precedent. This demonstration from the Opposition of acceptance of the goodwill of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) should not be seen in future as constituting any excuse. Mr SPEAKER —I state in response to the honourable member for Warringah that I believe the decision I gave on this matter and the comments that have been made by indulgence will make the point he made quite clearly to anyone who reads these comments on a fair basis. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1985 First Reading Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend provisions of the income tax law enacted last year to change the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation and kindred payments to clarify and reinforce the operation of the law with the Government's announced objectives. Provisions in the Bill will eliminate a possible avenue of tax avoidance in relation to eligible termination payments by ensuring that an amount received on the assignment or transfer after today of a right to receive a superannuation pension or annuity will give rise to a taxable eligible termination payment. Another amendment, effective from today, will ensure that where a payment may be included in more than one category of the statutory definition of an eligible termination payment it is taxed in accordance with the relevant specific rule. A further amendment is consequential on one made last year to tax benefits obtained under so-called cherry picker schemes of tax avoidance. This will prevent such benefits from being treated as eligible termination payments. Yet another measure will provide that consideration paid in respect of an eligible termination payment in the form of a transfer of property will reduce the taxable amount of that payment. The Bill will, effective from today, amend the law to make it clear that payments made by an employer as superannuation contributions or to purchase an annuity for an employee do not reduce the taxable amount of the ultimate payment to the employee. The Government has decided that the premature retirement test in the law that determines whether certain early retirement or redundancy payments qualify for concessional tax treatment is unduly restrictive. Amendments being made by the Bill will, from 1 July 1983, provide access to that concession where termination of employment occurs before the taxpayer's sixty-fifth birthday and before the date on which the employment would necessarily have had to end. Another measure related to the early retirement and redundancy payment provisions of the law will provide that, for relevant payments made in respect of termination of employment after today, the value of retirement benefits forgone in favour of redundancy or early retirement may be taken into account in determining the amount that would have been received on ordinary termination of employment. Under the existing law, the rules of an approved deposit fund must provide for the repayment of deposits no later than when the depositor attains 65 years of age. It has been suggested that, if a depositor dies before turning 65, the deposit can be left in the fund accumulating tax-free income until the date on which he or she would have turned 65. That was unintended and the law is to be amended to require deposits to be paid to the estate of a deceased depositor within 90 days of probate or letters of administration being granted. Where a depositor has died prior to the Bill becoming law, fund trustees will be expected to repay deposits within 90 days of the later of the date of royal assent and the date on which probate or letters of administration are granted. Existing funds will be given adequate time to alter their rules to retain their tax-exempt status. The law will also be amended, with effect from 1 July 1983, so that a deposit fund may, where appropriate, retain its approved status despite a failure to satisfy the establishment tests laid down in the law. The Bill will also give effect to the proposal announced on 18 February 1985 to close a loophole in the law that allows recipients of lump sum eligible termination payments to escape tax by converting those payments into an annuity and subsequently cashing in that annuity. It will prevent an eligible termination payment that is used to purchase an annuity from being treated as substantially tax-free if the annuity is commuted after 18 February 1985 or its residual capital value becomes payable after that date. Those measures will apply also where a superannuation pension acquired with a lump sum payment is reconverted to a lump sum after today. In addition, the Bill will close off another possible avenue of exploitation in relation to annuities. It will ensure that an eligible termination payment used to purchase a deferred annuity after today is not freed from tax unless the annuity is purchased wholly from eligible termination payments. The Bill will also provide that payers of annuities and supplements to pensions and annuities will be required to make PAYE tax instalment deductions. This requirement will apply from the second month after the Bill becomes law. The first $50,000 of the post-June 1983 component of an eligible termination payment received by a taxpayer aged 55 or more is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 per cent-any balance being subject to the standard rate of 30 per cent. By oversight, the law as presently drafted operates to deny the application of the 15 per cent rate in the case of a payment to the trustee of the estate of a deceased taxpayer even though, had the deceased lived, he or she would have been entitled to that rate. The Bill will correct that oversight with effect from 1 July 1983. On 22 January 1985, the Acting Treasurer announced that the Government would correct a drafting error in the rule that recognises a person's period of service prior to July 1983 where only part of a lump sum termination payment is preserved. This Bill will make that correction. Where none of the pre-July 1983 component of an eligible termination payment is preserved, no part of the relevant service period accruing before July 1983 will, as was intended, be recognised. Some of the measures in this Bill will prevent the exploitation of the eligible termination payment provisions of the income tax law. The likely revenue effect of any prior exploitation cannot be determined at this stage, but it is likely these measures will prevent the future loss of significant revenue. At the same time, the Bill will ensure that the existing provisions of the law do not result in a greater liability to tax than was originally intended. A detailed technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum that is being made available. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME Ministerial Statement Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-I wish to advise the House today of the serious public health problem presented by acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, and to inform honourable members about the measures being taken by Commonwealth and State governments to deal with the disease. AIDS is potentially one of the most serious and expensive public health problems to face Australia since Federation. AIDS, and the less serious AIDS-related complex of illnesses, are now known to result from infection by a virus. The AIDS virus is transmitted primarily through intimate sexual contact and by the injection of contaminated blood and blood products or by the sharing of contaminated injection needles. The virus infects parts of the body's immune system leading to a breakdown of the immune system. The body is then defenceless against so-called opportunistic infections by other bacteria, viruses, parasites and cancer cells. On average, a patient with fully developed AIDS contracts about four different infections and lives for less than three years after diagnosis. There are intermediate forms of symptoms between those with fully developed AIDS and those who remain well despite infection. The virus has many variants. We do not know if particular strains of the virus are more likely than others to cause the disease. Nor is it known if the variations of strains will make immunisation difficult or even totally impracticable. There is as yet no vaccine against the virus. There is no expectation of an effective vaccine becoming available within at least the next five years. There is as yet no cure for AIDS. However, experiments with possible drugs for combating the AIDS virus itself are in progress in Australia and elsewhere. Researchers are seeking ways to restore the damaged immune system. Many of the opportunistic infections can be successfully treated with established drugs. As at 20 April 1985, there have been reported some 10,375 cases of AIDS in the United States of America, of which approximately 5,000 have died. In Australia, as at 17 May 1985, there have been 79 cases of AIDS of which 32 have died. It has been estimated that some tens of thousands of Australians have been exposed to the virus. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing an international analysis of AIDS cases. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS OF AIDS CASES AIDS Deaths Australia (17.5.85)- N.S.W. 53 15 Vic. 13 8 Qld. 9 7 S.A - - W.A 3 1 Tas. 1 1 A.C.T. - - N.T. - - 79 32 U.S.A. (20.4.85) 10 375 approx 5 000 Europe (31.12.84)- Austria 13 n.a Belgium 65 n.a Czechoslovakia - n.a Denmark 34 n.a Finland 5 n.a France 260 n.a F.R.G. 135 n.a Greece 6 n.a Iceland - n.a Italy 14 n.a Netherlands 42 n.a Norway 5 n.a Poland 0 n.a Spain 18 n.a Sweden 16 n.a Switzerland 41 n.a U.K. (29.3.85) 140 61 794 +61 Canada (4.4.85) 106 n.a South America (6.84) 103 n.a West Indies (6.84) 310 n.a Dr BLEWETT —The virus may persist in the body for years, and perhaps for life. Those who develop AIDS or related conditions may therefore take a long time to reveal symptoms. An incubation period of as long as 15 years has been suggested. The first symptoms may be prolonged, unexplained fevers, diarrhoea, weight loss, or swollen lymph nodes. Often, however, the first sign of AIDS is a life-threatening opportunistic infection. Many infected people may continue to harbour the virus for a long period without any obvious signs of the disease. On present indications, approximately 10 per cent of those infected with the virus go on to develop AIDS. Fully develop AIDS has, so far, almost always been fatal. A very important distinction must be drawn between those who have the antibody to the virus and those who develop AIDS itself. Within the population as a whole, the development of antibodies to an infection is a necessary part of the population's defence to that infection. Many of us carry in our blood streams antibodies to viral diseases without developing symptoms of the disease itself. However, a large proportion of people with AIDS antibodies carry the virus and can transmit it by sexual intercourse, particularly, on the balance of the medical evidence, by anal intercourse, or by injecting contaminated blood or sharing contaminated needles with uninfected people. There is no evidence to suggest that the infection is passed on by normal social contact, by coughing or sneezing, or via air or water, or by sharing bathroom facilities or eating utensils. In a number of cases in Australia, the disease has been passed on by transfusion of contaminated blood. Because of the long incubation period, some of these cases may appear over the next few years. The introduction of blood screening kits greatly reduces, but can never totally eliminate, the risk of further AIDS transmission. Australia was the first country in the world to put into place comprehensive and nationwide blood screening tests. Mr Deputy Speaker, recent findings suggest that the infection is presently mainly confined to homosexuals, intravenous drug users and regular recipients of blood and blood products. It may spread, though more slowly, through bisexual and heterosexual men and women with multiple sexual partners. It may be passed on from infected pregnant women to their babies in the uterus, at birth or soon after. Great media and public interest has been focussed on the present high risk groups. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the problem of infection by this virus potentially extends beyond present high risk groups into the general community. Both as individuals and as a community, AIDS poses a potential threat to us all. The human toll of misery and suffering has already been great. The disease has struck many in the prime of their lives. Some, who from necessity have relied on the blood transfusion system, have contracted the disease. No fault can attach to either patient or blood transfusion service in these tragic circumstances. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members of this place in extending deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have lost friends and relatives from AIDS. These casualties inevitably involve direct and indirect financial costs to the community. It is still too early in the Australian experience to make accurate estimates of those costs. However, using the United States as a very rough guide, it would be reasonable to say that the direct cost per AIDS patient in Australia could be about $40,000. In addition, indirect costs, including lost years of working capacity, are impossible to calculate but they are significant, given the age distribution of most of the victims. If Australia follows American patterns of infection, it is not unreasonable to expect a cumulative total of 600 cases of AIDS in this country by the end of 1986. A simple arithmetical calculation produces a cost to Australia of a very high order by the end of the decade, if the present rate of increase continues. The AIDS Task Force is presently assessing these costs and will report shortly. Without a vaccine and without a cure, governments and health authorities must rely on a co-ordinated national education and prevention strategy in order to contain the spread of the disease. That strategy has three major elements. The first is the dissemination of common-sense, realistic information to high risk groups and the general community. This is an important corrective to the sometimes sensationalist treatment of AIDS in the media. Secondly, we must take all possible steps to ensure the integrity of our blood supplies. Thirdly, practical efforts, free of prejudice, must be made to modify sexual and other behaviour which may transmit the disease. Measures already taken by the Commonwealth and State governments, and those proposed for the future, cover a wide area-public and professional information and education, immunisation, treatment, changes to blood transfusion practices, research, planning and funding. In 1984-85, the Commonwealth Government allocated $5.35m to various AIDS-related projects. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table outlining 1984-85 AIDS funding by the Commonwealth. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 1984-85 COMMONWEALTH AIDS FUNDING ALLOCATIONS APPROVED AT 23 MAY 1985 Funds Allocated $ Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services (1) 2 700 000 Fairfield Reference Centre (2) 291 000 Antibody Testing of Haemophiliacs (3) 10 000 Media, Literature, Education and Counselling (4) 2 000 000 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (5) 350 000 5 351 000 (1) purchase of AIDS antibody test kits and related equipment and employment of additional staff (2) for national assessment and diagnosis of AIDS cases throughout Australia (3) Commonwealth has accepted a special responsibility for this at risk group (4) details of these are specified below (5) upgrading of blood production facilities and for heat treatment of Factor VIII to eliminate AIDS contamination of blood supplies, and preliminary development of an Australian test kits MEDIA, LITERATURE, EDUCATION AND COUNSELLING Funds allocated Funds at 23 May available 1985 $ $ 2 000 000 Advertising 651 000 Literature 155 000 Committee Costs 131 000 National Executive Red Cross 18 413 Education, Support and Counselling NSW Department of Health 312 800 Health Commission of Vic. 167 835 SA Health Commission 89 000 Health Department of WA 81 000 Dept. of Health Services Tas. 25 000 NT Department of Health 10 000 ACT Health Authority 12 000 AIDS Council of NSW 74 000 Vic. AIDS Council 51 750 Aust. Fed. of Haemophilia 20 200 Qld Department of Health 115 000 AIDS Action Council of the ACT 13 400 2 000 000 1 927 398 Dr BLEWETT —At a recent Australian Health Ministers Conference in Brisbane Ministers discussed funding principles for the 1985-86 financial year. By drawing on the resources of my Department, the Australian Institute of Health, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and State and Territory health administrations, the Commonwealth will establish a computerised central AIDS database and information service. In developing a national AIDS strategy, Commonwealth and State Health Ministers and governments have sought the widest possible advice and input from medical and community groups, particularly those in high risk categories. Because we need to seek changes in behaviour, which should not and cannot be imposed by law, it is essential to have the active involvement and support of high risk groups, particularly homosexual groups, in the interest of both the groups themselves and the wider community. At the Federal level, the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, chaired by Miss Ita Buttrose, has brought together representatives of community and high risk groups and governments to develop strategies to disseminate information and to recommend education and counselling programs. The AIDS Task Force, chaired by Professor David Penington, has provided expert technical advice. These committees have been mirrored at the State level. The members of these committees have made extremely valuable contributions to AIDS policy. I pay the highest possible tribute to their tireless and selfless efforts. The problems of AIDS spread beyond the boundaries of health administrations. Increasingly, planning will involve the areas of manpower planning and employment, social security, community services, education, immigration and, of course, finance. Health Ministers have agreed to develop programs directed towards better treatment of those who contract AIDS. Each State will be asked to consider nominating at least one teaching hospital which can develop special expertise in the clinical management of AIDS and provide opportunities for research and training. Those centres will play a valuable role in informing the health care professions about the diagnosis and effective management of patients with AIDS. Each State is also being asked to consider its need for hospices and community care programs to care for patients, including those with AIDS, who are in terminal stages of incurable illnesses, and for the treatment and support of AIDS patients in their homes. The Government believes that Australia has a significant role to play in the international AIDS research effort, particularly in relation to epidemiological studies. The royal colleges of physicians, psychiatrists, pathologists and general practitioners are to be asked to develop programs to monitor and assess the clinical management of AIDS and related illnesses. The National Health and Medical Research Council has to date awarded grants of more than $296,000 for AIDS research and increased money will be allocated explicitly for AIDS research in the next financial year. The Australian Red Cross Society National Blood Transfusion Committee and the Australian Society of Blood Transfusions are being asked to advise on measures to reduce the risk of transmission of AIDS virus through blood transfusions and to consider what measures might be taken to reduce non-essential blood transfusions. All of these measures constitute a three-prong attack on the disease: To have a better informed community aware of AIDS risks; to make best use of available knowledge for treatment of AIDS; and particularly to work towards preventing transmission of the disease, whether through behavioural changes, immunisation, or safer blood transfusion arrangements. At this stage of our knowledge of the likely spread of AIDS, the steps I have outlined are the most comprehensive and effective that Commonwealth and State governments could be expected to take. These measures will be kept under constant review. If the occasion requires, more drastic steps may have to be considered. Many honourable members will recall the precautions that were taken in the late 1940s and early 1950s to combat the spread of polio. I cannot rule out consideration of any measure that may be required in the interests of public health to combat this disease. All of the initiatives taken by Government and all of the money we spend will count for nothing unless there is a fundamental change in community attitudes and awareness. It is neither desirable nor possible in a democratic society to proscribe particular sexual practices between consenting adults, nor is sexual abstinence a practical recommendation for most people. But there is a heavy moral responsibility to modify those sexual practices which seem particularly related to the transmission of AIDS. Moreover, it is obvious that the more sexual partners a person has the greater the chance of catching AIDS and the possibility of passing it on. In this sense, monogamy is the best prophylactic-a sentiment which could doubtless be expressed in other ways. I have painted a fairly grim picture. There are, however, some reasons for optimism. The disease has hit Australia some years later than the United States. If we adopt preventive health measures, we may stand a good chance of limiting the transmission of the virus. There is already anecdotal evidence to suggest that sexual practices are changing drastically amongst the homosexual population. But the only prudent course is now to plan for the worst possible eventuality in the hope that we have been wildly pessimistic in our assessments. This is not a proper issue for partisan political debate. There will no doubt continue to be differences about specific measures which may be taken to halt the spread of the virus. In developing a national AIDS strategy, Australian Health Ministers need the active co-operation and support of their parliaments and the community. The Government seeks today the support, co-operation and understanding of honourable members on both sides of this House as we develop a strategy to combat this insidious disease and its tragic consequences. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Opposition shares with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) the deep concern about the problems presented by acquired immune deficiency syndrome. It is not my intention to deal in detail with the nature of the disease or the means of transmission as the Minister has covered that in his statement. Shortly after my appointment as shadow Minister for Health, it became apparent that AIDS was emerging as a problem with enormous consequences for the Australian community. I therefore set about obtaining the most up to date information. In the course of my investigations I had detailed discussions with Professor David Penington, Chairman of the National AIDS Task Force; Professor Ron Penny, Head of the AIDS Unit at St Vincent's Public Hospital in Sydney, and Ita Buttrose, Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. At that time it was clear to me that the incidence of the AIDS virus was likely to be much greater and the effect on our community much worse than had been predicted. We appeared to be following the trend of the United States of America, with a delay of around two years. My appreciation of the seriousness of the disease led me to express my concern to the Minister about the Government's approach in playing down reports emanating from the National AIDS Task Force. Whilst I understand the Minister's reluctance unduly to alarm the community at large and in particular those groups in the community in the high risk category; it is becoming increasingly clear that the seriousness of the disease should not be played down. To combat the spread of AIDS successfully it is necessary to change people's behaviour. I refer of course to the fact that whilst the majority of AIDS cases has been confined to homosexuals, intravenous drug users and regular recipients of blood and blood products, the disease is likely to spread through bisexual and heterosexual men and women with multiple sexual partners. It is unlikely, in my view, that people will change their sexual habits unless they are convinced of the health risks involved. Therefore it is important that those risks are not played down but that the public is given access to proper, reasonable and detailed information of the disease. This will not only assist in the prevention of the spread of the disease but also assist in enlightening the public who are fearful of catching the disease. I agree with the Minister that, whilst there are likely to be differences about certain measures taken to halt the spread of the disease, it is a matter which ought to be approached on a bipartisan basis. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for making available to me a briefing prior to his making this statement tonight. I hope that this may be the first step in a closer working relationship between the Government and the Opposition on these matters. On 10 April I wrote to the Minister expressing my concern that this Parliament be kept fully informed about this very significant public health issue. Toward that end I requested that the Minister appoint two parliamentary representatives, on a bipartisan basis, to serve on the AIDS Advisory Committee. There are many vital and sensitive decisions still to be made and there is a great deal of public anxiety. The Minister in his statement suggests that all Australian Health Ministers need the active co-operation and support of their parliaments and the community. That co-operation and support are most likely to be forthcoming with a well-informed parliament and community. Therefore I repeat my request to the Minister to appoint a member from each side of the Parliament to the National Advisory Committee on AIDS currently chaired by Ita Buttrose. When I discussed this matter with Ita Buttrose she thought it would be an appropriate addition to her Committee. The Minister responded to my original request indicating that he would consider the matter and I ask whether he has now considered it and, consistent with the line he has adopted in his statement today, whether he will make provision for such appointments. I should add that, given the nature of the commitments of parliamentarians, provision ought to be made for a representative of the member so appointed to attend the Committee meetings if the appointed member is unable to do so. In detailing the seriousness of the disease, the Minister has indicated that it is not unreasonable to expect a cumulative total of 600 cases of AIDS in this country by the end of 1986. At the moment if the trend of the doubling of AIDS cases every six months continues, clearly we are looking at a very significant problem. To put the issue in perspective, in 1984 we managed to kill 2,800 of our fellow Australians on the roads. By the end of the decade some are predicting that it would not be unreasonable to expect around 1,000 AIDS cases per year. The toll in human terms in pain and suffering has been and will be very great. In addition, as the Minister has pointed out, the cost of handling and treating the disease will also be great. We accept the Minister's conclusion that, without a vaccine and without a cure, we must rely on a co-ordinated national education and prevention strategy to contain the spread of the disease. I have already dealt with our concern for the dissemination of reliable and common-sense information to high risk groups and the general community. Much more needs to be done in this area. We also agree that all possible steps to ensure the integrity of blood supplies are undertaken, and we accept that screening is the most appropriate course of action to be followed. In addition, we are of the view that screening ought to be readily available, not only to high risk groups but to all members of the general community who seek it. In the absence yet of any cure or effective immunisation, the first line of defence in the battle against AIDS remains education. Effecting behavioural change through education is a slow process but we must continue to work at it. We appreciate that the gay community is the one which is most seriously affected by the disease, and this is a matter of great concern. The process of providing information and educating the public is a difficult and sensitive one and, whilst we must ensure that we make every effort to consider properly the sensitivities of particular groups, such as the gay community, at no stage should such considerations be allowed to prejudice proper public health measures which must be taken in the best interests of the whole community. Finally, the Minister has indicated some changes in the programs being developed by State and Commonwealth governments, and in particular the establishment of a computerised central AIDS data base. I make the point that, in considering any reorganisation, it is important that the AIDS task force continue as an independent body to monitor scientific and medical information and developments. My understanding is that our reporting and collection of data is considered to be first class. It stands up to international competition. We must ensure that the good work being undertaken by those involved in research and development in this area is maintained. Finally, I repeat that we support the thrust of the Minister's statement and I look forward to a more co-operative and bipartisan approach to the serious and potentially devastating AIDS problem which faces this country. SALES TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Consideration resumed from 22 May. In Committee Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 32, Schedule, before the amendment of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980, insert the following amendment: 'Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Schedule 1- Omit from paragraph (e)- 'Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 2) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 3) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 4) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 6) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 7) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 8) 1930 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 9) 1930' Substitute- 'Acts providing for the assessment of sales tax'.'. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.45) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This amendment was moved on behalf of the Government in another place. It is of a technical nature to correct an oversight that was discovered after the third reading of the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill in this House. Essentially, the amendment will ensure that decisions under the new Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 10) are also excluded from the purview of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, consistent with the position that prevails in relation to decisions under other taxation laws. Persons affected by decisions under Assessment Act (No. 10) in relation to the taxable value of royalties will, of course, have available under the sales tax law full rights of objection and appeal, ultimately if the matter warrants it, to the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.46) —The Opposition has no objection to the amendment moved to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill. However, I take the opportunity to reiterate the concern that the Opposition has expressed about the haste with which this Bill has been put through the Parliament. If the Government has had enough time to find this technical amendment it might well have devoted a little time to considering some of the complaints that have flowed in about this legislation. This legislation and companion measures represent the biggest changes to our sales tax laws for over 30 years. They were first introduced to this Parliament on 9 May. The legislation is now being put through the Parliament. That is not long enough for adequate consideration. We have no objection to the anti-tax avoidance measures in the Bill. We have indicated, both here and in the Senate, that any referral of this legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations would in no way affect the commencement date of the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill and in no way prejudice the revenue. This Bill and its companion measures have a major impact on direct selling operations. There have been lurid headlines in the Sydney Daily Mirror about the tax man cometh so far as the Avon lady is concerned. That may well invite some humour but of course the Avon lady is quite an institution around the place. She has to cop the tax man coming, just as everyone else does. I have no objection to that; nobody in the Opposition objects to that. However, I think it underlies the fact that there is a lot of concern. It may well be at the end of the day that everything in the Government's Bill is justified. I do not know. I really do not think that I have had enough time to know. I do not think the Parliament has had enough time to know. All we pleaded for was a bit of time to look at the legislation. We are not objecting to legitimate anti-avoidance measures; we are objecting to the fact that this legislation of enormous complexity, which has far-reaching consequences not only for large sections of direct selling operations but many other sections of commerce, is being rammed through. Not only in the name of the Avon lady but also on behalf of others who may be inadvertently affected by the legislation, we regret, lament and note again the fact that the Government has given the Parliament and those affected by the legislation insufficient time to look at it. Apart from that we have no objection to the technical amendment proposed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is a sensible change. However, it simply underlines the point that if the Government is smart enough to find that item wrong with the Bill maybe if it spent a bit more time looking at the Bill it might be smart enough to discover a couple of other things that are wrong with it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 10) 1985 Consideration resumed from 22 May. In Committee Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of 'goods', lines 1 to 4, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: 'goods' includes- (a) commodities; and (b) goods or commodities which have gone into use or consumption in Australia, but does not include goods or commodities in respect of which a person has become liable to pay tax before 10 May 1985 (whether or not the tax has become due and payable before that date) under an Act providing for the assessment of sales tax; Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.50) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This amendment was moved on behalf of the Government in another place and ensures that the proposed sales tax on the payment of a royalty in connection with the production, sale or other distribution of goods will operate on a wholly prospective basis. It was drawn to the Government's attention that the tax could, unintentionally on the part of the Government, have had a potentially retrospective application in some cases. The amendment will mean that the tax on royalties in respect of goods will apply to royalties paid on or after 10 May 1985 but only where the goods on which the royalties are payable pass the taxing point on or after that date. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.52) —The Opposition welcomes this amendment. We certainly would not have wanted the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 10) 1985 to have an unintended or, indeed, an intended retrospective operation. We note with satisfaction that the Government has moved an amendment accordingly. We wholeheartedly support it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. DAIRY PRODUCE MARKET SUPPORT LEVY BILL 1985 Bill returned from the Senate without requests. DAIRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. In Committee Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 5, clause 13, line 30, leave out ''200AA and 20AB No. 2-Page 5, after clause 13, insert the following new clause: ''13A. Sections 20AA and 20AB of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections substituted: Export of certain dairy products prohibited unless exporter party to arrangement '20AA. (1) A person, other than the Corporation, shall not export, or cause to be exported, dairy products as specified in section 20AB from Australia unless the person is a party to an arrangement with the Corporation entered into under section 20AB that relates to those dairy products. Penalty: $1,000. '(2) The regulations may provide that this section does not apply in relation to dairy products of a prescribed class. Export sales pooling arrangements '20AB. (1) In this section- ''exporter'', for the purposes of this section, means a person, a partnership or a body corporate, accepted by the Corporation as being engaged in the sale of dairy products to overseas markets; ''principal markets'' means markets or groups of markets prescribed for the purposes of this section by the Regulations; ''pool'' means a separate account set up and maintained by the Corporation in respect of the dairy products, and for the periods, specified in sub-section (2). '(2) The Corporation shall establish and maintain pools for the purpose of this section as follows- (a) butter and the commercial butter equivalent of butter oil exported between 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1986 but manufactured after 30 June 1985; (b) cheddar cheese and the natural equivalent of processed cheddar exported between 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1986 but manufactured after 30 June 1985; (c) butter and the commercial butter equivalent of butter oil exported between 1 July 1986 and 30 June 1987 but manufactured after 30 June 1985; (d) cheddar cheese and the natural equivalent of processed cheddar exported between 1 July 1986 and 30 June 1987 but manufactured after 30 June 1985. '(3) The Corporation shall, from time to time, for the purposes of this section, fix an average price for each of the dairy products in respect of which a pool is maintained by the Corporation under sub-section (2), being a price that the Corporation considers will be the average export price for those dairy products. '(4) The Corporation may, from time to time, for the purposes of this section, fix assessed export prices for each principal market for each of the dairy products in respect of which a pool is maintained by the Corporation under sub-section (2), being prices that the Corporation considers appropriate at the time and in the circumstances. '(5) The Corporation may, with the approval of the Minister, make to persons engaged in the production, storage, distribution, sale, export or promotion of dairy products payments to meet expenses incurred in the storage, distribution, sale, export or promotion of dairy products to which this section applies and, where any such payment is made, the amount of the payment shall be debited to the appropriate pool. '(6) Where an exporter makes sales of dairy products, in respect of which a pool is maintained by the Corporation under sub-section (2), to a principal market and the assessed price for the relevant principal market at the time of a sale is greater than the average price for the product determined under sub-section (3), the exporter shall be required to pay to the Corporation for the purposes of the relevant pool the difference between the average price for the product and the assessed price for the product in the relevant principal market. '(7) Where an exporter makes sales of dairy products, in respect of which a pool is maintained by the Corporation under sub-section (2), to a principal market and the assessed price for the relevant principal market at the time of a sale is less than the average price for the product determined under sub-section (3), the Corporation shall pay to the exporter from the funds available for the purposes of the relevant pool the difference between the average price for the product and the assessed price for the product in the relevant principal market. '(8) Where, at the end of each financial year, the Corporation is satisfied that no more amounts will be credited or debited to any of the pools established pursuant to sub-section (2), the Corporation may- (a) if the funds in the relevant pool are in credit, divide the amount of the credit amongst exporters who have contributed funds to the pool in accordance with sub-section (6) in the year in question, in proportion to their respective contributions to the pool; or (b) if the funds in the relevant pool are in deficit, transfer an amount equal to the deficit from the Supplementary Market Support Trust Fund established under section 28 of the Dairy Market Support Act 1985. '(9) Where the Corporation engages in the export of dairy products of the kinds specified and during the periods specified in sub-section (2) it shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) be considered to be an exporter.'.''. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.53) —I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. The Senate amendment is not acceptable because this amendment which will have the effect of extending export pooling for butter and cheese for two years is counter to the basic thrust and purpose of the Government's new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry. As export pooling is a major cause of the industry's present problems, including overproduction, it should be terminated as soon as possible. The Government does not accept that the temporary continuation of export pooling is a necessary transitional arrangement as possible transitional difficulties associated with the termination of export pooling are covered by other Government decisions. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clause 13 of the original Bill be restored. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.54) —Over the 16 years that I have been a member of this Parliament, I cannot remember a more arrogant attitude towards farmers than that being displayed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to the dairy farmers and, for that matter, to the wheat farmers of this nation. Prime Minister Whitlam in his days was bad enough when he roared at farmers down in Victoria somewhere that they had never had it so good. He was mother fortune compared with the incumbent of the primary industry portfolio. Both the Opposition and the industry share with the Minister for Primary Industry and the Hawke Labor Government a concern about the overproduction of milk in Australia and recognise that there is a need to modify the existing arrangements to help reduce the level of production. I think that is generally felt. Although the industry originally submitted its own development plan, with the co-operation of the Department of Primary Industry and with the blessing of the Minister for Primary Industry-it was a two-year exercise-a lot of effort was made to try to reach consensus with the industry, let alone among the States. I have some sympathy for the Minister in trying to reach a consensus among the States, particularly with the State Government in Victoria. Mr Beddall —And the Queensland Government. Mr HUNT —No, the Queensland Government has been very co-operative and so have the New South Wales Government, the South Australian Government, the Tasmanian Government and the Western Australian Government. Let us face it, it has been the Victorian Government that has been the nigger in the wood-pile. I have some sympathy for the Minister in this regard. If I were in his shoes I know I would be having difficulties with the Victorian Government too. The industry sought to reach a consensus in formulating a national plan. It was knocked together by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. That plan involved entitlements. The Minister resolved to introduce his own plan as soon as the Victorian election was over. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, in an act of conciliation, endeavoured to reach agreement with the Minister by putting its own plan to one side and objectively studying ways and means of making the Kerin plan more acceptable and ensuring that there was a smooth and satisfactory transition from the existing marketing arrangements to a totally new market oriented regime. It is outrageous for the Minister to attempt to implement the basic elements of the plan as rapidly as he is planning. The abolition of export pooling as from 1 July-five weeks away-is unbelievable when one considers that export pooling arrangements have been operative in the industry for over the last 50 years. How does he expect those working on farms and in factories to adjust to the new export arrangements for manufactured production, most of which comes from surplus production in Victoria? Does the Minister believe that he can live with a situation that will result in a 50 per cent drop in product levies in 1986-87 and a new system of export market support payments which would advantage two large multinational manufacturers but disadvantage many of the smaller dairy co-operatives, especially in Victoria? The amendments we have moved are realistic and I have a letter which indicates that the industry believes they are realistic. The letter, signed by Mr John P. Bennett, Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, states: Dear Shadow Minister, The Australian Dairy Industry Conference fully supports the amendments which have been moved in the Senate today. While accepting the thrust of the Kerin Plan, the industry believes that the amendments are necessary to facilitate a smoother transition from the existing arrangements. Yours sincerely, John P. Bennett,Chairman That letter came into my possession tonight following the decision that was taken in the other place this evening. I ask honourable members opposite who have had some experience in adjustment programs and in the handling of people in the workplace: Would the union movement allow such an adjustment program to be implemented in the motor, footwear, clothing and textile and steel industries? I do not believe that it would. The amendments we have moved are realistic. They do not alter the basic principles of the plan but they at least provide some breathing space to ensure that the implementation of the Kerin plan does not cause social chaos on a scale that would not be tolerated in any other industry in Australia. Yet the Minister is prepared to single out the farmers, the constituency for which he is responsible as a Minister of the Crown, for some of the most brutal treatment that any sector of the Australian community has had imposed on it by any government. This plan is unlikely to achieve a cut in production in 1985-86. If anything, production will rise as farmers strive for that extra dollar to cover their deteriorating economic position. Then the crunch will come in 1986-87, as many farmers discover they can no longer keep pace with costs. This will coincide with a 50 per cent or more cut to product levies. Not only farmers will lose their jobs, but workers in factories will lose jobs also. We have had union people come here, putting their point of view. Also, there is every chance that we will see great damage done to the export industry as such, which is currently earning nearly $400m. Why the rush? Why the panic? What is the Minister's problem in giving the industry a minimum period in which to take decisions on how best to adjust to the new market arrangements? I hope it is not a political consideration on the timing of the next election. It has been suggested that the Minister did not want the axe to fall in the year of the next election or the year before; that his attitude was that if there was damage to be done from a political point of view, let it be done now. If that is the motivation it is almost criminal from a social point of view. From a farmer's point of view, the planned breeding cycle lasts about two and a half years, but the Minister refuses to give the industry even a one-year lead on export pooling and product levies. The industry has taken an enormous step of conciliation towards the Government, despite Labor's political tactics in the lead-up to the Victorian elections. I believe it is up to the Minister and his Government to do the decent thing at this late stage-to honour the genuine efforts of the industry to find common ground on this harsh marketing plan and to accept the proposed amendments. He should at least attempt to meet the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and negotiate and discuss the issues with it. I do not think there has been any real attempt to achieve that. When did the Minister last seek to talk with the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation? The Opposition will stick firmly to its position in the knowledge that the Minister will have to come to the conference table with the industry and State governments in the not too distant future to hammer out a reasonable solution for the industry, notwithstanding his brutal threats to withdraw the underwriting provisions and not withstanding his spiteful response to the stand that we are taking to ensure that Australian dairy farmers and their families are at least given a fair go and time to adjust. In being forced to oppose this legislation once again, I call upon the Minister to reopen negotiations with the Federation. The Minister must not allow himself to retreat into his bunker and hibernate for the winter recess without seeking to resolve a very difficult political situation for his Government. The Minister's paternalistic 'I know best' attitude not only is damaging the image and the reputation of his Government but also is fraught with serious social and economic consequences for numerous rural communities throughout Australia. I do hope that he comes to his senses and gets to the conference table with the ADFF as a matter of urgency. We support the amendments as carried by the Senate. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.04) —I wish to make an appeal this evening to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to allow common sense and compromise to rule, rather than stubbornness and a rejection of the proper processes of this Parliament. We are well aware of the grave responsibilities that the Minister holds because of his office and the challenges that face him in restructuring an industry that is badly in need of restructuring. However, our understanding and, in some cases, sympathy for the Minister vanishes as he continues down a path of complete and utter disregard of the advice of the industry, of the input from a great many dairy farmers and, not least of all, of their elected representatives in both this House and the Senate. It disturbs me that the Minister, in a way which can be described only as arrogant, has totally disregarded the due processes of the Parliament whereby through debate on these amendments in both chambers a number of serious flaws in the Government's legislation have been highlighted. It is true to say that the Opposition accepts the most sensible aspects of the Government's legislation, if not the conceptual framework. However, the amendments we have put to the Minister and to the Government seek to rectify the worst features of his legislation. The features I refer to are the timing and the devastating effects that the sudden introduction of restructuring will have on the dairy farmers and on the communities they live in. It further worries me that the Minister seems totally impervious to the terrible social effects that will flow from the sudden restructuring, reorganisation and rationalisation of the dairy industry. I wonder who has been giving advice to the Minister. I do not doubt for a moment that it has come purely and utterly from his Department and, I suspect, without taking the matter any further at this time, from a number of proprietary companies. But why is the Minister not taking advice from dairy farmers and their elected representatives, whether they be from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation or in this Parliament? Once a Minister of State, whether it be this Minister or any other, locks himself into accepting the advice of his Department only, in complete disregard of those directly involved in the industry, of course we have legislation such as that before the chamber with its terrible social dislocation effects. The appeal to the Minister is again to find common ground by way of negotiation with the Opposition, which has stated its position only too clearly. We recognise our responsibilities. We recognise the problems that will be caused by an unamended Kerin plan. For that reason, we trust that good sense, common sense, will prevail and that the Minister will take on board the representations made so vigorously by the Opposition and by the dairy industry's representatives, thereby saving himself and his Government a great deal of ensuing embarrassment, but most of all saving a great many dairy farmers a great deal of hardship. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.08) —I rise very briefly in this debate to ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) very sincerely indeed to consider the offer of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), for him to have negotiations with the industry. I am very concerned at the double standards of the Hawke Labor Government. We have listened here day after day to the Government offering to set up consultations with the Queensland Government on an industrial relations matter. We now have the Deputy Leader of the National Party repeating that exercise-offering his help to the Minister to set up a further consultation with the Australian dairy industry. The Government just cannot have it both ways. It cannot try to score cheap political points at the expense of the Queensland Government in one instance and then deny the same approach where the dairy industry is concerned. I assure the Minister that, if he seeks the assistance of the Deputy Leader of my Party, there will be absolutely no need at any meeting that the honourable member for Gwydir sets up for the Minister to leave through the back door. The honourable member for Gwydir will ensure that the Minister is able to leave through the front door, rather than sneaking out the back door, and will not have to cancel any further meetings. I give the Minister that assurance; the honourable member for Gwydir will assure the Minister of his safety. There will be no need for him to be afraid and no need for him to run away because he is not game to face up to the industry. The honourable member will guarantee his personal safety. I make another appeal to the Minister; that is, to get away from listening to the academics in his Department who seem always to advise him about this absolute nonsense of transfers from the consumer to the farmer. It is about time they started to whisper in his other ear that there is a massive transfer from the farming community to the consumer of an average of $7,000 per farm each year. The Minister should not come into this place spouting that stupid nonsense that he has a habit of running around Australia saying: 'We must protect this transfer from the consumer to the farmer'. How about the Minister acknowledging in this place the error of this nonsense his departmental people are feeding him and saying: 'I am in error. I have been wrong for so many years, and it is about time I, as Minister, did something to rectify this very grave transfer from the farmer to the consumer of $7,000 per farm'? The honourable member for Gwydir, who is the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, made an impassioned plea to the Minister to try to rectify the situation. I tell the Minister now that he should not paddle the nonsense which comes from his office that if this legislation is defeated again in the Senate the National Party will be responsible for all the ills that will flow after 1 July. It is his responsibility as Minister to get through the Parliament legislation that is acceptable to the Australian people. He should not try to blame us. The blame rests fairly and squarely on his shoulders. It is about time that he stood up and was counted. He should admit to the Australian people and acknowledge to the Australian farmers that it will be his fault if they are not paid the right amounts after 1 July. I say to him: Do not try to put the blame on us. He should be man enough to say that he is guided by his Department and is susceptible to the influence of the left wing. The Minister should be a man, admit that it is his fault, and not try to blame us. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.12) —A large volume of material on the dairy industry debate has been produced through the years. The reason for that is the high importance the Australian people place on the dairy industry. Yet the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) shows all the signs of being headstrong and pigheaded in his dealings with the industry. When it appears unlikely that he will get his own way he threatens the milk producers with the loss of Commonwealth underwriting as from 30 June. Typical of this Government has been its media image of being understanding, willing to listen and, above all, a consensus government. In the real world, where debate, discussion and analysis are important in solving problems, the Government has shown its true colours. It is sectional in its interests, factionalised in its politics, and blind to the conditions of the primary producers. As we have already been told, in 1973 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, said that farmers had never had it so good. Yet within a short time the whole Australian rural industry was thrown into one of the worst recessions for years. The present Minister has not said that conditions are booming for the dairy farmers. Indeed, he has said that the industry is faced with a serious financial crisis. However, his actions and plans for the industry show that he is paying lip service to the industry and is more interested in pursuing the academic, theoretical models, with little regard to the consequences. Other people have already said that there is a need for the Minister to look into the practicalities of this plan. How many farmers will be forced out of the industry? What are their job prospects? How many will be forced on to the dole? What is the estimated drop in farm values when many farmers are forced to sell? What will be the impact on the small and medium rural towns of Australia, where the burden of this plan will be shouldered? The Minister has given us no answers to these questions and, indeed, he has not even considered them. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the industry sought to achieve reform by imposing further government regulation on the already heavily regulated industry. This would have added to the industry's cost structure, increased rigidity and seriously reduced its ability to compete against fair imports and in the export market. The dairy industry has able and competent leaders who have the practical experience to know the real implications of the proposed policies. There is no way they would be interested in increasing costs and reducing the competitiveness of dairy products. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that they would. A judgment has been made by the Minister. A judgment always has to be made because rarely does the evidence in any area point to a single solution. He preferred to run with a theoretical model for the industry-a model that has rough edges. He preferred an uncluttered model, in spite of its impracticalities. The amendments the Senate is requesting do not change the basic thrust of the plan. Rather, they streamline the edges to make it practical and workable. They take into account the realities of competing on a corrupted world market and give consideration to the social implications of the plan. If time is given to rural people to work out their options, the dislocation, hardship and anxiety caused will be minimised. The plan, in its present form, needs some fine tuning. It would be a notable conciliatory act if the Minister would accept these amendments. Finally, the notion that Australian consumers are being ripped off by the prices charged for dairy products is not justified. I illustrate that point by quoting some of the prices for butter around the world. In December 1983 in Canada a pound of butter cost, in Australian terms, $4.26; in West Germany, $3.73; in the United Kingdom, $3.67; in the Netherlands, $3.46; in France, $3.10; in Australia, $2.42, and in New Zealand, $1.45. I urge the Minister and the Government to accept the amendments requested by the Senate in the interests of all Australians. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(11.17) —I welcome the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill, back from the Senate as amended. It is essential that it be amended. I believe that without the amendments the Government's plan for the diary industry will lead us into disaster. Even with the amendments it will still be very difficult for the industry to adjust. Very briefly, the amendments deal with the continuation of export pools to support product levies which are to be maintained at the current levels for two years and then phased out in four equal steps from 1987-88 to 1990-91, which only puts a time scale on what the Government says it wishes to achieve anyway. They also provide that the export market support payments be determined by the Australian Dairy Corporation by relating the subsidy to the milk content of the export products. At present we are dealing with export pooling. It is asking too much to abolish pooling in six weeks or so. Let us remember that we have large stocks at the moment. Particularly given the cessation of allowances, I do not see anything happening other than a vicious undercutting with everyone trying to get their share of the domestic market. What else can people do, especially without allowances? They will have to get their share of the domestic market. I see the domestic price falling far more quickly than the Government anticipates. In fact, I see it equalling export prices. That leads me to the point I made about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the other night and which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) did not quite understand. What I was saying was not so much that GATT had no relation to whether or not a country had export pools-I say again that we are the only nation that exports without some sort of an export pool-but that manufacturers would not be able to hold out for even the minimum GATT price if they did not have pooling or allowances. As other members have said, this industry is being asked to rationalise as no other industry has. We believe in the thrust of the Kerin plan but I think it would be more sensible to take note of what Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, said in a speech to the Australian Business Congress at the Hilton Hotel in Melbourne on 17 October 1984. He said: If industry policy was solely a matter of lowering protection levels-however desirable that may be-and watching resources shift into more efficient sectors, restructuring would be simple, but we should not delude ourselves into believing that any government in Australia, or elsewhere in the world, has unequivocably expected wholesale tariff reduction as a principal arm of economic policy. If it is good enough for the rest of the world and other industries in Australia, why is it not good enough for the dairy industry? He went on to say: The main qualification to this approach lies in the speed in which tariff reduction can be carried out. This Government has announced its intention to proceed to reduce levels of protection, but in areas such as motor vehicle policy it has done so on a gradual basis. Why can the dairy industry not be rationalised on a gradual basis? He went on to say: If I might refer again to the question of competitiveness- we are talking today of the competiveness of the dairy industry on the world markets- which will have to be addressed in the future, and commence by referring to the question of the cost structure of Australian industry. There are many costs which bear on industry competiveness such as: wage costs-the traditional whipping boy on-wage costs costs associated with the service sector government taxes and charges costs imposed by regulatory bodies costs associated with the labour market rigidities. Does the Minister think we do not have those impediments in the dairy industry? We are expected to compete on a corrupt, bastardised world market price. A couple of honourable members have mentioned the hardship that has to fall on the industry. There has been no study made by the Government. The Minister refers to people being relocated, factories being closed and different things happening but as far as I understand it there has been no study made of the social impact. I believe there is a group of concerned farmers with us tonight who are up from Victoria. They have had a little to say too about what is going to happen to those who this plan says are going to be shed from the industry. As I understand it, there is no consideration for these farmers, other than the $20m for some sort of restructuring program which has yet to be agreed with the States. There is going to be a tremendous social cost just to those who have to leave the industry. There would be at least $100,000 worth of sheds and facilities even if they remain on their properties to carry out other endeavours. A milking cow would probably be worth at least $500, but for slaughter it would not be worth any more than $300, so per farm we are probably looking at a $20,000 loss there. Even with the amendments to this Bill there should be a real concern for those who are going to go out of the industry. This refers not only to farmers but also to town and factory workers and everyone associated with this industry, as mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt). It is a fact that representatives of the dairy industry from all over Australia support the amendments that have been moved by the Opposition. For the record once again I mention the letter that the Deputy Leader of the National Party received today from John P. Bennett, Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. Mr Bennett said: The Australian Dairy Industry Conference fully supports the amendments which have been moved in the Senate today. While accepting the thrust of the Kerin Plan, the industry believes that the amendments are necessary to facilitate a smoother transition from the existing arrangements. Yours sincerely, John P. Bennett, Chairman If I could be slightly parochial for a moment, which I have not been to date, I point out that some States such as Western Australia have found a lot of difficulty accepting the Australian Dairy Industry Corporation plan let alone the Kerin plan. The industry in Western Australia has been a reasonably controlled one, which has controlled production by a two-price mechanism. Production has gone up dramatically in other States because they have not had such a mechanism. It appears that anyone who wishes to be able to produce milk is able to do so. Mr Andrew —South Australia has been responsible too. Mr DRUMMOND —Yes, South Australia has been responsible too. There will be a massive transfer of farmers from Western Australia to the eastern States. It is a very hard proposition selling not only the Kerin plan but also the plan as amended by us. These amendments will be carried when the Bill is sent back to the Senate. The Minister for Primary Industry may say: 'Okay, you can have the status quo'. I suggest that if we have an impasse perhaps he would consider sending the whole proposition to a Senate select committee to let it look at it over the winter recess. I do not believe the Minister can let the industry founder by removing underwritings as he is reported to have threatened to do unless this Bill is passed. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.26) —I rise to speak very briefly to a couple of the principles that I am concerned about with respect to the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill which we are debating tonight and which has been returned from the Senate. I know the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is most sincere in what he is trying to do for the dairy industry but, from experience, having been a Minister for agriculture in New South Wales, I say that the agricultural industry is something that cannot be changed overnight. This is what the Minister and the Government are trying to do. I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, for the first time in my memory, the dairy industries of all the States of Australia have come together, having recognised a couple of years ago that there was a need to rationalise production. They presented to the Government a united plan that they believe would overcome some of the problems confronting the industry. That was sensibly presented to the Government through the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation with the agreement-I emphasise with the agreement-of all the States concerned. The Minister has decided to turn his back upon the recommendations that were made by these people, mostly people who are actively involved in the dairy industry throughout Australia. There are those who have always wanted a national dairy industry in this country. It should be kept in mind that the dairy industry has been a State industry and has been administered as such. This was the Minister's opportunity to accept a proposition from particular States-New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia-to make it a national industry. These States may have been much better off considering their production and sales records with respect to market milk and their percentage of those, but bearing in mind the great problems that were confronting Victoria and Tasmania they agreed, under certain conditions, to make it a national industry to this degree. The Minister has ignored the propositions that were put up by the States concerned. This alarms me, because I have been a farmer and milked cows and planned herds and crops and I feel sorry for those farmers of Victoria and Tasmania because they know that they will receive less for the product they are producing. These people have no alternative product to change to. Our pig market is low and farmers are limited in what they can do with vealers. If I were milking 100 cows in Victoria and looked at the legislation knowing that I had a debt on my shoulders and a bank manager on my back, I would ask myself: 'Can I sell? No, I cannot sell because there is nobody to buy my property'. I would say: 'Righto; I will milk 100 cows. Even though I am perhaps getting a lower price for my product, I have now to milk those 100, 110 or 120 cows in order to survive'. I do not think that I am wrong in what I suggest. It is a matter of survival and that is the truth of it. Let us look at the practicalities that are embodied in the legislation. We are superseding the responsibilities of the States and placing ourselves, as the Commonwealth, over them. Whatever this Government decides to do will have a great effect upon the deliberations and the policies of the States concerned. We do not want to see that happen. We want an industry in which 18,000 farmers are happy with their wives and children, because it is an industry that is dependent upon the family, and that is the way we want to keep it. I make a plea to the Minister. He is rushing into this situation, I believe, with his eyes closed to the practical side of dairy farming on the farm-milking cows twice a day, seven days a week, dependent upon it for a living. It is a lifestyle that people like. Eleven thousand farmers in Victoria have made that their lifestyle and want it to continue. The farmers in New South Wales whom I represent, together with the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and other honourable members around the chamber, have survived because we have in that State a domestic policy to which we want to adhere. A rationalisation has been adopted by that State over the years and it has been practical. Let me return to what I started to say in the beginning. For the first time in our history we have seen the State governments and the industries concerned, through the Australian Agricultural Council, say to a Minister: 'Here is a deliberate plan to which we all agree'. That is why I appeal to the Minister to recognise his responsibility. He is wiping out an export market upon which this nation is very dependent. History will repeat itself. Markets will return in the years to come. I can see the States registering more farmers in five or 10 years time to meet our export responsibilities to countries that need our product. It is a vital food. I have entered this debate to stress those principles and to say that I hope the Minister will change his mind and go along the course that has been recommended by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(11.34) —At this eleventh hour I speak very briefly on this vital matter to support the appeal to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to consider the amendments that are now again before this Committee. The dairy industry is a unique industry. Those who have spoken tonight have enunciated very clearly the considerations which are inescapable in terms of reality. The industry is a watershed for the immediate problems of rural Australia. This watershed must take into account the great need to have regard for the people who are directly concerned-the farmers themselves. I am sure that the debate in this chamber, when the measure was first before it, then in another place and again tonight, very clearly demonstrates the importance of taking practical considerations into account. Undoubtedly, the whole purpose of the legislation was to bring about a control of production and a mechanism within the industry which meant reducing the volume of productivity. That, of course, very directly, meant reducing the number of producers in the industry. The solution to that lies in the reality of the best ways and means of going about it. I do not want to repeat what has been said by my colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and by a number of other speakers in that regard. The honourable members for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), Groom (Mr McVeigh), Braddon (Mr Miles) and Forrest (Mr Drummond) have spoken for their States, which means that each State has made a contribution in this debate. Announcements have been made by State Ministers for Agriculture concerning their intention now to look at the industry within the respective States. That has certainly occurred with two States and undoubtedly will occur in the other States because it is impossible to separate the ingredients of the State entity in this industry. Unlike most other industries, it cannot be seen as a singularly national industry, and the plan put forward by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation certainly took that into account. It is perhaps a pity that what was known as the fourth amendment was not taken more seriously; but there is still time for that to be done. The important thing now is to treat seriously the real implications of the three amendments, because they are basic if the States are to accept their responsibility and if this national Parliament is to act in a fair, just and equitable manner for the future of this industry. I appeal to the Minister for Primary Industry and to the Government to consider the facts that have emerged in the debate on this crucial issue for the dairy industry. I conclude by saying that the Government can lose nothing; the industry can gain a lot. As so many have said, it is important to take into account the considerations of the people at the grass roots in an industry. This is an inescapable responsibility. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.37) —I want to repeat briefly what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) and by all the other speakers on this side. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has to take cognisance of the fact that the passing of the three amendments by the Senate means not that his plan is being jettisoned, but that it will be brought in a little more gradually to give people time to adjust. As has been said by other speakers, this Government has given to other industries that it considers need time for reconstruction sufficient time to readjust. All that the dairy industry asks for with these three amendments is time to readjust. It does not mean that the plan is being lost. It is entirely in the Minister's hands. The other point is that the Minister must consult the industry. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation has bent over backwards to try to help the Minister to see the dairy farmers' point of view. It has tried on many occasions to point out the shortcomings of the Kerin plan as it is, without the modifications in the amendments that have been passed by the Senate. I know that dairy farmers in my State of Victoria have, on numerous occasions, written to the Minister, seen him and spoken to him, to try to point out that this is not just a question of numbers, or of doing the figures; it is a question of people. People who have been in the industry for many years, believing various things, are now confronted, in many cases, with disaster. All they are asking for is a bit of time to adjust, and all that the manufacturers are asking for is a bit of time to adjust to the new system. In particular, we have asked that pooling should be extended for two years and then abolished. We are quite clear on the point that it should be extended for just two years. I will not take any more time of the House, but I point out to the Minister the shortcomings of his plan. We have tried to help him by having these amendments moved in the Senate. I hope that he recognises the merit of these amendments. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.40) —I would like to make just a few comments. The debate tonight on the Senate's amendments saddens me somewhat because what we have had, quite frankly, is a rerun of the previous debate. Many of the comments by honourable members opposite still indicate their fundamental lack of understanding, not only of the dairy industry but also of what has actually taken place over the last 15 or 16 months. I guess it is a very easy smear to say that a Minister is taking too much departmental or academic advice. I do not know of any advice received from any academic. It is nonsensical to smear on the basis that a person's views can be wiped out because he went to university or something. I do not think that washes with the farmers any more. Whilever the National Party of Australia runs that sort of nonsense, I do not think it does itself much credit. Any Minister takes departmental advice. I have personally gone through a very long and exhausting process over the last 15 or 16 months in getting virtually every permutation and combination, every assessment that I possibly can about the dairy industry. I even sent the Deputy Secretary of my Department to Canada to look at the scheme in that country. It is not as if we are taking departmental advice in the sense that the Department has one fixed clear ideological point of view. What has happened over the last 15 or 16 months is the result of a process-a process of discussion, negotiation and consultation. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has pointed out that he understands full well the problem I have had with the States. The Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan itself changed during that process of consultation. It is really easy to make an allegation that there has been no consultation. There has been a lot of consultation. I spoke to Mr Bennett tonight. I am not saying that that was a deep consultation, but it is simply nonsensical to claim that I do not talk to people. The whole situation all along has been that the Commonwealth is in a no-win situation if we are to do anything other than to patch up the mess we inherited, other than to patch up the faltering plan that we have with us now. I admit, quite frankly, that I did not know how bad the dairy industry's marketing arrangements were through 1983. It has been in a very bad way. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) talks about principle. He comes from a party which was part of a New South Wales Government which kept one group of dairy farmers in poverty and another group rich. If we talk about principles, I think we should remember that the industry pushed up domestic value for levy purposes. The industry was concerned that there was not enough production. It encouraged production through 1981-82 with a crazy system. The individual farmers did not understand what the hell was going on. I think the dairy industry's problem can be traced back to the 1950s and the 1960s. There was a massive shake out of the industry in the 1970s. Subsidies were pulled off eventually, a dairy farm reconstruction scheme was implemented and there was all of that terrible readjustment in Victoria in particular. That was replaced by a mish-mash. It was hoped that the 1976 Industries Assistance Commission report recommendations were put into place in the present legislation and it was hoped it allowed for entitlements, but nothing ever took place. The honourable member for Lyne can make the point that we just have to give the industry time and all the rest of it because in five or 10 years time we will be exporting again. If we are exporting again in five or 10 years time and if we adopt what the Commonwealth is now proposing, the industry will be far better equipped to take advantage of export markets than it is at present, where we have in place a system that simply rewards the lazy and makes it very difficult indeed for a sensible approach to be taken. Mr Nehl —Are you saying that dairy farmers are lazy? Mr KERIN —It rewards the lazy manufacturers. All this nonsense that these are just minor adjustments and that we have accepted the Commonwealth proposals or the Kerin plan, as people are wont to call it, is clearly silly because what we have is really the Australian Dairy Industry Council plan without entitlements or the status quo with the all-milk levy. The amendments themselves do not represent a slight change to the Government's proposals at all. I know that it would be very nice to come in here with a letter of congratulations from the Chairman of ADIC. I hazard a guess that either ADIC or the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation wrote the amendments for the Opposition. So I reckon that it is fair enough for the Opposition to say that those bodies agree with the amendments. Speakers have talked about the right time. It was really time in 1980-81, if we are talking in an ideal sense, to wipe out export pooling, but nothing was done. That was the time to bring in entitlements. Nothing was done when the time was right and it is being said that now is not the right time. I put it to honourable members that it never will be the right time to move away from a system that has basically been in place for some 50 years. Because the Government has taken a strong stand on this issue, it has forced the industry to look at the realities. To be quite honest, some elements in the industry leadership are being pretty cynical, because they know that the established farmers will survive. I do not really want to make this point, but there are quite a few farmers who say: 'The established farmers will survive and to hell with the rest'. The ADIC plan would have wiped out some of the newer farmers. The status quo will wipe out most effectively the farmers in Victoria. Whatever happens, farmers will be forced out of the industry because of the basic problems of overproduction and a terrible overseas price. There is only one alternative to more regulations or to phased deregulation, as proposed by the Commonwealth. That is to subsidise heavily, and the Government has signalled that that is not on unless we can find some way of putting a cap on production. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), in his typically vicious personal way, said that I should seek assistance from the Opposition and take notice of what the industry says. It is pretty obvious that the Opposition does not understand this industry. I have never seen any independent analysis of the dairy industry by the Opposition. Its policy on the industry at the time of the last election was absolutely pathetic. People talk about consumer transfer as if I were alleging somehow that the consumers will be subsidising the dairy farmers. I make the point again that, as the term is understood, there is a consumer transfer within the dairy industry. It depends how it is calculated, but the problem is that consumer transfer does not benefit the dairy farmers; it benefits overseas consumers. I have already pointed to the situation in the European Economic Community, where 223,000 tonnes of butter was sold to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at a bargain basement price. That really meant that the consumers in the EEC were subsidising Russian consumers. There is not much sense in having consumer transfer unless it benefits the people it is supposed to benefit. Should we go back to the present system if the Senate knocks these government Bills over once again, underwriting will lapse by June 30. In that case I will have to go back to the Cabinet to work out what we will do from that point on. There are no academic, theoretic models in what the Commonwealth is proposing, as honourable members opposite say there are. There is nothing academic or theoretical about a 1.5c all milk levy. There is nothing very academic about replacing a highly complex formula for the present stabilisation levy mechanism, where the stabilisation levy is calculated on the domestic value for levy purposes minus the assessed export price and a few other frills and furbelows on export pooling and all the rest. There is nothing very academic and theoretical about replacing that complicated mechanism with a straight out market support mechanism. The choice is between more regulations and phased deregulation-that is what the Commonwealth is proposing. We also have to take into account that dreadful thing-the market. The industry does survive with the market. The industry will survive with a heck of a lot of regulation because, as I have explained and explained, the Commonwealth has no control over all other products that are marketed outside the five prescribed products. Even those five products are not controlled in any way or affected by Commonwealth regulations. We can also do nothing about the market milk regulations of the State governments. If the Opposition wishes to continue to emphasise the matter of time, I would point out that the Commonwealth is proposing phased deregulation, and that is three to six years. The Government has already indicated in its amendments that it is prepared to push that out further. The Government once more rejects the Senate's amendments and, as I said at the outset, I am pretty sad that the debate has not advanced. The failure of the Senate to pass the legislation the second time around will bring tragedy to the dairy industry by ensuring the continuation of the current arrangements that have got us into the present mess. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the resolution be reported. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, 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.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.

NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Beale, J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller)

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That Mr Cunningham, Mr Beddall and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.48) —On behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- This amendment, which would have the effect of extending export pooling for butter and cheese for two years, is counter to the basic thrust and purpose of the Government's new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry. As export pooling is a major cause of the industry's present problems (including overproduction) it should be terminated as soon as possible. The Government does not accept that the temporary continuation of export pooling is a necessary transitional arrangement as possible transitional difficulties associated with the termination of export pooling are covered by other Government decisions. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clause 13 of the original Bill be restored. Motion (by Mr Kerin) put: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John, Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.

NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Beale, J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Friday, 24 May 1985 DAIRY PRODUCE MARKET SUPPORT BILL 1985 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. In Committee Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 9, sub-clause 19(1), lines 2 to 11, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clauses: ''(1) Where dairy produce that is exported from Australia was, at the commencement of the marketing year during which it is so exported, dairy produce of a kind that was, in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1A) and (1B), prescribed dairy produce for the purposes of this Act, the rate at which market support payments are payable in respect of dairy produce of that kind is the amount per unit of that dairy produce that is equal to the difference between the export target price in relation to each such unit of dairy produce of that kind in respect of that marketing year and the estimated average price in force in relation to each such unit of dairy produce of that kind that is so exported during that marketing year at the time when that unit of dairy produce is so exported. ''(1A) For the purposes of this section, and notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, 'prescribed dairy produce', unless otherwise determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1B), means butter, cheddar cheese, skimmed milk powder and casein. ''(1B) The definition of 'prescribed dairy produce' for the purposes of this section provided in sub-section (1A) may only be varied by instrument in writing signed by the Minister. ''(1C) The Minister shall not sign an instrument under the provisions of sub-section (1B) unless it is fully in accordance with a recommendation, in writing, of the Corporation. ''(1D) The Corporation shall not make a recommendation under sub-section (1C) to the Minister unless it has consulted with the conference on the matter.''. No. 2-Page 11, sub clause 19 (6), line 19, leave out ''declared by the regulations'', insert ''determined in accordance with sub-sections (1A) and (1B)''. No. 3-Pages 11 and 12, clause 20, line 39 (page 11) to line 3 (page 12), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''20. Where dairy produce that is exported from Australia was not, at the commencement of the marketing year during which it is so exported, dairy produce of a kind that was prescribed dairy produce for the purposes of section 19, the rate at which market support payments are payable in respect of dairy produce of that kind is such amount per unit of dairy produce of that kind as the Corporation determines in writing, from time to time, to be appropriate having regard to the rates of market support payments that are applicable to dairy produce of kinds that were, at the commencement of that marketing year, so declared to be prescribed dairy produce.''. No. 4-Page 16, after paragraph 29 (2) (e), insert the following new paragraph: ''(ea) money repaid to the Supplementary Fund, being money that was lent out of the Supplementary Fund to the Corporation for the purposes of the operation of the pools established pursuant to sub-section 20AB (2) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924;''. No. 5-Page 18, after paragraph 32 (d), insert the following new paragraph: ''(da) in making loans out of the Supplementary Fund to the Corporation for the purposes of the operation of the pools established pursuant to sub-section 20AB (2) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924;''. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.07 a.m.) —I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. The amendments seek to alter the basis on which market support payments for dairy products will be paid under the legislation. The Government considers that its mechanism for determining market support payments is preferable to that proposed by the amendments, in that it takes into account market price relativities. These amendments are not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clauses 19 and 20 of the original Bill be restored. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.09 a.m.) —The Opposition adheres to the amendments that were carried in the Senate by majority. The Opposition firmly supports the views of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and the Australian Dairy Industry Conference that the product levies should be applied on the whole milk basis ex-factory, rather than on the value added product basis as was originally in the Government's legislation. The concern is basically that, if the product levy were to be applied in this matter, it would ultimately encourage the manufacturers to manufacture the more expensive value added type products. By actually applying it on a whole milk basis ex-factory it enables the factories to make a more sensible economic and financial decision as to the types of products they should make from the whole milk that is available against the market opportunities that are available for the end product. We adhere very firmly to the position that was adopted in the Senate this afternoon. We oppose the attempt by the Government to have amendments removed from the legislation. Question put: That the Senate's amendments be disagreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, 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.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That Mr Snow, Mr Hollis and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.18 a.m.) —On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- This amendment seeks to alter the basis on which market support payments for dairy produce will be paid under the legislation. The Government considers that its mechanism for determining market support payments is preferable to that proposed by the amendment in that it takes into account market price relativities. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clauses 19 and 20 of the original Bill be restored. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. DAIRY INDUSTRY STABILIZATION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL Bill returned from the Senate with a request. Ordered that the request be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. In Committee Consideration of Senate's requested amendment. Senate's requested amendment- Pages 3 and 4, clause 7, proposed sub-sections 7 (2) to 7 (10), line 1 (page 3) to line 13 (page 4), leave out the proposed sub-sections, insert the following sub-sections: '' '(2) The rate at which levy is imposed on dairy products of a particular kind being dairy products that are produced on or after 1 July 1985 and sold during the year commencing 1 July 1986 is equal to the rate determined by the Minister for the purpose on the day before the commencement of that year. '(3) The rate at which levy is imposed on dairy products of a particular kind, being dairy products that are produced on or after 1 July 1985 and sold during the year commencing on 1 July 1987, is a rate that is calculated on a day determined by the Minister for the purpose, being a day occurring before the commencement of that year, by multiplying the rate of levy applicable to dairy products of that kind that are sold in the year ending 30 June 1987 by .75. '(4) The rate at which levy is imposed on dairy products of a particular kind, being dairy products that are produced on or after 1 July 1985 and sold during the year commencing on 1 July 1988, is a rate that is calculated on a day determined by the Minister for the purpose, being a day occurring before the commencement of that year, by multiplying the rate of levy applicable to dairy products of that kind that are sold in the year ending 30 June 1987 by .5. '(5) The rate at which levy is imposed on dairy products of a particular kind, being dairy products that are produced on or after 1 July 1985 and sold during the year commencing on 1 July 1989, is a rate that is calculated on a day determined by the Minister for the purpose, being a day occurring before the commencement of that year, by multiplying the rate of levy applicable to dairy products of that kind that are sold in the year ending 30 June 1987 by .25. '(6) No levy under this section shall be payable in respect of dairy products that are produced after 30 June 1990.'.''. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.19 a.m.) —I move: That the requested amendment be not made. The Senate request is not acceptable because it seeks to maintain levies on dairy products for two years so as to provide the same level of support for domestic prices of dairy products as that prevailing immediately prior to the implementation of new arrangements. The request would then provide for the levies to be phased out over four years in equal steps. The Government considers that its approach to phasing out the levies on dairy products is preferable. In particular, under the Government's formula, the rate of phase-out will be abated if production falls quickly or market milk prices drop. This request is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that sub-clauses (2) to (10) of clause 7 of the original Bill be restored. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.21 a.m.) —On behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that we adhere to the position reached in the Senate earlier today. We believe that the six-year phase-in period gives an adequate time for the industry and the factory system to adjust to a new marketing regime. We believe that in the second year of the Government's proposal the anticipated 50 per cent drop in product levies would be too severe on the industry and would cause enormous disruption, not only on the farms but also in the factories. We will continue to press this point very strongly on behalf of the manufacturing sector of the industry and also on behalf of the farming sector. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, and for that matter the Government, have looked at the six-year prospect. We feel that this particular provision sought by the Government is one of the worst features of the proposal. Therefore, we call on the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to seek to negotiate with the Dairy Farmers Federation and the Australian Dairy Industry Council during the winter recess to try to come to a more reasonable formula arrangement for the reduction of the product levy in order to get a smoother transition to the objective he is trying to reach, and the objective which the industry itself is trying to achieve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the resolution be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, 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.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R.

NOES Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C.Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Beale, J. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Jull, D. F.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. WHEAT MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has disagreed to the amendment made by the House of Representatives. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate insists on its amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. AUSTRALIAN FRIGATE PROJECT: WILLIAMSTOWN DOCKYARD Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.31 a.m.) —by leave-I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on which the Committee has duly reported to the Parliament: Williamstown Dockyard, Melbourne, construction of facilities for Australian Frigate Project, Phase B. This proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works in March this year and is for the provision of further shipbuilding facilities at Williamstown Dockyard which are necessary for the construction of two vessels under the Australian frigate project, and to improve the general efficiency of the dockyard. The work comprises Phase B of the Shipbuilding facilities project and was foreshadowed in the presentation of phase A to the Committee in February 1984. Phase A was approved by Parliament in April 1984 and construction is now well advanced. The shipbuilding facilities project as a whole constitutes the third stage of recent development of the dockyard for its current use, and supplements facilities provided over the last nine years as part of stage 1 and stage 2 of the dockyard modernisation project. The facilities to be provided under the Phase B works are: the support service centre; occupational health and safety centre; guided missile launcher system assembly building; upgrading of existing workshops and canteen; shipbuilding platens II; mobile plant facility; administration building annexe; car parking; shallow pits in Alfred Graving Dock; security measures; site works and engineering services. The Phase B works represent the results of examination of each component of the project by the Department of Housing and Construction in close consultation with the Department of Defence, and are in accordance with the revised master plan for the dockyard. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the works. The total estimated cost is $13.25m at January 1985 prices. Subject to the approval of this House, it is intended to commence calling tenders for the work in July this year and to award the first contracts in late August or early September. Construction on the major components is programmed to start in early November 1985, with a completion target for all components of December 1987. It is anticipated that the Phase B works will generate employment on site of between 70 and 100 positions, peaking to 140. Of particular interest to the House will be the work in the floor of the 110-year-old Alfred Graving Dock to provide two shallow pits which will facilitate the installation and removal of the sonar domes, propellers and rudders of the FFGs. This aspect of the proposal has involved special design evaluation and close consultation with the Australian Heritage Commission. Considerable attention has been paid to the provision of suitable amenities and working conditions for dockyard employees, including the upgrading of the canteen and workshops, the provision of secure off-street parking facilities, and an occupational health and safety centre. I would like to thank the Committee for its recognition of the tight timetable on this project and for its efforts in examining and reporting on the proposal in so short a time. If the House supports the motion my Department will be able to proceed immediately to detailed planning and construction in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. I commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.35 a.m.) -The Opposition supports the motion both from the point of view of housing and construction and-as I am authorised to say by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)-from the point of view of defence. The Australian frigate project is one of absolute urgency and the works which have been the subject of the motion are required as quickly as possible. I trust that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) will take the same pleasure as I will in visiting the dockyard in the near future. I hope that the works now approved will proceed as quickly as possible and that the project will be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion. Question resolved in the affirmative. DISCHARGE OF ORDERS OF THE DAY Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.36 a.m.) —by leave-I move: That the following orders of the day be discharged. 17 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill 1985 (Minister for Housing and Construction): Second reading-Resumption of debate. 27 Australia-Japan Foundation-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 30 Central Land Council-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 31 Australian Egg Board-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 33 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Review of Structure-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 34 Defence-Logistic Support-Memorandum of understanding-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 36 Companies and Securities Law Review Committee-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 38 National Common Police Services-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 39 Australian Wheat Board-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 42 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Council-Papers-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 43 Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 45 Electoral Commissions-1984 Redistribution-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 46 Australian Code of Conduct for Companies with Commercial Interests in South Africa-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 47 Foreign Investment Review Board-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 48 Advance to the Minister for Finance- Statement-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 51 First Home Owners Scheme-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 52 Law Reform Commission-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 53 Metal and Electrical Trades-Report of Australian Tripartite Mission-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 54 Australian Dairy Corporation-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 55 Australian Bicentennial Authority-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 58 Administration of Family Law in Australia-Report by Family Law Council-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 59 Wheat Research Act-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 60 Housing Industry-Indicative Planning Council-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 61 Unemployed Migrant Youth and Labour Market Programs-Report by Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-Papers-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 62 Ansett Transport Industries Limited and Australian National Airlines Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 63 Financial Management in CSIRO-Summary of Report of Joint Working Party-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 64 New Brisbane International Airport-Supply of Materials for Pavements-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 65 Financial Management in CSIRO-Report of Joint Working Party-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 66 Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 67 Remuneration and Academic Salaries Tribunals-Reports-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 70 Capital Territory Health Commission-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 73 Computer-related Technologies in the Metal Trades Industry-Report by Australian Science and Technology Council-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 74 International Labour Conference-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 75 Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Superannuation-Reports-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 76 CSIRO Laboratories-Safety Standards and the Death of Dr R. Bergamasco-Report of Committee of Inquiry-Government Response-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 77 Australian Capital Territory-Statement of Receipts and Expenditure-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 78 Australian War Memorial-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 79 Urban and Regional Development-Amending Agreement with New South Wales-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 82 Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 83 Security Appeals Tribunal-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 84 Family Law Council-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 86 Housing Assistance Act-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 87 Aboriginal Hostels Limited-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 88 Office of Australian War Graves-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 90 Australian Institute of Marine Science-Report-Motion to take notice of Paper: Resumption of debate. 91 Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 92 Deportation and the Family-Report by Human Rights Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. 96 National Health and Medical Research Council-Report-Motion to take note of Paper: Resumption of debate. 97 Census of Population and Housing 1986-Ministerial Statement and Papers-Motion to take note of Papers: Resumption of debate. The details of these orders of the day have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. This has been done after arrangement with the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). Question resolved in the affirmative. ACCESS TO JOINT LIBRARY COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate. That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorised to permit, at their discretion, Professor Gordon Reid to examine and copy the records of the Joint Library Committee subsequent to 22 May 1975, in the case of non-confidential material, and subsequent to 22 May 1955 in the case of confidential material. That the foregoing Resolution has effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole House forthwith. In Committee Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That the House concurs in the resolution transmitted to the House in message No. 63 of the Senate, viz.: That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorised to permit, at their discretion, Professor Gordon Reid to examine and copy the records of the Joint Library Committee subsequent to 22 May 1975, in the case of non-confidential material, and subsequent to 22 May 1955 in the case of confidential material. That the foregoing Resolution has effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.38 a.m.) —I have one problem with this motion. The whole circumstances of that period of our political history were fairly controversial and I suggest to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that it might have been appropriate for the leaders of all the parties in this Parliament-the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Australian Democrats-also to be included in considering any material that might be covered. I think it will be okay but, if there is to be an exclusion of some material, we would all like to make sure that it was material that was reasonably acceptable and that there were no problems with it. I suggest that, if material is to be excluded, it should be excluded with the approval of the leaders of the four principal parties. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.39 a.m.) —in reply-It is not possible to do that now. Because all the parties voted for this in the Senate, we were not aware of the objection. I think it might be an opportune time to say that I will speak to both the President of the Senate and the Speaker, raise with them the question raised by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and suggest to them that they could perhaps discuss these matters with us. I think everyone knows of the work done by Gordon Reid in these matters. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is that acceptable to the right honourable member? Mr Sinclair —I have no worries about that. Question resolved in the affirmative. AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received advice from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) that, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of 22 May 1985, the delegation of the House of Representatives at the forthcoming meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention will be as follows: Australian Labor Party: Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, MP; Hon. L. F. Bowen, MP. Liberal Party of Australia: Hon. A. S. Peacock, MP; Hon. N. A. Brown, MP. National Party of Australia: Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair, MP. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present a report of the Committee entitled 'Alternative opportunities for Members to concisely address the House', together with a copy of the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr KEOGH —by leave-It is with some pride that I present this, the first report of the House of representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. The Committee was appointed on 27 February to inquire into and report upon the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. The appointment is notable in that this is the first procedure committee appointed by this House, although there have been definite proposals to establish such a committee in the past. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the House and Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for proposing the appointment of the Committee and the members of the Committee for their support and enthusiasm during this inquiry. In fact, our record of procedural reform generally has not been noteworthy. The House operated under temporary Standing Orders from 1901 until 1950. Our current Standing Orders were adopted in 1963 following a major review in the early 1960s. Whilst there have been changes since, the Committee faces a backlog of issues which need close examination if we are to institute worthwhile changes in the procedures of this House. I am sure all honourable members will agree that, as we approach our bicentennial year and the historic move to the new Parliament House, it is appropriate that we consider the desirability of new procedures and Standing Orders and accomplish significant reform prior to our move. To ascertain the views on procedural areas needing investigation the Committee circulated a questionnaire to all honourable members listing possible subjects of inquiry and inviting them to indicate those matters they would like the Committee to address. The response to the questionnaire was heartening; almost half the honourable members responded. Those matters listed by most honourable members were division procedures, questions without notice, programming of business of the House and giving notices openly. A summary of the responses is given at Appendix A to the report. In response to the Committee's invitations to honourable members, former members and others we have received a number of suggestions to improve the procedures of the House. I would like to thank all who have made suggestions to the Committee and on behalf of the Committee give an assurance that we will be examining all suggestions at the appropriate stage in our inquiries. The Committee will continue to seek and receive suggestions for procedural improvement. The Committee remains keen to have the views of honourable members during its inquiries. The Committee saw as its immediate task, given the recent increase in the size of the House, the need to examine the opportunities private members have to raise matters and resolved at its second meeting to inquire into the alternative opportunities for honourable members to address the House concisely. There was a general feeling that the question of giving notices openly should be re-examined early, in view of the decision taken at the commencement of this Parliament to dispense with oral notices. The Committee recognised that the increase in oral notices in recent years and the fact that they were often given primarily for their immediate publicity was a reflection of the frustration felt by private members at the limited opportunities they had to raise briefly matters of concern. The report recommends the adoption by this House of a procedure whereby members may make statements for not more than 90 seconds during a 15-minute period following the presentation of papers. It is proposed that during the period set aside for members' statements members receiving the call be able to give an oral notice should they so wish. I draw the attention of honourable members particularly to those sections of the report dealing with the guidelines on the content of notices of motion and the procedures recommended for the operation of the proposed period for members' statements. The Committee believes that the success of the procedure proposed will depend upon the spirit in which members utilise it. The Committee agreed that any attempt to disrupt members making statements would be self-defeating and could destroy this new procedure whereby private members will be able to voice matters of concern to themselves and of importance to their electorates. In tabling this report before the House rises I am mindful of the statements by the Leader of the House on 25 February that the Committee should report expeditiously on matters and that any changes and innovations proposed will receive a sympathetic hearing. The Committee determined that it should report expeditiously on this matter so as to provide the earliest opportunity for the House to take action on its recommendation, hopefully in order to ensure operation of the procedure from the commencement of the Budget sitting. The procedure we have recommended will be a welcome innovation and must serve to enhance the role of private members in this House. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will be able to take the necessary steps to have the recommendation adopted at the earliest opportunity. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —by leave-As the Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, I wish to support the Chairman, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). I express the hope too that the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who is sitting at the table, will implement the findings and recommendations of the Committee which are designed to try to give the private member in this Parliament an opportunity to express a view from time to time. We know how the Minister moved on 25 February, in one vicious blow, to deprive the House of the right to indulge in the procedure of presenting notices of motion. We are endeavouring to seek a compromise and perhaps improve the pre-existing system. As long as the Minister looks at this matter with an open mind, I believe that this Parliament can be improved. I say to the Minister that I believe very sincerely that members on both sides of this chamber are feeling that they are becoming less and less important and that the Parliament is becoming more and more a weapon of the Executive as the honourable members on either side seem to be being pushed further and further into the background. Early this morning I interjected on the former Attorney-General from South Australia, the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). He said: 'Where have you been all year? I haven't heard from you before this. You have been out of the place. It must be payday'. I do not think that was a fair reflection on me, but many of us have virtually disappeared off the stage because of the reduced sitting days and the reduced sitting hours. We have Wednesday nights off. There are all these aspects. With these few comments I just hope that the Minister will look upon this matter with an open mind. I think the proposal to give about nine members a day an opportunity to speak about a subject for one and a half minutes each before the next member is called is a good one. I also remind the House and the Minister who is at the table, through you, Mr Speaker, that Question Time has lost its meaning. It seems to be a completely set-up affair these days. This afternoon, Mr Speaker, you failed to call me. You failed to call me all session, as you did not call me in the latter part of last year. I hope you remember that for the coming Budget session. I thought to myself: 'Why do we come along here any more? We cannot ask questions. We cannot express a point of view'. Mr Hollis —Talk to Andrew about that. Mr Robert Brown —That is a matter to discuss with your executive. Mr DONALD CAMERON —When I said: 'I have not received the call all year, Mr Speaker', half our front bench said: 'Neither have I'. I was not the only one, obviously. Honourable members around me said: 'Neither have I'. We have been eroding the standing of the Government-many of us are quite happy to see that happen-with the organised, very effective attacks of our Leader and Deputy Leader. I refer also to the attacks by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) on the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) which are destroying him. These continuing attacks are worth the time spent on them. I make these points in support of the honourable member for Bowman. I hope that the Minister will have total control over proceedings and that a set 15 minutes will be allocated for the presentation of 90-second statements after the presentation of papers. I pray that you, sir, do not cut back the adjournment debate which you extended in acknowledgment of the fact that the Parliament had been expanded numerically. If you came in here each night for the few adjournment debates that you grant you would find that they are taken up completely, that honourable members are jumping about like dolphins after fish at a Jack Evans display on the Gold Coast. You could even give honourable members another quarter of an hour to speak and you still would not be overdoing it. The granting of this 15-minute period will be a great step for the liberty and freedom of all members of this chamber. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'The Administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974', together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in tabling this report is following through two of the inquiries carried out by our predecessors in the Thirty-first Parliament. Last year, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) presented a statement to the House about the Government's proposals to amend administrative procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. His statement also included the Government's response to previous Committee reports of 1978 and 1979 dealing with the Commonwealth Government and the urban environment and the adequacy of legislative and administrative arrangements relating to environmental protection. Both previous reports referred to the operation of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. It has been some years since the Committee looked at these arrangements. The Minister indicated that some matters were still under consideration. We therefore decided to take another look at the administration of the Act in the context of the proposed changes announced by the Minister. In carrying out this inquiry, it was not the intention of the Committee to review the Government's response and to open up a debate on the issues involved. Indeed, I note that the Government has accepted most of the previous Committee's recommendations. Our purpose was to examine some matters which remained of concern to the Committee. The Committee was also concerned that some government departments had objections to the introduction of memoranda of understanding. These memoranda were to be agreements between the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and other authorities and were intended to outline procedures to implement the Act. The Minister stated that he intended to enter into memoranda. We thought it would be useful to review the attitudes of departments to see why there had been so little progress in the area since the 1979 report. Our inquiry has been carried out without delay and our report is brief but concise. We worked quickly in order to assist the implementation of the Minister's announced decisions and to provide advice which could assist in the further consideration of the matters that he indicated remained unresolved. Our report contains six recommendations, which deal with the powers of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the memoranda of understanding and the level of staffing in the Environment Assessment Branch of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. It appears that most of the departments sponsoring projects have attempted to examine the environmental implications. I understand that since the legislation was enacted over 19,000 proposals have been referred to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The fact that many of these were found not to be environmentally significant suggests that departments are erring on the side of caution. However, it is possible for problems to occur and for the environmental significance to be disputed. We have recommended that the Act be amended to allow the Minister to become more involved in the decision to invoke the main provisions of the Act. We do so not to challenge the authority of other Ministers to make decisions about proposals; rather we are more concerned to ensure that where there might be disagreement, or where there has been a misunderstanding or an oversight in relation to a proposal, the differences might be resolved. It is the view of the Committee that the proponent Minister should continue to have prime responsibility to determine the environmental significance of projects and to carry out environmental assessments. In any event, it is the view of the Committee that the proponent Minister needs to undertake a careful consideration of all the environmental aspects of projects within his portfolio. The Committee has been concerned that there has been considerable delay in obtaining formal agreements for memoranda of understanding between the Department for Arts, Heritage and Environment and other departments regarding the procedures to be followed in applying the Act. I am pleased by the announced intentions of the Minister to enter into formal memoranda of understanding with other Ministers, but I am disappointed at the apparent past obstruction and resistance on the part of some departments in developing such memoranda. The Committee has recommended that the Minister report annually on his progress in the development of the memoranda of understanding and that departments should also report their activities under the provisions of the Act. This requirement for reporting can be included in the normal annual reports which come to this House. The Committee in the Thirty-first Parliament expected that the Act would be amended in 1980 and recommended that memoranda of understanding be agreed between the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and other Ministers within a period of six months of those amendments. The Committee noted that some limited progress had been made in formalising memoranda and was hopeful that more progress would occur. However, since the Committee reported in 1979 only two new memoranda had been agreed. Clearly in the past the situation has been allowed to stultify. Our recommendation is designed to ensure that this does not happen again. One recommendation of the previous Committee that was not accepted by the Government dealt with the need for exemptions from the Act. The provisions of the Act are very broad. The object of the Act is to ensure that, to the greatest extent practicable, matters affecting the environment to a significant extent be examined and taken into account, in relation to a wide range of decisions and activities undertaken by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth Government. There has been some concern that it would be administratively impossible to apply the Act if it were broadly interpreted. We have re-examined this concern and we recommend that the proposed memoranda of understanding refer to those activities of a department which are not considered to be within the ambit of the Act. This recommendation will help make it clear to all interested parties just how the Act is to be applied. Finally, we considered the staffing situation in the Environment Assessment Branch of the Department for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the other departments involved in environmental assessment. The situation appears not to be totally satisfactory and we have recommended an independent review. This is necessary, particularly in respect of the proposed changes to procedures. We have also recommended the secondment of environmental officers from the Department for Arts, Heritage and Environment to other departments to help with environmental assessment activities. The environment protection legislation has been in place for some time, but it appears that there is still debate within Public Service circles about how it will be applied. The Committee is concerned that, in many cases, adequate procedures seem not to have been formulated. I consider, therefore, that our report is timely and the issues raised deserve serious consideration by the House and the Government. I commend the report to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-This report was compiled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the inquiry into environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia's natural resources. The inquiry was made into the response given by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment on 11 October 1984 to the Committee's reports on the Commonwealth Government and the adequacy of administrative arrangements for urban environmental protection. The Minister, in his statement on the reports, criticised the long delay in achieving government response over the years of the Fraser Government. Two and a half years have now passed, in which the present Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has also failed to bring these matters to resolution. In his October statement the Minister claimed that the Hawke Government had been more 'expeditious' in reviewing the legislation. It is now May 1985 and the Minister has made little headway in achieving the recommendations accepted by his Department. The Minister has also failed to achieve intradepartmental agreement to recommendation No. 7 of the environmental protection reports of 1979. This recommendation was to amend the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, to allow the Minister for the environment to recommend to the proponent Minister that the Act be invoked. Under two and a half years of Hawke government no attempt has been made to amend the legislation nor has the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, through his Department, improved the situation which he inherited from the previous Government. There are still only five departments of which I am aware with which memoranda of understanding have been successfully negotiated, setting in place agreed arrangements for the analysis of government actions which may present a threat to the environment. Consequently, the Committee's report seeks an urgent review of these matters in an endeavour to ensure that all departments will become parties to agreed arrangements with the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The Department remains emasculated by this failure of the Minister to assert his authority in environmental issues and to have an environmental impact statement carried out on proposed action. There appears to have been opposition from financial and resource departments which have not agreed to relinquish their control over such matters. The recommendations of this most recent report call for an amendment to the Act to allow the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to consult proponent Ministers about the need to invoke the Act. If after consultation there is disagreement, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment should be able to recommend that action be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and if necessary take the matter to Cabinet. This recommendation should enable the Minister to come to some agreement with other departments to give him a measure of authority in environmental issues, through more conciliatory means. The Committee believes that, in the absence of a schedule of exempt items, departments should seek to have their memoranda of understanding refer to procedures to which normal environmental assessment processes need not apply. This would allow the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and other departments to review their activities as a whole during the memorand a negotiation period and to identify those activities which should be exempt. It would also help clarify the intended scope of the Act. Consequently the Committee recommended that memoranda of understanding refer to those activities of a department which are not considered to be within the ambit of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. A further deficiency that the Committee addressed was in the staffing of the Environment Assessment Branch of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Since the present Government took office there has been a steady reduction in staff. There are now only 12 staff handling the evaluation of environment impact studies over the entire area of Commonwealth administrative interest. It is evident that staffing of the Environment Assessment Branch needs to be reviewed, particularly in the light of the proposed changes in the Act and the need to develop memoranda of understanding with other departments. The Assessment Branch staff will be dealing with extremely important assessment procedures on projects worth millions of dollars and with a vastly increased work load, given the increased importance of the Department under our recommendations. The Committee has also recommended the secondment of officers from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Assessment Branch to other departments to provide environmental expertise as required. The Government has still not responded to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations on a number of issues. These include: The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, Commonwealth involvement in the Northern Territory, and Environmental Data and Reporting. Many of the matters raised in these reports remain unresolved, and a series of hearings should be mounted by the Committee to ascertain from the relevant departments the reason for the lack of progress. A further matter of concern is that of the compilation of the environmental impact study by the proponents of the action in relation to the activities initiated by any specific department. There can be no doubt that any environmental impact statement carried out by a proponent of a development is likely to be biased in favour of the desirable outcome. While the present system is in place this remains a problem which can best be responded to by enabling other interests to be involved either in compiling the EIS or in the final decision-making process. The Minister should be informed of all prospective programs which could have an environmental impact to enable him if necessary to present a point of view at least to the Minister responsible for the project. The Committee's recommendations address the deficiencies identified in the environmental protection activities of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. These deficiencies include the inability of the Minister to require that provisions of the Act be invoked, the inability of the Minister to require departments to furnish information and the failure of the Act to exempt activities where it would be administratively impracticable to undertake environmental assessment. It is hoped that the Minister will see fit, after this report, to put in force the recommendations of the Committee to enable the satisfactory performance of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment in helping, along with the State governments, to manage Australia's environment and natural resources. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-The passing by this Parliament of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 was a major step forward by a mature nation concerned with the development of our human and natural resources. The Act was not without its critics, misunderstandings and, indeed, some controversy. Its purpose was simply to ensure that those responsible for developing proposals and projects or for taking decisions on such work would consider and take cognisance of the environmental factors. At Federal Government level procedures were developed to ensure that departments and Ministers incorporated such environmental factors in the routine of project review. I believe that this Act has worked well and that its effects have not caused excessive delays, bureaucracy or inconvenience. The procedures do not allow for environmental impact statements to be implemented as a delaying tactic. Since it was enacted some 19,000 proposals have been referred to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment for consideration. Only 90 environmental impact statements have been considered necessary. The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation is therefore concerned that, despite past Committee reports, few departments have completed a formal memorandum of understanding and governments and Ministers responsible have delayed or not responded to recommendations in reports by the Committee on major issues of great import. This Committee does not ask Ministers or governments necessarily to agree with reports, but there is a responsibility-a grave responsibility-to meet the terms, requirements and purpose of this Act. I refer particularly to recommendations (1) and (2) in the report. They have already been quoted in full this evening. Sadly, this inquiry should not have been necessary. I sincerely hope that this report will ensure that the intent of the Act is observed in the interests of the total human environment. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third and fourth reports for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the development of the terminal area, Townsville Airport, and construction of the new telephone exchange for Telecom Australia, Kent Street, Sydney, respectively. I seek leave to make the briefest of statements. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. It is with more than ordinary satisfaction that I comment briefly on the presentation of the report in respect of the Townsville Airport terminal. The House will probably be aware that the Townsville community suffered the frustration of having a public hearing conducted on the project the very day before Parliament was dissolved and therefore the whole matter lapsed until the establishment of a new committee consequent on the election of the new Parliament. As a consequence, a sectional committee was required to travel to Townsville to inform the newer members, myself included, of the state of affairs. Naturally, in that situation we became very aware of the frustration, concern and apprehension of those in Townsville who have urgent need of a new terminal. We fell victim to human circumstances, and we assured them that the Public Works Committee would make a maximum effort to see that the report was furnished to the Parliament before the winter recess. I am happy to be in a position now to furnish a report, and I am quite sure that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who is now in the House, will join me in expressing the hope that the reasonable expectations of the Townsville community will be met as shortly as possible. JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 231st report of the Committee, entitled 'Auditor-General's Report, March 1982-Response', and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ROCHER —I thank the House. Report 231 contains the response to the Committee's 222nd report, in the form of a Department of Finance Minute sent to the Committee by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Honourable members will recall that the Committee's 222nd report examined the report of the Auditor-General, March 1982, which was tabled on 7 December 1983. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations concerned results of audits into matters affecting the departments of Defence, Health, Home Affairs and Environment, Primary Industry and Social Security. The Committee was advised in the response that the process of selection of helicopters for FFG-07 class guided missile frigates is continuing, with the delivery date still expected to be 1988. The Department of Health item-reimbursement to registered medical benefits organisations of Commonwealth medical benefits-has been included in the Committee's inquiry into medical fraud and overservicing. This inquiry is expected to report during the Budget sittings 1985. As from 11 March 1983, the Department of Territories became responsible for Norfolk Island and arrangements have been made to facilitate audit procedures and to prepare an asset register. Consideration of the Department of Primary Industry's levies, taxes and charges, was incorporated into a subsequent submission from the Department to the Committee dated 5 December 1983 and it appears in this report. The Department gave details of an improved system for levies and charges which was expected to be operating by 31 May 1984. Advice has since been received that the enhanced system became operational, as expected. The main changes which the Department of Social Security has implemented with regard to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service are as follows: Computerisation of the Service's statistical collections has begun and a national internal review undertaken; training workshops were held in conjunction with the review; as from November 1984, statistical bulletins are available for distribution at State office level; and a further system review, with the participation of the Auditor-General's Office, will be undertaken. I commend the report to honourable members. JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee's report entitled 'The Jackson Report on Australia's Overseas Aid Program', together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BILNEY —I thank the House. This inquiry was first referred to the Committee in the previous Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 7 June 1984, when he tabled the Jackson report in the House of Representatives. In tabling the report the Minister announced that there would be an opportunity to debate the major issues canvassed in the report and that this process would take about 12 months. The consequent debate in the community has indeed been vigorous and extensive, and has been assisted in no small measure by the willingness of members of the Jackson Committee, including its Chairman, Sir Gordon Jackson, to make themselves available to take part in it. As a result, the main issues addressed in the report have received the kind of thorough airing that an issue of the importance of Australia's aid activities deserves. The report of this Committee forms a part of that healthy process. In addressing the reference made to it, the Committee decided to focus its attention on six broad areas which have dominated the public debate and which are at the heart of the Jackson recommendations. Those areas are: Aid philosophy-the question of the relationship between trade and aid; aid to Papua New Guinea; the geographical distribution of aid; multilateral aid; and constraints on aid effectiveness, including the aid volume issue. As well, the Committee gave attention to several less broad but nonetheless highly important matters of significance to the Australian aid effort, including notably issues concerning women in the development process, the role of non-government organisations, and the future of development education. All of these areas involve issues on which very firm, often very different, views are held by individuals and groups within the Australian community. The Committee, like the Jackson Committee itself, was left in no doubt of the sincerity with which these differing viewpoints were held, and all were vigorously advocated during our hearings. At the end of this process, however, and with some qualifications I refer to later, the Committee found itself in general agreement with the spirit and recommendations of the Jackson report. In this regard the Committee found it helpful to meet with Sir Gordon and some of the members of his Committee on two occasions, in August last year and again in March of this year. On behalf of the members of the Committee, I pay tribute to Sir Gordon Jackson and the other members of the Review Committee for their efforts. The Jackson conclusion that the most effective contribution to aid lies in removing major constraints to development was endorsed by the Committee. A more sensitive and comprehensive mechanism of country programming within the Australian Development Assistance Bureau will help to ensure that the humanitarian purpose behind the giving of aid, which the Committee felt should be the paramount objective of aid programs, will be more effectively embodied in the overall Australian program. The trade-aid question dominated the public hearings of the Committee with a range of conflicting views being put to us. The Jackson Committee was against the use of aid as a subsidy mechanism for industry or as a substitute for industry policy. The Confederation of Australian Industry referred to the Jackson Committee's approach as one which abstracts itself from the real world, while some non-government organisations took the view that the increased use of mechanisms such as the development of the import finance facility would not be a legitimate means of meeting aid objectives. The Committee's conclusion was generally to support the Jackson Committee approach, but it has suggested that ADAB improve its efforts to ensure that the business community is fully aware of the opportunities available to it under the aid program. The report points out some of those opportunities. In that connection and in response to one view pressed with the Committee by the business community in particular, the report notes that, if our aid to Papua New Guinea is excluded, Australia has one of the most heavily tied bilateral programs in the world, and very little scope remains to increase the extent of tying, even if that were thought desirable. The Committee concluded that the value of the aid program to commercial interests can best be extended not by further tying but by careful selection and design of aid programs so as to emphasise areas in which Australia is competitive. In regard to aid to Papua New Guinea, the Committee supports the Jackson proposal for a predictable and gradual reduction in Budget support accompanied by a move from that form of aid to project aid. The Jackson Committee suggested a 5 per cent decline in the level of Budget support with a 3 per cent decline in the overall level of aid. The Committee considers that the Jackson recommendations should serve as the basis for our agreement with Papua New Guinea but that the rates of decline recommended by Jackson should be gradually accelerated. Another important area of discussion on the Jackson report has been the geographic focus recommended in it, and particularly as that affects aid to Africa. Jackson suggested four geographic categories for Australia's aid effort, and this Committee supports the general thrust of the Jackson recommendations aimed at rationalising the geographic distribution for our program and thus increasing the effectiveness of our overall aid effort. So far as Africa is concerned, the Committee recommended that Australia give very positive consideration to joining the African Development Bank at an early date. This would give Australia an enhanced and much more effective involvement in long term project aid in Africa, where 26 of the world's 36 poorest countries are located, and would complement the continued Australian effort in all other areas of aid to Africa, which the Jackson report recommends and which the Committee supports. The Committee also suggested that membership of the Caribbean Development Bank be considered at a later stage should Australia develop particular expertise in the problems of small island states. The Jackson Committee's findings on the management of aid delivery were commented on by the Minister when he tabled the report. He noted that it documents a sad history and points to considerable room for improvement. The Committee was informed that initiatives are under way to improve the resources and capabilities of ADAB. The Committee strongly supports the Jackson recommendations on aid management. It has recommended the establishment of an external review unit and an internal effectiveness review unit, their purpose being to monitor the implementation of the Jackson recommendations and, in the case of the former, to report annually on the Government's response to the report. The external review unit would be made up of individuals chosen from, inter alia, the business community, trade unions, non-government aid organisations, ADAB, the academic community and the Parliament. The proposal that the head of ADAB be made a statutory officer was considered favourably by the Committee. Finally, the Committee noted with disquiet the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 14 May 1985 that the Forward Estimates for the aid program had been reduced by $23.9m, and pointed to the likelihood that many of the Jackson recommendations which have attracted community support would have to be delayed or forgone unless available resources were increased. In concluding, I thank the members of the Sub-committee who first considered the report and the members of the main Committee whose expeditious consideration of it allowed it to be tabled here today. I would also thank the Director of ADAB for seconding Mr Kerr-Stevens of his organisation to act as the adviser to the Sub-committee. The Secretariat, as I have come to expect, worked tirelessly and deserve much of the credit, but none of the blame, for this report. I note that Mr Bergin, the Secretary of the Committee, is present in the chamber at the moment. In that connection I give particular thanks to the secretariat's word processing staff-Mrs Tie, Mrs Scott, Mrs Morrison and Mrs Richardson-who put in long hours under unusual difficulties to ensure the report was produced on time. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —by leave-I endorse the remarks which have been made by the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney). I congratulate not only those he has recognised but also the honourable member himself for his chairmanship of the Sub-committee of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee which has produced this report. I want to remark just on one thing, and that relates to Papua New Guinea. I endorse what the honourable member said in this respect. However, I want to make one explanatory statement. The honourable member said: The Committee's conclusion was generally to support the Jackson Committee approach, but it has suggested that ADAB improve its efforts to ensure that the business community is fully aware of the opportunities available to it under the aid program. It is important that we point that out in all areas of our aid program. I suggest that it is particularly important in respect of Papua New Guinea. I quote again from what the honourable member for Kingston just said: The report notes that, if our aid to Papua New Guinea is excluded, Australia has one of the most heavily tied bilateral programs in the world, and very little scope remains to increase the extent of tying, even if that were thought desirable. Again, I strongly endorse those sentiments and repeat what the honourable member just observed. He said: The Committee concluded that the value of the aid program to commercial interests can best be extended not by further tying but by careful selection and design of aid programs so as to emphasise areas in which Australia is competitive. The honourable member went on-I stress this on behalf of the Opposition-to say: In regard to aid to Papua New Guinea, the Committee supports the Jackson proposal for a predictable and gradual reduction in Budget support accompanied by a move from that form of aid to project aid. The honourable member went on to endorse the approach taken by the Jackson Committee on Overseas Aid regarding the rate of change from Budget support to project aid. The point I make is that this does not mean-as I know the entire Committee agrees-that the move to project aid is a means of reducing Australia's expenditure in respect of Papua New Guinea. It may be that that is the result, but it is not the intention of this recommendation. I am sure the honourable member agrees with me. Above all, the purpose of our aid to Papua New Guinea is that it provide stability and a capacity for that country to develop and to become as self-reliant as possible. Australia will always have a special relationship with and a special obligation to Papua New Guinea. It is extremely important that, as we move to project aid from what may now be a less efficient form of aid to that country, we do not suggest to ourselves or to Papua New Guinea that this be necessarily a means of reducing our expenditure on aid or a means of shifting the components of our aid from Papua New Guinea to somewhere else. I believe it is very important-I know it was the sentiment of the Committee-that the people of Papua New Guinea be assured that this shift in our aid is aimed not at a reduction in our expenditure but at an increase in the efficiency with which the aid is used so that that country may become more self-reliant and less dependent on our aid in the future. It may be that the effect will be that there is less of a drain upon our Budget as well as its being of great benefit to that country. Lest there should be any suggestion in the Papua New Guinea media or, indeed, in our media that we are in any way sanctioning a shift towards a reduced contribution to Papua New Guinea relative to the rest of the aid program, I wanted to make that point. I believe it was made clear in the contribution of the honourable member for Kingston when he said, on behalf of the Committee, that we were concerned about a statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the foreign aid program. In the case of Papua New Guinea, I am disturbed by some suggestions already that we are somehow going to walk away from our obligations to that country; rather by endorsing this proposal we are seeking to meet those obligations more cost effectively. PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the 3rd report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO VIETNAM, CAMBODIA, THAILAND AND LAOS Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr HUMPHREYS —I would like to pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, Senator Robertson from the Australian Labor Party, and to all other members of the delegation. I pay a special tribute to the Secretary, Mr Hume, and the adviser from the Indo-China section of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Hunt. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), on his efforts to have a parliamentary delegation visit the Indo-China region to see at first hand the problems associated with those countries. I assure the House that the trip taken later on by the Foreign Minister was worthwhile. Although he received some bad Press on that trip, the visits by him and by the delegation were very worthwhile and they were honourable. I am sure that the efforts of the Foreign Minister to bring peace and stability to the region will one day bear fruit. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(1.27 a.m.) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 20 August 1985, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. In moving this motion I express my appreciation to the Whip and his Deputy on our side of the House, to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), and to the Whip and the Deputy Whip on the Opposition side for their co-operation throughout this session. I welcome too for their first session all the new members who have participated in this rather hectic finish to a parliamentary session which, if history proves to be correct, will not be unusual. Governments can try to do something about it, but we always face problems in fixing these things, and I express my gratitude to all members who have participated in this session. Question resolved in the affirmative. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hodgman-On a point of order, Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 ——

AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J.

NOES Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Slipper, P. N.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 1.38 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, 20 August 1985, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. NOTICES The following notices were given: Mr Ruddock to move- That this House: Having regard to- (a) the desire of all people to live in peace and freedom and to enjoy basic human rights, including the right to self-determination; (b) Australia's membership of the United Nations and regard for the principles of its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by its General Assembly on 14 December 1960 by Resolution 1514 (XV) and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement, and (c) the fact that, whilst the Australian people have acquired these rights and freedoms, other peoples are deprived of them, and Noting- (d) the Resolution of the European Parliament on the Situation in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) adopted on 13 January 1983, (e) that the 3 Baltic States were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations during the years 1918 to 1940, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union in consequence of an agreement between the then German Government under Hitler and the Soviet Government under Stalin (the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), (f) that the occupation of these States by the Soviet Union still continues, but that in accord with other democratic governments the Australian government has not recognised ''de jure'' their incorporation into the Soviet Union, (g) that the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being denied many basic human rights but that they have not given up their struggle for self-determination and freedom, and (h) that an intensive process of Russification is taking place in these occupied countries aimed at the elimination of the indigenous languages and culture; and- Resolves, therefore that- (1) Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and should support the European Parliament's resolution in respect of the Baltic States; (2) in order to do so, the Australian Government should, on its own initiative and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and (3) the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Dr Klugman to move- That this House: Noting that- (a) the 3 Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations from 1918-1940; (b) in 1940, as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany, the 3 States were incorporated into the USSR by military force and in a manner which violated elementary principles of freedom, democracy and justice; (c) like other democratic governments, Australia does not recognize de jure the incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR; (d) under Soviet rule, well-documented violations of human rights have occurred and continue to occur in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia- (1) Acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the situation in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, particularly the repression of individuals engaging in the non-violent expression of their ethnic and cultural identity and religious convictions; (2) Commends the Government for its action in bringing this concern to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at the Commission's meeting in March and to invite the Government to continue to pay attention to this important issue; (3) calls upon the Government of the USSR to end acts of repression against the Baltic peoples and to abide by the commitments which it has entered into under the various international covenants on human rights to which it is a signatory, and (4) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. PAPERS The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 May 1985: Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 68, 71. Health Insurance Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 70. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: Oil Prices (Question No. 2) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether a sharp decline in oil prices could re-ignite the international debt crisis, especially for high-cost oil producers, and strain moderate regimes whose stability depends on economic growth; if so, will he indicate whether any contingency plans are being developed by industrial democracies in the event that declining oil prices trigger an international banking crisis. (2) Is he also able to say whether there have been any attempts by the industrial democracies to prepare a dialogue between producers and consumers to enable oil-producing countries to continue the minimum development programs required for political stability, and further to develop plans should political stability in the Persian Gulf collapse. (3) What action is the Government taking to promote contingency planning by the industrial democracies in these areas. Mr Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) The Government is continuing to monitor the situation with regard to the debt servicing difficulties of the major debtor countries. While we cannot be sanguine about debt prospects, the measures undertaken since 1982 have been largely successful in managing the debt problem, and with the easing of the immediate financing situation, it seems that the risk of default by major debtor countries and a convulsion in the international banking system has diminished. Oil exporting countries with large external debts include Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia. Any sharp decline in oil prices would clearly have an adverse impact on their current account positions, debt-servicing capacity and growth potential, although these effects would be moderated by higher non-oil exports with the favourable demand effects of lower oil prices in the rest of the world. Overall, however, a sharp decline in oil prices could be expected to have a favourable effect on the world debt situation through the improvement of the current account positions of the many oil-importing debtor countries including such major debtors as Brazil and Argentina (as it would for many poorer countries, for example in Africa, which are facing serious foreign exchange and debt problems). This would free scarce foreign exchange for the servicing of debt. Of the oil-exporting debtor countries mentioned, only Mexico would seem to have the level of external debt, and concentration of bank claims, that could potentially cause substantial difficulties for the international financial system in the event that its debt-servicing was interrupted. It would seem unlikely, however, given Mexico's favourable record of economic adjustment so far, and the buoyancy of its non-oil exports, that a sharp decline in oil prices would lead to such an interruption. In view of the expected overall favourable effect on the world debt situation of a sharp decline in oil prices, it would be difficult to envisage such a development leading to 'an international banking crisis'. To my knowledge there are no contingency plans being developed specifically against the possibility that the debt problems of some countries might deteriorate should oil prices decline sharply, though the International Monetary Fund keeps a close watch on the debt situation. Both creditor and debtor countries continue to support the flexible, case by case approach to debt relief. This approach has the important advantage that it can be tailored to the particular problems of individual countries. A sustained and widespread world economic recovery, a reduction in real interest rates, continued (and improved) trade access by developing countries to the markets of industrialised countries, and continued economic adjustment in the debtor countries themselves, remain the critical factors in determining future prospects for the major debtor countries. (2) the International Energy Agency, IEA, is the principal forum in which major industrial democracies-except France-address a wide range of energy issues, including those bearing on producer/consumer contacts. The Ad Hoc Group on International Energy Relations, of which Australia is a member, keeps the issues relating to producer/consumer relations under constant review. It has not, so far, however, seen the need to recommend that the member countries move towards a formal, multilateral dialogue with the oil producing countries. Through its functional groups, the IEA has also continued to monitor the impact of changes in oil demand and supply patterns on the economies of producers and consumers and promoted measures intended to enhance stability in international energy markets. Recent developments have required many producer countries to trim their development programs. The continued strength of the United States dollar, however, has acted to reduce the impact on their revenues of the reduction in oil prices and permitted them to maintain substantial development programs. (3) A major focus of the IEA, through its implementation of the International Energy Program, is to improve the energy position and security of member countries and develop cooperative mechanisms to minimise the effects of major oil supply disruptions. Through its membership of the IEA, the Australian Government participates actively in measures directed towards these ends. Family Court: Defended Cases (Question No. 115) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) How many defended cases were awaiting hearing in (a) the Sydney, (b) the Parramatta and (c) the Melbourne Registries of the Family Court of Australia on (i) 1 February 1983, (ii) 1 February 1984 and (iii) 1 February 1985. (2) What was the anticipated delay in having matters in the defended lists of the Family Court heard in (a) the Sydney, (b) the Parramatta and (c) the Melbourne Registries in the case of matters set down for hearing on (i) 1 February 1983, (ii) 1 February 1984, and (iii) 1 February 1985. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The Principal Registrar has advised that statistics are not kept by the Family Court of Australia relating to the number of defended cases awaiting hearing at the three Registries. Statistics are kept relating to the number of matters in the defended lists at the three Registries. Each of the three Registries has a different basis on which and stage at which a matter enters its defended list. The total number of matters in the defended lists for the three Registries on the dates requested were- (a) Sydney (b) Parramatta (c) Melbourne (i) 1 February 1983 493 422 818 (ii) 1 February 1984 553 669 752 (iii) 1 February 1985 493 443 660 (2) The Principal Registrar has provided the following information, in relation to defended matters heard on the dates specified, as to the actual delays that occurred from the time of entry of the matter on the defended list until the date of hearing- (a) Sydney (b) Parramatta (c) Melbourne (i) 1 February 1983 12 months 7 months 8 months (ii) 1 February 1984 11 months 15 months 11 months (iii) 1 February 1985 16 months 18 months 13 months Family Court: Confidential Counselling (Question No. 116) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) What is the current delay in the availability of confidential counselling in the Family Court of Australia registries at (a) Sydney, (b) Parramatta and (c) Melbourne. (2) How many (a) counselling reports are currently outstanding at, and (b) outstanding counselling reports are awaited for use in cases currently in the defended lists of, the Family Court of Australia registries, at (i) Sydney, (ii) Parramatta and (iii) Melbourne. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The current delay in confidential counselling for the Family Court of Australia registries specified is-(a) Sydney-2 weeks; (b) Parramatta-4 weeks; (c) Melbourne-1-2 weeks. (2) (a) The numbers of counselling reports currently outstanding at the Family Court of Australia registries specified are-(i) Sydney-211; (ii) Parramatta-70; (iii) Melbourne-150. (b) In relation to the numbers of outstanding counselling reports that are awaited for use in cases currently in the defended lists at the Family Court of Australia registries specified, the position is as follows- (i) Sydney: The figure is not recorded at the Sydney registry and can only be obtained by a search of the files in all of the 211 matters awaiting preparation of reports. The Principal Registrar advises that diverting staff to such an exercise would cause appreciable disruption to the normal functioning of the Sydney registry. (ii) Parramatta: 4. (iii) Melbourne: Nil. The Principal Registrar advises that matters awaiting preparation of counselling reports at the Melbourne registry are not entered on the defended list. When the report is prepared, the matter is automatically placed in the next call-over list for allocation of a hearing date. National Anthem (Question No. 141) Mr Maher asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Will the Government make a copy of the music for the National Anthem available on request to any school free of charge. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A special new arrangement of the music with words of the National Anthem, Advance Australia Fair, has been produced and printed for distribution within the Government's free-issue program. Copies are available on request from my Department. Department of Defence: Language Availability Performance Allowance (Question No. 212) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are four employees of the Department in receipt of language availability performance allowance. (2) Records are kept of staff in receipt of a language availability performance allowance and a record is kept of the languages spoken by these staff. The staff receiving the allowance are able to effectively meet the clients needs. (3) Payment of the allowance is subject to periodic review. Attorney General's Department: Repetitive Strain Injury (Question No. 295) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 73 (b) 88. (2) Sex: 157 female; 4 male; Type of duties: 146 keyboard, 15 clerical; Claims accepted: 160; claims rejected: 1; claims for which liability admitted: 108; claims under consideration: 52. (3) 48 staff are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated to date. (A person is regarded as being successfully rehabilitated when they return full-time to their original, or another suitable, position.) Medical and other specialist advice is closely followed in the rehabilitation of RSI sufferers and most sufferers gradually return to selected, part-time duties until they are fit to resume full time. Other steps include the engagement of a Consultant Physiotherapist in the Department's Central Office in Canberra to access the needs of persons during rehabilitation. A newly created position of full-time Occupational Health and Safety Officer is expected to be filled in the near future on a permanent basis. A rehabilitation program has been drafted and is currently the subject of consultation with the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Ergonomic furniture is being supplied and exercise class commenced for RSI sufferers, in an effort to assist rehabilitation. (4) Throughout the portfolio, ergonomic furniture is being supplied to all keyboard staff. Rest breaks, aerobics and office exercise programs have been introduced for keyboard staff together with an examination of typing workloads. Information sessions (both audio and visual) have been introduced for keyboard staff. Seminars are being held for authors and multi-skilled positions are being created to provide varied duties for keyboard personnel. The Occupational Health and Safety Officer will have a role in injury prevention. Department of Housing and Construction: Repetitive Strain Injury (Question No. 307) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of the claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 45 (b) 77 (2) Sex Duty Male Female Total Keyboard 1 86 87 Data Processing 0 10 10 Clerical 1 14 15 Trades 8 2 10 122 Of the 122 claims, 98 have been accepted, 6 were rejected and 18 have not yet been determined. (3) 40. Rehabilitation is achieved by redeploying staff resuming duty in accordance with the physical limitations imposed by medical officers and wherever possible with the preference of the officer as to work areas. Every effort is made to provide appropriate support and encouragement to returning staff. (4) Medical and paramedical specialists have addressed senior officers and keyboard staff of the Department on RSI prevention and treatment. Throughout the Department a number of consultant physiotherapists have been engaged to work with management, keyboard and other staff. The physiotherapists conduct exercise classes and advise keyboard staff on posture and relaxation techniques. The physiotherapists also train staff in the proper use of screen-based equipment and ergonomic furniture and provide advice on redeployment and rehabilitation of RSI sufferers. A compulsory rest break of ten minutes after every hour of typing has been introduced and staff are rostered, wherever possible in such a way as to avoid excessive periods on repetitive or intensive keyboard operation. Where appropriate, jobs have been redesigned and the distribution of work altered to minimise repetitive tasks. Policy directives and guidelines on the safe use of screen-based equipment and guidelines for the prevention of RSI have been issued to management and staff. A series of circulars on aspects of the problem has been issued to keyboard and other staff. Ergonomic furniture for visual display unit operators has been designed as part of the Commonwealth furniture range and provided to keyboard staff. Department of Transport:Repetitive Strain Injury (Question No. 311) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps have been taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for the Department of Transport and the two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission and the Australian Shipping Commission. I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission, an authority established by the Constitution. Details for each of these four organisations are as follows: (1) 1984-85 to 1983-84 20.3.85 A. Department of Transport 5 54 B. Australian Shipping Commission 5 3 C. Australian National Railways Commission 9 4 D. Inter-State Commission 0 2 (2) A. Department of Transport (i) 58 females, 1 male (ii) 46 keyboard, 13 clerical (iii) (a) accepted-44 (b) rejected-nil (c) finalised-44 (15 are under consideration) B. Australian Shipping Commission (i) 7 females, 1 male (ii) 5 VDU operators, 3 keyboard operators (iii) (a) accepted-4 (b) rejected-nil (c) finalised-4 (4 are under consideration) C. Australian National Railways Commission (i) 6 females, 7 males (ii) (a) keyboard - 3 (b) clerical - 1 (c) carriage and wagon maker - 1 (d) goods shed assistant - 1 (e) metal trades helper - 1 (f) assistant ganger - 1 (g) diesel fitter - 1 (h) car cleaner - 2 (i) locomotive driver - 1 (j) signalman - 1 (iii) (a) accepted - 13 (b) rejected - nil (c) finalised - 13 D. Inter-State Commission (i) 2 females, no males (ii) 1 clerical, 1 keyboard operator (iii) (a) accepted-1 (b) rejected-nil (c) finalised-1 (one is under consideration). (3) A. Department of Transport: 22 successfully rehabilitated B. Australian Shipping Commission: 5 C. Australian National Railways Commission: 10 D. Inter-State Commission: 1 A variety of measures common to all the above organisations have been taken to achieve successful rehabilitation. These include: (i) redeployment to non-risk duties, followed in some cases by gradual return to usual duties in accordance with medical advice (ii) redesign of work stations (iii) diversification of usual duties. (4) A. Department of Transport: (i) staff are encouraged to report early symptoms of RSI (ii) regular rest and exercise breaks for keyboard staff are encouraged (iii) steps have been taken to reduce keyboard workload by increased use of handwritten correspondence in appropriate cases (iv) a consultant physiotherapist was engaged in 1984 to advise on keyboard work-station design and exercise for keyboard staff (v) experimentation in job redesign to reduce the component of keyboard work in certain positions (vi) awareness-raising among all levels of staff. (vii) the Department has established an RSI Action Committee to provide advice on the problem and to provide improved services to RSI victims. B. Australian Shipping Commission: (i) staff encouraged to report early symptoms (ii) affected staff are examined by Shipping Commission's medical officer whose recommendations on treatment and suitable duties are implemented. C. Australian National Railways Commission: (i) policy on use of keyboard equipment developed in consultation with relevant unions and implemented (ii) recommendations of Railway Commission's medical officer are followed. D. Inter-State Commission: (i) all staff have been made aware of the RSI problem and of preventative measures (ii) keyboard staff are encouraged to take a ten minute break for every hour on keyboard duties (iii) keyboard staff are also encouraged to do preventative exercises (iv) a physiotherapist has been engaged to increase awareness of RSI among staff and to advise on equipment standards. New Zealand Security Personnel: Defence Signals Directorate (Question No. 332) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Are New Zealand security personnel working in the Defence Signals Directorate no longer permitted access to intelligence information collected by the USA; if so, are these officers to be sent home. (2) How many officers are involved. (3) Will the Australian Government be required to replace some or all of the officers; if so, what is the expected cost. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Consistent with the long-established policy of Australian Governments not to respond to questions on intelligence and related matters, I am not in a position to answer the question. But I take this opportunity to advise the honourable member of the Government's policy on the continuing intelligence relationship with New Zealand. Following the United States decision to reduce substantially the flow of US intelligence to New Zealand, the Government examined the adjustments required in the intelligence relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Australia's long-standing intelligence co-operation with New Zealand will continue. The Government will continue to abide by the long-established principle of not passing intelligence obtained from one country to any third country without the prior consent of the originator. As the Prime Minister made clear on 27 February 1985, the Government will work to ensure that no US-sourced intelligence is passed to New Zealand without the agreement of the United States. In view of the important strategic interests which Australia and New Zealand share, Australia will continue to provide New Zealand with access to intelligence of Australian origin. Special emphasis is being given to the continuation of combined maritime surveillance and intelligence activities in areas of primary Australian and New Zealand interest. Procedures have been established to facilitate the release to New Zealand, on a continuing basis, of a range of Australian intelligence briefs and reports that do not contain US-sourced information. Liaison arrangements between Australia's and New Zealand's intelligence organisations are being maintained. New Zealand liaison officers continue to have access to Australia's intelligence agencies and periodic conferences and meetings will be held between Australian and New Zealand intelligence officials. I take this opportunity also to advise the honourable member that the Government continues to maintain the necessary range of effective intelligence activities appropriate for our national requirements. These have been in no way diminished by recent developments in relation to the US policy with respect to New Zealand. Appointments: Department of Housing and Construction (Question No. 372) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: 1. What (a) statutory authorities and; (b) advisory panels or councils come within his jurisdiction and what is the; (i) name; (ii) date and period of appointment of each member; 2. What (a) remuneration and; (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are two statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Housing and Construction, namely, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (HLIC) and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC). 1. Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (HLIC) Travel allowance per over- night stay Remune- Date of Period of ration Expenses Capital Other Name Position appointment appointment allowance of office cities centres $ $ $ $ Mr J. M. B. Fitzpatrick Chairman 18.6.78 7 years 65,417 pa 1,900 pa 100 70 Mr J. T. Rowe D/Chairman 18.6.85 * 7 years 52,551 pa 1,355 pa 100 70 Mr S. W. Begg Part-time Member 17.5.83 3 years 6,609 pa . . 100 80 Mr J. M. L. Tune Part-time Member 31.1.84 3 years 6,609 pa . . 100 80 Ms M. J. Vipond Part-time Member 4.10.84 3 years 6,609 pa . . 100 80 * date of effect 2. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) Travel allowance per over- night stay Remune- Date of Period of ration Expenses Capital Other Name Position appointment appointment allowance of office cities centres $ $ $ $ Mr D. G. Price Director 17.4.82 7 years 74,588 3,800 125 95 Mr T. E. Lewis Asst Director 20.7.78 7 years 61,129 1,900 100 70 Mr R. R. Neal Asst Director 20.7.78 7 years 61,129 1,900 100 70 Mr J. L. Liebelt Chairman Designate of the Interim Board (Part-time) 3.10.84 * 304 per day . . 125 95 * Currently advisory position-appointment as Chairman dependent on passage of legislation. Remuneration and allowances in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determinations. There are 7 advisory committees under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Housing and Construction 1. Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry Travel allowance per over- night stay Remune- Date of Period of ration Expenses Capital Other Name Position appointment appointment allowance of office cities centres $ $ $ $ Professor F. H. Gruen National Chairman 4.10.84 3 years 9,652 nil 100 70 State/Territory Mr R. J. Thompson N.S.W. Chairman 23.9.84 1 year 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr D. R. Dossetor Victorian Chairman 23.9.84 2 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr D. R. Deans Queensland Chairman 23.9.84 2 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr R. L. Seares Western Australian Chairman 26.9.84 3 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr B. P. Martin South Australian Chairman 23.9.84 3 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Professor P. Scott Tasmania Chairman 23.9.84 1 year 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr J. B. C. Kirby Australian Capital Territory Chairman 23.9.84 2 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 Mr T. O'Neil Northern Territory Chairman 10.5.84 3 years 131 per day nil sitting fee 100 70 On 23.9.1984, the appointment of the following organisations was confirmed, with representation and period of appointment determined by the organisation itself. (Current occupants are listed) Confederation of Australian Industry Mr E. A. Bajkowski Australian Finance Conference Mr J. M. Bills Reserve Bank of Australia Dr S. Granville Australian Bankers' Association Mr R. B. Cameron Master Builders' Federation of Australia Mr G. G. Inglis Australian Council of Trade Unions Mr J. Rutherford National Manufacturers' Council Mr B. Padman The Real Estate Institute of Australia Mr G. J. Lawrence Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies Mr J. Toms Urban Development Institute of Australia Mr M. G. McDonald Housing Industry of Australia Dr R. Silberberg Department of Housing and Con- struction Dr R. G. Hawkins Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr G. Dixon Australian Bureau of Statistics Mr J. F. Wilson Treasury Dr D. Russell The above members do not receive fees but are provided with the necessary air travel at first class rates. All are entitled to a travelling allowance at Senior Executive Service rates. 2. Construction Industry Council (CIC) Date of Period of appoint- appoint- Name Position ment ment Minister of Housing and Construction Chairman Secretary, Department of Housing and Construction D/Chair- man 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr B. Beer Member 6.4.84 Indefinite Mr K. Brown Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr W. H. Cairns Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr G. Cook Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr G. Crawford Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr I. Duncan Member 6.4.84 Indefinite Mr T. McDonald Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr K. Mealey Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Dr P. O. Miller Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr R. Owens Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr N. Sarah Member 9.12.83 Indefinite Mr D. Summers Member 20.9.84 Indefinite Mr R. Young Member 20.9.84 Indefinite Mr R. G. Hawkins Secretary 9.12.83 Indefinite Members do not receive sitting fees or travel allowance but are provided with necessary first class air travel. 3. Construction Forecasting Committee Date of Period of appoint- appoint- Name Position ment ment Dr R. G. Hawkins Chairman 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr A. Hayes Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr D. Eager Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr E. Schick Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr P. Verwer Member 13.2.84 Indefinite Mr G. Foster Member 12.11.83 Indefinite Mr J. Mendel Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr D. Jackson Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr D. Efford Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr A. Oster Member 20.12.83 Indefinite Mr D. Williams Secretary June 84 Indefinite Australian Council of Trade Union Nominee (to be advised) Members do not receive sitting fees or travel allowance but are provided with the necessary air travel at first class rates. 4. Building Research and Development Advisory Committee Date of Period of appoint- appoint- Name Position ment ment Dr P. O. Miller Chairman 4.4.84 1.7.84- 30.6.85 Mr R. Bonaldi Member 27.8.79 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Mr K. Bradshaw Member 22.6.84 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Mr P. Hansen Member 22.6.84 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Mr D. Kessler Member 22.6.84 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Mr W. G. Ryan Member 22.6.84 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Mr P. Troy Member 22.6.84 30.6.86 Mr D. Turner Member 22.6.84 1.7.84- 30.6.86 Members do not receive sitting fees but are provided with necessary air travel at first class rates. 5. Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing- Steering Committee Date Period of of appoint- appoint- Name Position ment ment Mr C. Banks Chairman 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr F. Fisher Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr G. Inglis Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr A. Munl Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr N. Smith Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr R. Smyth Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr M. Verhoeven Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Mr R. Welsh Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Dr R. Hawkins Member 26.10.83 Indefinite Members do not receive sitting fees or travelling allowances. 6. Australian Housing Council Members were appointed on 3.10.84 for indefinite terms. With the exception of the two Ministerial nominees, members were appointed to the Council as representatives of industry organisations rather than as private individuals. Membership comprises: The Federal Minister for Housing and Construction (Chairman), the Hon. Stewart West, MP The Federal Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the Hon. Tom Uren, MP The Federal Minister for Territories, the Hon. Gordon Scholes, MP The Victorian Minister for Housing, the Hon. F. Wilkes, MLA The NSW Minister for Housing, the Hon. F. Walker, QC, MLA The Queensland Minister for Housing and Construction, the Hon. C. Wharton, MLA The Northern Territory Minister for Transport, Works and Housing, the Hon. D. Manzie, MLA The South Australian Minister for Housing and Construction, the Hon. T. Hemmings, MHA The Western Australian Minister for Housing, the Hon. K. Wilson, MLA The Tasmanian Minister for Housing, Consumer Affairs and Recreation, the Hon. B. Lyons, MHA The Chairman, Indicative Planning Council, Prof. F. Gruen The Chairman, Australian Bankers Association, Mr J. Booth The National President, Housing Industry Association, Mr D. R. Rossetor, OBE, DFC The President, Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, Mr J. Pounsett The President, Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr K. Sullivan The President, Australian Council of Local Government Associations, Cr D. Ross The National President, Urban Development Institute of Australia, Mr M. McDonald The President, Master Builders Federation of Australia, Mr M. O'Brien The Chairperson, National Shelter, Mr A. Dalton The Secretary-General, Australian Council of Social Service, Mr C. Menzies The President, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr C. Dolan Ministerial Nominee, Mr P. Troy Ministerial Nominee, Dr D. Stammer The Secretary, Federal Department of Housing and Construction, Mr A. Blunn No sitting fees or travel allowances are paid to the members. 7. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-Consultative Council Date of Period of Name Position appointment appointment Remuneration $ Mr D. A. Cook Chairman 24.6.84 Indefinite nil Mr T. I. McCreery Member 24.6.84 Indefinite $40 per day ($20 if meeting less than 3 hrs) Mr E. B. Brier Member 24.6.84 Indefinite $40 per day ($20 if meeting less than 3 hrs) Mr J. C. Humphreys Member 24.6.84 Indefinite nil Mr D. G. Stafford Member 24.6.84 Indefinite nil Mr A. Manderson Member 24.6.84 Indefinite nil Only Messrs McCreary and Brier receive travelling allowance and airfares. All other members are Commonwealth Departmental employees and as meetings are held in the Cooma/Canberra area it has not been necessary to pay travelling allowance. Multicultural Television (Question No. 422) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: (1) Have any recent surveys been carried out to determine the level of viewing of multicultural television; if so, what are the results and how do they compare with similar surveys carried out in past years. (2) What is the estimated number of viewers and how does this number compare with those who watch other television channels. (3) Is he able to say what proportion of viewers of multicultural television were born overseas and are not proficient in English. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Audience surveys are regularly carried out for the television and advertising industries by McNair Anderson Pty Limited. There are no other regular full scale measurements. The reports issued to the industry provide quarter hour by quarter hour ratings (percentage of total television homes reached) together with basic sex, age, and housewife demographics. Dependent upon the nature of the program, SBS ratings generally range between 1 per cent to 4 per cent with some programs occasionally rating 2 per cent to 3 per cent higher. This is a similar pattern to those in other surveys over past years. (2) The most recent October/November (Melbourne) survey indicates that programs on commercial stations gained ratings of between 4 per cent and 37 per cent, dependent upon time of placement, their popularity, and the competitive program scheduling strategies of other stations. Commercial television channels have a high interest in quarter hour by quarter hour audience levels as they have the necessity to demonstrate their reach of audience for each quarter hour in which advertisers' commercial announcements are placed. The whole of the program format of SBS Television (i.e. not just each quarter hour) is directed towards meeting its overall multicultural purposes. A special re-analysis is obtained following each McNair Anderson survey in Sydney and Melbourne, to determine the total unduplicated number of people who have been induced to sample SBS Television programming over an average survey week. Analysis just completed for both Sydney and Melbourne indicates that over the eight surveys (over 32 weeks) in each of these two cities during 1984, an average of some 444,000 people (Sydney) and 549,000 people (Melbourne) per week, took the opportunity to view one or more SBS television programs. Comparable figures for earlier years are as follows: Sydney Melbourne Total 1982 354,000 399,000 753,000 1983 409,000 496,000 905,000 1984 444,000 549,000 993,000 These special re-analyses have not been commissioned in respect of other channels. (3) The regular audience survey reports issued by McNair Anderson Pty. Limited do not provide demographic detail of audiences to the level of refinement necessary to identify those born overseas, and who are not proficient in English. Ethnic Radio (Question No. 423) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: (1) Have any recent surveys been carried out to determine the level of listening of ethnic radio; if so, what are the results and how do they compare with similar surveys carried out in past years. (2) What is the estimated number of listeners and how does this number compare with those who listen to other radio stations. (3) Is he able to say what proportion of listeners of ethnic radio were born overseas and are not proficient in English. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The regular McNair Anderson Pty Limited radio audience surveys do not reflect levels of listening to the Special Broadcasting Service's ethnic radio stations, 2EA and 3EA. This is understandable because of the fragmented nature of the audience of the SBS's radio programs which are specifically designed to service individual ethnic communities. Accordingly it is necessary for the SBS to commission separate audience surveys within each ethnic community to measure, inter alia, levels of listening. These surveys are costly, however two have been commissioned in the past five years, in October 1980 and June 1984. The statistics below show the percentage of respondents to these audience surveys in each ethnic group who listened to the respective 2EA/3EA radio language programs. It will be noted that only 3 language programs, Italian and Vietnamese (Sydney) and Greek (Melbourne) were surveyed in both 1980 and 1984. Per cent of Language Respondents who Program listened 1980 1984 Sydney (2EA) Italian 43 67 Maltese 67 Polish 72 Turkish 91 Vietnamese 70 92 Spanish 43 Arabic 82 Melbourne (3EA) Greek 89 80 German 45 Spanish 84 Turkish 78 Vietnamese 77 Arabic 85 Dutch 66 Polish 82 (2) This information is not available. (3) This information is not available. River Murray Waters Agreement (Question No. 472) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: Will the Minister as a matter of urgency (a) explore with the relevant State Governments the means whereby the deficiencies of the River Murray Waters Agreement as a mechanism for co-operative management of the Murray-Darling Basin can be overcome, (b) seek an expansion of the role of the River Murray Commission so that (i) land management agencies could contribute more effectively to its deliberations, (ii) Queensland is represented at its meetings, (iii) it has the capacity to require member States to provide information on relevant characteristics of their land and water resources, (iv) member States are required to notify it of any actions which may effect the water quality of the River Murray and (v) representatives of the community in the Murray-Darling Basin can participate in the meetings of the Commission, (c) establish and support a Murray Basin forum to be composed of representatives from government and non-government organisations, (d) require the River Murray Commission to establish and maintain a comprehensive collection of data on the characteristics of the land and water resources of the River Murray Darling Basin and (e) ensure that the River Murray Commission establishes a joint strategy for the disposal of saline waste in a sustainable manner. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) (i) No shortcomings in the new River Murray Waters Agreement are evident at this stage, and the Government is of the view that the passage of sufficient time is necessary before a reasonable evaluation of the success of the new Agreement is possible. In response to its new responsibilities, the River Murray Commission has established a number of advisory committees comprising representatives from a wide range of Government Departments-including those with land management responsibilities-covering all important aspects of water management and associated matters in the basin. (b) (ii) Queensland has not expressed an interest in becoming a party to the Agreement. However, if in the course of implementing the new Agreement the involvement of Queensland is necessary, consideration will be given to the appropriate nature of that involvement. (b) (iii) and (d) These are State responsibilities, but I am sure that all relevant information on land and water resources would be made available on request to the River Murray Commission and its advisory committees. (b) (iv) The new Agreement already provides for the four Governments to notify the Commission of any action in their respective areas of responsibility which might significantly affect the quality of river water, and I understand that there is full compliance with this provision. (b) (v) and (c) The River Murray Commission has adopted a policy of scheduling its meetings frequently at various locations in the Murray Valley, and concurrently holding public meetings to ensure that there is an effective exchange of information on river management problems and plans on the one hand, and community concerns on the other. (e) The Commission is currently developing a long-term river management strategy, and the public has been invited to comment on its recent publication dealing with salinity problems in the River Murray and options for dealing with them. No doubt the management strategy finally adopted by the Commission will include the co-ordination of all measures in a sustainable manner to dispose of saline waste in the Murray Basin. Transmission of Australian BroadcastingCorporation Television (Question No. 490) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: Does his Department or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation have a cost formula for determining the provision of translators or microwave bearers for the transmission of ABC television to remote areas; if so, what is the formula and how will it be affected by HACBSS. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The National Broadcasting Service Planning Committee (NBSPC) has adopted a figure of $180 per head of population served, as a planning guideline in considering the extension of ABC television services by television translator stations, whether satellite or terrestrial distribution is used. The introduction of the Australian Communications Satellite System (ACSS) will generally increase the number of communities which can be served within the limits of this figure. Digital Radio Concentrator Systems (Question No. 507) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) In which areas of Australia are telephone services presently being provided by Digital Radio Concentrator Systems-DRCS-and for how many subscribers. (2) Where is it expected that DRCS will be installed in (a) 1984-85 and (b) 1985-86. (3) Have there already been complaints from central Queensland that DRCS is inefficient; if so, have there been complaints that before 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. it is difficult to make successful call. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) No Digital Radio Concentrator Systems-DRCS-have been commissioned at this stage. (2) It is expected that DRCS will be installed as follows: 1984-85 Daly River NT Warren NSW Meekatharra WA Mt Magnet WA 1985-86 Daly River to Wadeye NT (extension) Tablelands NT Carpentaria NT Dampier WA Mt Magnet WA (system extension) Meekatharra WA (system extension) Southern Yorke Peninsula SA Elliston SA Marla SA Rolleston Qld Springsure North Qld Springsure West Qld Broken Hill NSW Lightning Ridge NSW Mt Foster NSW Hay NSW (2 systems) Cobar NSW Nyngan NSW (2 systems) White Cliffs NSW (3) See reply to (1) above. The DRCS will provide customers in rural and remote areas with a high standard automatic telephone service and other telecommunications services and facilities comparable to those provided in urban centres. Special Broadcasting Service Television Translator (Question No. 508) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Did he announce on 13 July 1984 that a translator will be installed in 1984 to allow the Special Broadcasting Service programs to be viewed in the Maryville area, Vic., if so, how much will the translator cost, which department will pay for the translator and from which budget allocation. (2) Have similar translators already been erected and are others planned; if so, where. (3) Will a similar translator be erected on the ABC translator at Dookie so that people in north-eastern Victoria can also view multicultural television. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Marysville SBS television translator stations commenced operation on 1 November 1984. The capital cost of the service was $35,000, paid by the Department of Communications from the Capital Works and Services-Broadcasting and Television allocation No. 842303. (2) Yes. Similar translators have been erected and are in operation at Warburton, Vic., Cooma and Goulburn, NSW and Tuggeranong, ACT. In addition, translator stations will be associated with SBS stations currently being constructed to serve Adelaide, Brisbane and Wollongong. These are scheduled for completion in the 1985-86 financial year. (3) There are presently no plans to extend the SBS television service to Dookie. The current program of extensions to the SBS network is due for completion during the 1985-86 financial year. At that stage I would expect the Special Broadcasting Service Planning Committee (SBSPC), the body which provides advice and recommendations to me on the planning of extensions to SBS television, to make recommendations regarding a further program of extensions. Telephone Service: Burketown (Question No. 509) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985. (1) When will the people of Burketown, north Queensland, have an acceptable telephone service. (2) Will it be a Digital Radio Concentrator System, satellite, or ordinary terrestrial system. (3) What will be the installation charge per subscriber. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) It is planned to overcome the shortage of trunk routes to the Burketown exchange by the installation of a multi-circuit radio system, in 1987-88. With the upgrading of the trunk route it will be possible to service the remaining people in the Burketown area who are currently without service by means of a Digital Radio Concentrator System. This system is planned for installation and cutover in 1989-90. (3) The standard rural connection fees will apply. Remote and Underserved Communities Scheme (Question No. 511) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) What is (a) the population and (b) the name of the largest community waiting for a Remote and Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS) television translator, now that the 1984-85 program has been finalised. (2) How many communities with a population of more than 200 and considered appropriate for RUCS, are still to be covered. (3) Is consideration being given to changing the RUCS guidelines to cover larger populations than are already covered by the present guidelines to allow other areas, such as that around Mount Marshall, Western Australia, to be eligible. (4) What effect will the domestic satellite have on this program. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The names of the communities to be served under the Remote and Underserved Communities Scheme have not yet been submitted to me for my approval. I expect to be able to announce these names later this year. (2) There are over 100 communities of 200 or more in population, presently underserved by Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. (3) No. There is no upper limit on the number of people to be served by a RUCS station, it is more a question of the size of the area to be covered. The cost per head of providing ABC television services by terrestrial means to sparsely populated rural areas such as the Mount Marshall region is prohibitive. The Australian Communications Satellite and the ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service service are being introduced to provide services to people living in areas such as this. (4) RUCS facilities will receive and retransmit ABC programs from the national satellite or off-air from existing ABC television stations or television translator stations as appropriate. Australian Telecommunications Commission: Manual Assistance Centre Plan (Question No. 514) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1371 (Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 535) and the agreement between the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Operators Association and Telecom Australia, what are the details of the terms of the agreement, in particular, with respect to (a) the agreed Manual Assistance Centre Plan, (b) the agreed conditions of employment, relocation, deployment, etc., of surplus staff and (c) consultations on new and expanded operator assisted products. (2) How many operators have been redeployed, relocated or retrenched to 27 March 1985. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) Telecom Australia has agreed to maintain a minimum national manual assistance employment level up to June 1987. This level was derived from the 1987 Manual Assistance Centre Plan and is subject to the achievement of predicted business levels which were based on economic prediction and Government telecommunications policy at the time of the agreement. It is expected that the development of new operator assisted products will enable this minimum level to be exceeded in practice. (b) Telecom Australia has also undertaken to offer alternative employment to staff, who have been declared surplus to requirements, and include positions in different employment categories or at different locations. As far as practicable, redeployment or relocation will be voluntary. Compulsory retrenchment will only be used where: Staff are surplus as a result of rural automatic conversions or are located at Country MACs not listed on the 1987 MAC Plan and who refuse Telecom's offers of alternative employment, or there is an unforeseen change in circumstances and therefore fixed term staff who were employed to meet temporary shortfalls in staffing levels can no longer be gainfully employed. (c) Telecom has agreed to consult with the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Operators Association biannually regarding the priorities set, staff impact and progress achieved in the expansion of existing operator assisted products and the introduction of new products. (2) Statistics to 20 March 1985 are as follows: Operators Redeployed 240 Operators Relocated 612 Operators Retrenched 229 Institute Warranty Limits (Question No. 554) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: Has Australia been excluded from Institute Warranty Limits in relation to international shipping, if so, what does this mean for Australian shippers and exporters. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of only one instance where Australia has been excluded from normal Institute Warranty Limits. In that case I understand a south-east Asian shipowner drew up a charter party that would have prevented the vessel from calling at Australian ports unless the shipowner agreed beforehand and provided additional charges were paid in advance by the charterer. As this is an isolated instance I would not expect it to have any general implications for Australian exporters. Allowances for Public Office Holders (Question No. 562) Mr Cadman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What allowances are paid at each level for overnight accommodation when public service officers and employees of statutory authorities are away from home base. (2) Are receipts for accommodation required. (3) Do First Division and Senior Executive Service officers have an entertainment allowance for use at their discretion; if so, are receipts for expenditure required. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The daily rate of Travelling Allowance paid to Australian Public Servants for each completed day on which they travel within Australia away from home base on official duty as follows: Level 1 or above (Salary in excess of $45,117 p.a.) Below Level 1 Capital Other Capital Other City centres City centres $ $ $ $ 100 70 76.45 58.90 These daily rates which cover accommodation, meals and incidental expenses are reduced for part-day absences. The daily rates are reviewed annually by the Public Service Board following recommendations made by a Sub-Committee of the Joint Council-a staff/management consultative body established under the Public Service Act. These recommendations are based on data from an extensive survey of accommodation and meal costs at selected establishments of a reasonable and appropriate standard throughout Australia. These rates of allowance also apply to officers and employees of statutory authorities whose terms and conditions of employment are subject to approval by the Public Service Board. It is understood that other Commonwealth statutory authorities normally also adopt the Board determined rates of Travelling Allowance for their employees. The daily rates of Travelling Allowance are paid to public servants for the first 21 days of residence at a temporary transfer locality. Travelling Allowance payments beyond 21 days reimburse accommodation and meal costs actually incurred plus an incidentals component and are subject to regular review whilst the officer remains on temporary transfer away from home base. The rates of Travelling Allowance for Secretaries of Departments and holders of other public offices are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The last report of the Tribunal was tabled in the Parliament on 27 August 1984 and provided for each overnight absence a Travelling Allowance for Secretaries of Departments of $125 for travel to capital cities and $95 where they travel to other centres. (2) During the daily rate period (the first 21 days), public servants acquit Travelling Allowance payments by certifying that their travel was in accordance with the approved itinerary with a receipted acquittal where claims are made for expenses in excess of the allowance paid. The approach followed during the daily rate period is consistent with the arrangements for public office holders, Members, Ministers and Office Holders of the Parliament and judicial appointees whose Travelling Allowance is determined/recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. In circumstances where the Commonwealth itself directly provides accommodation and/or meals, payment of Travelling Allowance (including the first 21 days residence at a temporary transfer locality) is based on actual expenditure plus an incidentals component. (3) No. Departmental Secretaries do have access to official hospitality funds which may be used by them or nominated officers for official entertainment purposes. All such expenditure must be receipted. An Expenses of Office Allowance is paid to Secretaries of departments and Senior Executive Service officers as determined by the Public Service Board. The rate per annum of the allowance for each such office is as follows: Rates of Expenses of Office Allowance $ Senior Executive Level 1 815.00 Senior Executive Level 2 815.00 Senior Executive Level 3 1 355.00 Senior Executive Level 4 1 355.00 Senior Executive Level 5 1 900.00 Senior Executive Level 6 1 900.00 Secretaries of Departments 3 800.00 Expenses of Office Allowance is a prescribed annual entitlement paid fortnightly and, as such, receipts are not required. Shared Defence and Civilian Aerodromes (Question No. 566) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Which aerodromes in Australia are shared between Defence and civilian operators and/or the Department of Aviation. (2) What are the arrangements for the civilian operators and the Department of Aviation at these aerodromes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following aerodromes are shared between Department of Defence, civilian operators and the Department of Aviation: Alice Springs, Avalon, Canberra, Darwin, Learmonth, Nowra, Oakey, Pearce, Rockhampton, Schofields, Tindal, Townsville, Wagga Wagga, Williamtown and Woomera. (2) Alice Springs and Rockhampton are civil aerodromes and arrangements for civil operations are as at other civil aerodromes operated by the Department of Aviation. Arrangements for civil operators at the Defence aerodromes vary considerably depending on Defence and individual operator requirements. For instance, RAAF Base Pearce has a single civilian user arrangement under which Airlines of Western Australia undertake circuit training using jet aircraft; Nowra and Woomera aerodromes are available to civil aviation by arrangement with the Department of Defence; Williamtown is available on a limited basis to scheduled civil aircraft and charter operators; while Avalon, with prior approval of the Government Aircraft Factory, is used by civil jet aircraft for training and accepts occasional charter aircraft. At Canberra, Darwin, Learmonth, Oakey, Townsville, Tindal and Wagga Wagga use is generally as at civil aerodromes although activities are mainly limited to civil areas. Schofields aerodrome is situated within the Richmond military control zone and subject to the airspace being made available by the RAAF, may be used by civil light aircraft for training in specified daylight hours. User arrangements at Defence aerodromes have been negotiated over the years between the Departments of Defence and Aviation to meet the needs and requirements of military and civil users and the responsibilities of each Department. Operating arrangements for civil aircraft at military aerodromes are covered in the Department of Aviation document Air Navigation Orders S 20.17. Department of Transport: Credit Cards (Question No. 589) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are provided with credit cards. (2) Which companies are used to provide these cards (e.g. American Express, Diners Club). (3) Who pays the membership and service fees. (4) At what level is an officer entitled to credit cards. (5) What limits are placed on the usage of the cards. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The information provided covers these authorities as well as the Department of Transport. Department of Transport (1) 14 (2) Amex, Diners Club (3) Department of Transport (Government rate) (4) Senior Executive Level (5) Officers with these cards may use them for any purpose and are reimbursed only for any official expenditure incurred. Australian National Railways Commission (ANR) (1) 3 (2) Amex, Diners Club (3) ANR (4) Senior Executive Level (5) Strictly on official Commission business. Australian Shipping Commission (ANL) (1) 108 (2) Amex, Diners Club (3) ANL (4) Senior Executive Level. Senior level shipping officers (ASC award) (5) Strictly on official Commission business Inter-State Commission (1) Nil Commonwealth Vehicles: Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce (Question No. 602) Mr Cadman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) 47 (b) 1334-of these 1281 are known ad hoc approvals over a 12 month period. (2) Secretary, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce; Chairman, Automotive Industry Authority; Comptroller General, Australian Customs Service; Deputy Secretary (SES Level 5); Senior Executive Service (Levels 1 to 3); Clerical Administrative Class 5 to Class 11; Engineer Class 4; Engineer Class 3; Senior Technical Officer Grade 1; and various levels from Clerical Assistant Grade 2 to Clerical Administrative Class 5. (3) In the majority of cases, yes. Department of Transport: Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No. 617) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The information provided covers these three authorities and the Department of Transport. Department of Transport (1) (a) 34 (b) unspecified-for emergency purposes. (2) Very senior officers and other officers who require the use of a vehicle outside normal hours for emergency and other purposes-(Marine Surveyors, Mercantile Marine Officers, Navigation Aids Technicians). (3) In respect of the vehicles in category 1 (a), yes, but only in terms of paragraph 3.46 of the former Department of Administrative Services publication 'Rules for the use of official Motor Transport and the procedures of the Central Transport Authority' (AGPS-1983). In respect of vehicles in category 1 (b), only when operational requirement so dictates. Australian National Railways Commission (AN) (1) (a) 105 (b) 19. (2) All levels of Management and weekly paid staff. (3) Yes. Australian Shipping Commission (ANL) (1) Nil. Inter-State Commission (1) (a) 2 (b) Nil. (2) Very senior officers of the Commission. (3) Yes. Department of Primary Industry (Question No. 666) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In order to provide a wider basis for comparison, figures are being provided for the five financial years ending 1983-84 and as at 31 March 1985. Date Statutory Authority 30.6.1980 30.6.81 30.6.82 30.6.83 30.6.84 31.3.85 Australian Apple and Pear Corporation 11 11 11 10 8 8 Australian Canned Fruits Corporation 9 9 9 9 9 9 Australian Dairy Corporation 108 110 105 108 107 110 Australian Dried Fruits Corporation 4 4 4 5 5 5 Australian Honey Board 5 5 5 4 3 3 Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation 140 137 136 170 156 144 Australian Wheat Board 269 299 336 322 332 374 Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation 13 13 14 13 12 10 Australian Wool Corporation 497 481 488 485 493 493 Department of Primary Industry: Staff Numbers (Question No. 694) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To provide a wider basis for comparison, figures are being provided for the five financial years ending 1983/84: 30 June 1980-3206 30 June 1981-3186 30 June 1982-3148 30 June 1983-3297 30 June 1984-3657 (Includes 328 New South Wales Inspection Service staff transferred to the Department) In the nine months to 31 March 1985 the average monthly staffing figure was 3619. Department of Communications: Staff Numbers (Question No. 704) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Average full-time operative staffing levels are as follows: 1982/83-729.3. 1983/84-763.2. 1 July 1984-31 December 1984-754.1. Ethanol (Question No. 723) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What field crops or horticultural products have been used to produce ethanol as an additive to petrol (a) in research, (b) in pilot plants and (c) in commercial plants. (2) Which of the crops and products have been so used in Australia and when. (3) What is the octane rating of (a) standard petrol with lead additive, (b) standard petrol without lead and (c) standard petrol without lead but with a 10 per cent ethanol additive. (4) What were the reasons for the use of ethanol in north Queensland in the 1930s and do any of the reasons still apply. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) Almost any field crop or horticultural product containing sugar or starch can be used to produce ethanol. It is not possible, therefore, to identify every ethanol feedstock which has been tested in a laboratory or pilot plant. The following crops and products, however, are known to have been tested in laboratories and possibly in pilot plants. sugar cane molasses from sugar cane cereals - wheat - grain sorghum - sweet sorghum - barley - triticale cassava sugar beet Jerusalem artichokes rice oranges corn potatoes wood residues cereal residues (c) Corn, molasses, sugar cane and wheat have been used in commercial plants. Orange residues are planned to be used to produce ethanol on a commercial scale in Brazil in June or July 1985. Again it is not possible to identify accurately which of the many potential feedstocks have been used on a commercial scale to produce ethanol around the world. (2) The following crops and products have been used in Australia for the production of ethanol: molasses from 1901, sugar cane bagasse in 1984, cassava in 1983-84, sugar beet in 1982-84, triticale and sorghum in 1981-84, sweet sorghum in 1984, Jerusalem artichokes in 1984, wheat in the 1940s and again in 1981-84. (3) (a) and (b) Standard petrol with lead additive has a research octane number (RON) of 89. However, the production of standard leaded petrol has now ceased. A program commenced in April 1985 to phase in 91-93 RON unleaded petrol which will completely replace standard petrol in the market place. This forms part of the national introduction of lead free petrol. (c) The octane number of unleaded petrol would be increased on average by 5 RON with the addition of a 10% ethanol additive. (4) In the Initiation in Committee of the Motor Spirit Vendors Bill 1933, which when enacted provided a legal basis for the addition of alcohol to petrol in Queensland, the then Secretary for Public Works provided four reasons: the sale of the surplus output of the Sarina alcohol plant in North Queensland, the provision of employment, an improvement in fuel self-sufficiency in case of war, the consumption of surplus agricultural produce. The only reasons among these which could apply today, and then to a much lesser degree than in the 1930s, are the second and fourth. In both of these cases it is doubtful whether a legislated fuel alcohol industry would be the best overall solution to these problems today. National Media Liaison Service: Review (Question No. 765) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Are the National Media Liaison Service or the Ministerial Media Group currently the subject of any kind of review, or is any review of their functions intended; if so, what is the purpose of the reviews. (2) Does either of these agencies have any statutory obligation to report on their activities. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The purpose of the review is to provide a more efficient service. (2) No. Turks in Bulgaria (Question No. 786) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports of ethnic suppression of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria by the Government of Bulgaria including (a) the prohibition of the use of the Turkish language, literature and culture; and (b) the forcing of ethnic Turks to change their names to Bulgarian derivatives under the threat of imprisonment or death; if so, what action has he taken to redress these injustices. (2) What action does he intend to take in the future. (3) Is the Government prepared to raise the matter in the United Nations; if so, how. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Government has been monitoring the situation of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria from a wide range of sources including the Australian Embassies in Belgrade and Ankara. The Department of Foreign Affairs also received in February a delegation of the Bulgarian-Turkish Association, who detailed the plight of the minority. The Australian Ambassador to Bulgaria expressed the Government's concern at these reports to the Bulgarian Government on 20 February. (2) The Government will continue to monitor the situation and make representations to the Bulgarian Government as appropriate. (3) Should the Government assess that to do so would assist the victims of such violations, it will consider raising the matter in appropriate United Nations bodies in line with the Government's policy of condemning human rights violations wherever they might occur. Trade Practices Act (Question No. 799) Mr Slipper asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 April 1985: Will the Government take action under sub-section 45D (1A) of the Trade Practices Act, which provides that a person shall not, in concert with another, engage in conduct which hinders a third person from engaging in trade and commerce between the States, to prevent the illegal blockade of Queensland by the national transport workers unions, supported by the ACTU; if not, does this mean it is to be guilty of condoning an illegal act under the law of the Commonwealth. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is the Government's judgment that an action brought under the Trade Practices Act sub-section 45D (1A) would be likely to aggravate the unsatisfactory situation in Queensland. The Prime Minister has made clear that the dispute can be readily resolved by discussions between the parties. The Queensland Government has refused to take part in such discussions. Soviet Military Power 1985 (Question No. 843) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a recent publication by the US Secretary of Defense entitled Soviet Military Power 1985, if so, is he in a position to provide the honourable Member for North Sydney with a copy of this publication. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I understand that a copy of the publication is held by the Parliamentary Library. Australian Land Transport Program (Question No. 1041) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: What amounts are the councils of (a) Logan Shire, (b) Boonah Shire, (c) Brisbane City, (d) Cambooya Shire, (e) Allora Shire, (f) Clifton Shire, (g) Glengallen Shire, (h) Rosenthal Shire, and (i) Warwick City, likely to receive under the proposed Australian Land Transport Program over the 5 years of its operation. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the Australian Land Transport program legislation, the allocation of local road funds to local government bodies will be in accordance with principles formulated for this purpose. Until these principles have been formulated it is not possible to specify the allocation to individual councils. National Times: Soviet Advertising (Question No. 1063) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the recurrent massive advertising by the government of the USSR in the National Times in particular, four pages in the issue of 10-16 May 1985. (2) What would be the cost of an equivalent advertisement in the National Times, if placed by the Australian Government. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) $7952.40, at current negotiated rates. Gold (Question No. 13) Mr Jull asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What is the value of gold owned by the Government, at 21 February 1985, and held in (a) Australia, (b) Great Britain, (c) the United States of America and (d) elsewhere. (2) What was the value of all gold owned by the Government at (a) 30 June 1982, (b) 30 June 1983 and (c) 30 June 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's official gold reserves are vested in the Reserve Bank of Australia. This gold is valued by the Bank at the average London gold price for the month, converted to Australian dollars at the market rate of exchange applying on the last day of the month. On that basis the value of gold held at 21 February 1985 was approximately $A2,947m. The bulk of this gold is in Australia, with smaller amounts held in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It is not the practice of the Reserve Bank to disclose the value of gold at various locations. (2) The value of gold held by the Reserve Bank at 30 June in previous years was: (a) 1982-$A2,444m; (b) 1983-$A3,744m; (c) 1984-$A3,478m. Telecom Australia (Question No. 155) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Did certain employees of Telecom refuse to accept telegrams addressed to the Queensland Premier between 19 and 22 February 1985; if so, (a) how many telegrams were refused and (b) at whose direction were they refused. (2) If the direction was not from senior Telecom staff, were the employees refusing to undertake work for which they had been employed; if so, why were they not stood down. (3) Is he able to say whether the actions of these Telecom staff are consistent with the requirements of sub-section 6 (1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975. (4) What action did he take upon becoming aware of the actions of these staff and was his action consistent with his powers to direct the Commission, as outlined in sub-section 7 (1) of the Telecommunications Act. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) and (b) The Union of Postal Clerk's and Telegraphists and the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association applied bans on the acceptance and movement of telegrams to the Premier of Queensland. Approximately 85 telegrams were delayed. (2) Yes-there was no power to stand down although Telecom had the option of approaching the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for insertion of stand down clauses in the relevant award. In the event, this did not prove necessary. (3) No. (4) There are established procedures for dealing with industrial disputes which Telecom, as an employer, is bound to follow. The question of giving a direction did not arise. Department of the Treasury: Language Availability Performance Allowance (Question No. 203) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No staff in the Department of the Treasury currently receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Special Benefits to Migrants (Question No. 234) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What amount was paid in special benefits to migrants, for whom an assurance of support, or a maintenance guarantee, had been taken out prior to entry into Australia, in (a) 1980-81, (b) 1981-82, (c) 1982-83 and (d) 1983-84. (2) In how many cases did the Government initiate recovery action in each year and in how many cases was it successful. (3) What amount was recovered in each year. (4) How many cases were written-off as bad debts and what amounts were involved in each year. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department pays special benefit to many categories of people who are unable to earn sufficient livelihood including migrants for whom an assurance of support or maintenance guarantee was taken out prior to their entry into Australia. Separate statistics are not compiled in respect of amounts paid in each category of special benefit. Only a total figure of amounts paid to all categories of special benefit is maintained. (2) and (3) The Department's recovery system does not separate into individual categories of special benefit those cases in which recovery action is initiated or amounts recovered. A total figure of all categories of special benefit is maintained. (4) Amounts of special benefit are written off where it is considered that recovery would impose hardship on the assurer or guarantor and his family, where the assurer or guarantor is in receipt of a pension of other Social Security benefit, where the assurer's or guarantor's whereabouts are unknown, where the assurer or guarantor is deceased and where payments are made after citizenship has been obtained by the migrant. The number of cases and amounts written-off are as follows: Financial Year 1980-81; 96 cases amounting to $293,343.94. Financial Year 1981-82; 346 cases amounting to $1,290,519.40. Financial Year 1982-83; 179 cases amounting to $666,895.49. Financial Year 1983-84; 320 cases amounting to $1,729,519.51. Department of Trade: Film and Video Production (Question No. 265) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Production of Departmental promotional films and videos is usually arranged through Film Australia. The Department has, on occasions, arranged for a promotional film/video that is required for a specific overseas market to be produced there. Simple training videos have been produced internally using the Department's video equipment. (2) As above. (3) Productions completed in 1983-84 were: 'All the best from Australia'-an a/v produced in Singapore on apples and pears. Cost $6,638. 'Teeing up export sales'-an export education program-$20,315. Produced by Film Australia. 'Seminar on Offsets Potential in U.S.A.'-produced using departmental equipment. 'Staff training video for EDGB'-produced using departmental equipment. (4) Two JVC colour video cameras and associated replay equipment to produce simple training videos and to record Departmental seminars. (5) None. Departmental officers are involved in individual projects as required. Department of Trade: Repetitive Strain Injury (Question No. 305) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 15. (b) 11. (2) The analysis of claims is as follows: 22 claims from female staff 4 claims from male staff The type of duties performed are: Keyboard duties-18; Clerical/administrative duties involving considerable keyboard duties-7; Sole clerical administrative duties-1. Twenty claims have been accepted, none have been rejected, and six are pending determination. One person has been retired and one has resigned. (These cases are considered finalised). (3) Twenty-two (22) employees have been successfully rehabilitated, that is, they have returned to full-time employment. Rehabilitation has been achieved through a combination of medical treatment, time off from duty and/or redeployment to other duties. (4) The Department has co-operated with the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in developing a comprehensive training package on repetitive strain injury (RSI). A pilot workshop has been conducted and evaluated and a training program is to commence shortly directed at all keyboard personnel, supervisors and managers. All staff in the Department have been advised that keyboard personnel are required to take rest breaks from keyboard duties. Ergonomic furniture for use by staff whose duties include keyboard duties is being purchased progressively as needs are identified and funds become available. Department of Social Security: Repetitive Strain Injury (Question No. 310) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b)- 1984-85 1983-84 (to 20 March) NSW 28 55 Vic. 64 9 Qld 44 19 WA 14 66 SA 14 39 Tas. 1 15 NT . . 9 ACT (including ACT Regional Administration) 60 15 Total 225 227 (2)- SexType of dutiesClaims Pending Male Female Keyboard Clerical Other Accepted Rejected Finalised decision NEW 6 77 54 25 4 42 . . 1 40 Vic. 10 70 50 30 . . 47 2 . . 42 Qld 8 55 45 20 . . 32 . . . . . . WA 4 76 56 21 2 49 . . 40 31 SA 5 48 34 19 . . 39 . . . . 14 Tas. . . 15 11 4 . . 13 . . 13 2 NT . . 9 9 . . . . 7 . . 5 2 ACT (including ACTRA) 6 74 48 25 5 38 . . 38 . . 39 424 307 144 11 267 2 97 131 (3) (a)- RETURNED TO NORMAL DUTIES 1983-84 1984-85 NSW 14 17 SA 3 13 NT . . 5 ACT 15 5 Qld 18 6 Tas. . . . . Vic. 20 12 (b)- RETURNED TO DUTIES WITH RESTRICTIONS OR INFORMALLY REDEPLOYED 1983-84 1984-85 NSW 19 17 Vic. 20 24 NT . . 1 Qld/SA/Tas.-some successful redeployment Informal and formal redeployment action arranged in accordance with medical advice received. Staff removed from duties which aggravate condition. Gradual re-introduction to keyboard duties provided where necessary. Local re-training provided in Regional Offices. Support and information provided to all repetitive strain injury (RSI) sufferers and other staff by officers responsible (e.g. staff welfare officer/RSI Co-ordinator etc.). (4) A comprehensive training package in video and pamphlet form has been designed for all staff, particularly keyboard staff, and includes information on: nature of injury; correct use of furniture; use of rest breaks; appropriate action to be taken; if injured; eyesight testing. A Rest Break Policy was endorsed by both the Department and unions and issued throughout the Department. Desk reminder cards for rest breaks have also been issued. All keyboard staff have been provided with ergonomically designed furniture. An on-going 'questionnaire' to injured RSI employees provides the Department with epidemiological data. A support network of contact officers among States has been established. Sales Tax On Carbonated Beverages (Question No. 358) Mr Conquest asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to concern expressed by the Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers at the continued imposition of sales tax on carbonated beverages. (2) Is it the Government's intention to continue to regard carbonated beverages as not being accepted as either cordials or concentrates for the manufacturer of non-alcoholic beverages and thus continue to be taxed at the rate of 20%. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) There is no exemption for carbonated beverages as such. Generally they are taxable at 20 per cent. I assume that the reference to cordials and concentrates in the honourable member's question relates to the exemption for certain fruit juice products contained in item 36 (3) in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Item 36 (3) exempts: 'Fruit juice products, namely: (a) Concentrates for the making of non-alcoholic beverages, being concentrates which consist of not less than 25 per centum by volume of juices of Australian fruits; (b) Cordials for the making of non-alcoholic beverages, and preparations for use in the flavouring of foods, being cordials or preparations which consist of not less than 25 per centum by volume of- (i) juices of Australian fruits; (ii) a mixture of concentrates of juices of Australian fruits and water, being a mixture of a strength not less than the natural strength of the juices; or (iii) juices of Australian fruits and a mixture of concentrates of juices of Australian fruits and water, being a mixture of a strength not less than the natural strength of the juices; (c) Non-alcoholic beverages consisting wholly of juices of Australian fruits or vegetables (including herbage)'. While there is no specific exemption for carbonated beverages, such beverages which consist wholly of Australian fruit juices qualify for exemption from sales tax under paragraph (c) of item 36 (3). In order to qualify for exemption under paragraphs (a) or (b) the Australian fruit juice requirement is reduced to 25 per cent, but the product must be either a concentrate or a cordial. As carbonated beverages are neither concentrates nor cordials, to enable them to qualify under the less stringent Australian fruit juice requirement would require an amendment to the legislation. The Government is presently conducting a comprehensive review of the tax system, including the structure of indirect taxation. In these circumstances the Government believes it appropriate that consideration of proposals to review the classification of individual items for sales tax purposes be deferred, pending the outcome of that review. Department of Trade: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 370) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (I) STATUTORY AUTHORITIES (A) Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC) (1) Period of Members Appointment Chairperson: I. V. Lloyd (part-time) 16.8.84-30.6.87 Deputy Chairperson: S. L. Wallis (part-time) 16.8.84-30.6.86 Managing Director: D. H. Hunter (full-time) Acting from 1.10.84 Directors: W. H. Clough (part-time) 11.5.84-10.5.86 G. J. Kelly 11.5.84-10.5.87 A. D. Chenery Acting from 23.11.84 until vacant position is filled J. D. White 11.5.84-10.5.87 D. G. Price Acting from 23.11.84 until vacant position is filled (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Members of AOPC are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984. The current rates are: Expense of Office Fees/Salary Allowance (PA) (PA) Managing Director $66,557 $3,800 Chairperson $16,433 - Deputy Chairperson $9,884 - Directors $6,609 - Travel Allowance-$125 p.d. (Capital City) or $95 p.d. (other). (B) Export Development Grants Board (EDGB) (1) Period of Members Appointment Chairperson: A. L. Paltridge (part-time) 1.2.83-31.1.86 Deputy Chairperson: V. J. Danilo (part-time) First appointed 1.2.83 for 3 years as a member of the EDGB but resigned to accept appointment as Deputy Chairperson on 1.10.84 for 15 months until 31.1.86 Executive Member: J. R. Bennett (full-time) Acting from 19.3.85. Under the EMDG Act, Mr Bennett cannot act in the position beyond 12 months; either he has to be formally appointed to the position or a new Executive Member appointed Members: J. G. Keegan (part-time) 1.10.84-30.9.87 W. H. Cumines 1.10.84-30.9.87 [Mr Paltridge is on leave of absence (without remuneration) from 1.3.85 to 7.6.85. Mr Danilo is Acting Chairperson during Mr Paltridge's absence]. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Members of the EDGB are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984. The current rates are: Fees/Salary Travel (PA) Allowance Chairperson $13,220 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) Deputy Chairperson $8,823 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) Executive Member $52,552+ $1,355 Expenses of Office Allowance $100 p.d. (Capital City) $70 p.d. (other) Member $6,609 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) (C) EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION (EFIC) (1) Period of Members Appointment Chairperson: P. J. W. Cottrell, O.B.E. (part-time) 1.2.75-3.4.87 Deputy Chairperson: A. B. Avery (part-time) 11.4.80-3.4.86 Managing Director: S. Burton, O.B.E. (full-time) 3.3.79-2.3.86 Deputy Managing Director: D. C. W. Hill (full-time) 1.11.76-31.10.88 Members: (part-time) K. Spooner 4.4.84-3.4.87 K. C. Huntingdon 4.4.84-3.4.87 A. J. Denham 4.4.84-3.4.87 S. Kaye-Kucharzewski 4.4.84-3.4.86 J. Broadbent 4.4.84-3.4.86 V. T. Christie, A.O. 4.4.84-3.4.86 B. C. Wilson, A.M. 4.4.84-3.4.86 (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Members of the EFIC are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984. The current rates are: Fees/Salary Travel (PA) Allowance Chairperson $16,433 $125 p.d. (Capital City) $95 p.d. (other) Deputy Chairperson $9,884 $125 p.d. (Capital City) $95 p.d. (other) Managing Director $74,588 and $3,800 Expenses of Office Allowance $125 p.d. (Capital City) $95 p.d. (other) Deputy Managing Direct- or $61,129 and $1,900 Expenses of Office Allowance $125 p.d. (Capital City) $95 p.d. (other) Member $6,609 $125 p.d. (Capital City) $95 p.d. (other) (II) ADVISORY PANELS OR COUNCILS (A) GATT INDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP (1) Members G. D. Allen Sir Harold Aston, C.B.E. Dr S. Bambrick, O.B.E. R. D. Malcolmson I. A. Deveson J. E. Dixon, O.B.E. Sir Donald Eckersley, O.B.E. W. J. Henderson, O.B.E. W. W. Lorenz H. M. Morgan G. M. Parker F. Peterson J. Whitelaw, A.O., C.B.E. W. J. A. Wills Observers L. Purnell W. Freeman The Members are appointed by the Minister for no specific term of office. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Members receive no remuneration or travel allowance. (B) INDUSTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AUSTRALIA'S AGRICULTURAL TRADING RELATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES The Council is in the process of being established and final numbers of members and costs are yet to be determined. However, as guidance, it is likely that numbers could be around 20 and the annual cost around $120,000 covering travel expenses. (C) NATIONAL TRADE FACILITATION COMMITTEE (1) Members P. Connolly (Chairperson) I. Rischbieth P. Smith J. E. Melville S. Jackson R. E. Strong E. H. Fitch L. Bowen F. Assenza R. McGough G. Gibson H. E. Cumines J. A. Sweeney (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance Members of the NTFC are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984 (para. 6.4). The current rates are $128 p.d. for sitting fees and travel allowance of $100 p.d. (Capital City) or $80 p.d. (other). (D) TIN EXPORT CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE There are no formally appointed members of this Committee which is comprised of representatives of the Australian Tin Producers Association, the North Queensland Tin Producers Association, tin smelters and the Departments of Trade, Resources and Energy, and Industry, Technology and Commerce. No remuneration or travel allowance is paid. (E) TRADE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (1) Members Appointed H. Arthur 1983 Dr S. Bambrick, OBE 1979 T. Barlow 1981 J. Bennison 1982 S. Burton, OBE* 1979 J. G. Campbell 1981 L. Carmichael 1984 J. I. Davies 1979 P. Frankel 1983 E. J. Fynmore 1981 G. Green 1983 C. L. N. Harvey 1984 J. H. S. Heussler 1982 J. K. Horwood 1978** J. E. H. Howes 1982 D. H. Hunter* 1984 I. C. Kuba 1983 J. K. Lesses 1983 J. N. Litten 1983 D. McLeish, OAM 1979 J. Maitland 1983 J. L. Menadue* 1983 Dr C. Mudge 1983 P. G. Pak-Poy 1980 F. E. Peterson 1984 M. R. Rayner 1981 I. M. Russell, OBE 1982 Dr. B. W. Scott (Chairperson) 1977 Dr M. Searby 1981 P. M. Sinclair 1982 A. G. Summers 1981 E. G. Wilshire* 1984 * Ex-Officio ** Appointment Extended Council members are appointed for an initial term of 2 years, with an option of extending for a further 2 years. If members are appointed to the Executive Committee, they serve a further 2 years (i.e. 6 years in full). The Chairperson is appointed for an indefinite period. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Chairperson and Members (excluding Ex-Officio Members) are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984 (para. 6.4). The current rates are: Travel Daily Fee Allowance Chairperson $159 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) Member $128 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) (F) USSR (1) Members (a) Australia/USSR Working Group on Trade in Machinery and Equipment A. MacAuley-Chairperson This body was constituted under the direction of the Australia/USSR Mixed Commission on Trade. Members of the Working Group are drawn from time to time as required from private industry, Commonwealth and State Public Services. The Chairperson is the only permanent member of the group, which meets every 12 months. He was appointed on 6.12.83 for a period of 3 years. (b) NSW State Advisory Committee on Trade with the USSR. P. Valkenburg-Chairperson P. Raphael K. Huntingdon P. Gutteridge Prof. E. Wheelwright I. McIvor R. Horne D. Porter F. Johnson (c) Queensland State Advisory Committee on Trade with the USSR. Sir Sydney Schubert-Chairperson A. Morrison F. McKay R. T. Simes J. Neumann A. Aho J. Sargent C. Kaiser (d) Victoria State Advisory Committee on Trade with the USSR. B. C. Powe-Chairperson J. C. Evans R. Eyre B. Gaffikin C. Gilbert G. Vanlangenberg L. G. West G. W. Patton L. M. Heine (e) WA State Advisory Committee on Trade with the USSR. R. Cohen-Chairperson I. Griffiths P. Field J. Milner G. Allen J. Telford. The State Advisory Committees were established by the respective State Premiers following a request from the Prime Minister in 1984. Membership of these committees is determined by the Premiers. The committees were formed for a notional period of two years from their initial meeting (ranging from March to June 1984) but their duration is subject to review by the Premiers. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance The Chairperson and Members of each of the above Committees and Working Groups are paid in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 19 of 1984 (para. 6.4). The current rates are: Travel Daily Fee Allowance Chairperson $159 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) Member $128 $100 p.d. (Capital City) $80 p.d. (other) (G) WESTERN AUSTRALIA BUSINESS ADVISORY GROUP (WABAG) WABAG is chaired by the Minister for Trade. Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh and the Hon. Kim C. Beazley, M.P. are permanent members. (1) Members Sir Garrick Agnew, C.B.E. A. Bond E. Bonney I. Burston M. A. J. Cameron D. Connolly W. Crane D. Cullity, C.M.G. D. Farrell R. S. Forbes M. R. H. Holmes a Court J. Horgan J. K. Horwood H. Kleyn I. Matyear J. A. Minervini R. Muirhead N. Reid R. Showe There is no fixed term of membership. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance Sitting fees are not payable. Travel Allowances is $100 p.d. (Capital City) or $80 p.d. (other). (H) WESTERN AUSTRALIAN IRON ORE INDUSTRY CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL (WAIOICC) WAIOICC is a joint Commonwealth/Western Australian body comprised of representatives of each of the iron ore companies operating in Western Australia, relevant unions and the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments. The members are not formally appointed and no remuneration is paid. Travel and related expenses of union representatives are met jointly by the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments. (I) WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION ADVISORY GROUP (WATUAG) WATUAG is chaired by the Minister for Trade. Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh and the Hon. Kim C. Beazley, M.P. are permanent members. (1) Members A. R. Beech C. M. Brown A. Heine J. Marks R. L. Meecham J. J. O'Connor H. Peden R. R. Reid K. Reynolds J. Sharp-Collett K. Trainer There is no fixed term of membership. (2) Remuneration/Travel Allowance Sitting fees are not payable. Travel Allowance is $100 p.d. (Capital City) or $80 p.d. (other). Trade: Africa (Question No. 418) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: Will he bring up to date the information, in respect of Australia's trade with Africa, given in answer to question No. 1382 (Hansard, of 6 June 1984, pages 3036-3041). Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the information contained in the attached Tables. 1. (i) INDIAN OCEAN ISLAND STATES 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 (a) Imports into Australia $A'000 from: Madagascar 533 310 294 299 660 509 5,352 357 925 1,196 Mauritius 538 488 800 759 671 565 589 603 1,225 1,035 Reunion 21 . . 1 31 90 85 27 12 32 8 Seychelles 9 18 34 15 6 19 1 21 . . 7 Comoros . . . . . . 1 . . 3 2 . . 1 1 B.I.O.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Exports from Australia $A'000 to: Madagascar 219 136 493 330 559 1,500 35 3 881 635 Mauritius 10,042 11,214 14,030 16,009 20,648 19,809 22,552 19,908 20,373 15,912 Reunion 215 392 198 275 1,862 346 554 1,910 3,250 1,504 Seychelles 1,270 1,513 1,322 1,424 1,444 1,546 816 1,091 982 670 Comoros . . 542 . . 508 . . 1 59 1 . . . . B.I.O.T.* 21 2 . . 53 1 . . 1,989 . . . . . . . . denotes nil or negligible * British Indian Ocean Territory-Chagos Archipelago. (ii) THE VALUE OF ALL (A) IMPORTS AND (B) EXPORTS BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES FOR EACH OF THE LAST 10 YEARS IS AS SHOWN BELOW. 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 (a) Imports into Australia $A'000 from: Algeria 21 1 4 1 . . 3 . . . . 8,647 . . Angola 140 222 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benin . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Botswana 4 5 7 1 2 48 3 25 47 5 Bourkina Fasso 117 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . Burundi . . . . 2 . . 1 3 . . . . 109 100 Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 338 33 232 Cape Verde Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central African Republic . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . . . Chad . . . . 508 582 . . . . . . . . . . . . Congo . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 13 9 . . Djibouti . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . Egypt 345 92 121 115 92 79 172 153 112 176 Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethiopia 1,110 58 182 345 384 480 388 627 722 469 Gabon . . . . 180 . . . . 419 418 . . 13 . . Gambia 12 8 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Ghana 19,961 8,814 12,957 19,323 17,222 14,496 10,381 6,223 7,188 2,983 Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6 3 . . Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Ivory Coast 827 1,292 4,133 8,438 2,626 6,390 7,766 6,789 6,173 6,544 Kenya 1,913 2,944 4,747 4,797 2,426 9,767 4,561 4,834 2,438 3,908 Lesotho 38 26 18 3 6 19 9 67 242 119 Liberia 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Libya . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 3 Malawi 2,006 1,601 1,374 2,860 4,395 4,099 3,197 5,802 5,875 5,951 Mali . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 1 . . 13 Mauritania . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . 5 Morocco 2,947 1,759 2,828 1,528 822 92 1,185 1,314 343 2,070 Mozambique 2,452 1,970 1,023 1,393 1,386 987 1,901 691 937 113 Namibia 110 1 20 2 1 1 1 8 2 9 Niger 22 81 . . . . 357 . . . . 6 . . . . Nigeria 372 15 1,437 758 37 443 1,102 1,254 405 219 Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 58 Sao Tome &Principe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senegal 1 . . 759 1 1,628 165 . . . . . . 1 Sierra Leone 60 . . 24 13 21 3 1 1 4 68 Somalia 4 . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . 1 . . South Africa 43,930 36,890 56,374 58,051 84,877 105,835 110,643 90,701 84,944 132,365 St Helena . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . Sudan 1,622 291 634 441 878 906 257 287 449 227 Swaziland 1,927 511 . . 707 262 298 562 1,497 1,193 1,891 Tanzania 3,789 3,067 7,580 3,877 4,579 5,751 6,233 3,735 2,741 2,200 Tunisia 20 32 8 16 5 10 44 62 82 151 Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,204 . . Uganda 5,343 6,779 6,575 11,169 7,728 10,278 13,313 6,993 6,949 13,894 Western Sahara . . . . . . 70 65 . . . . 5 19 9 Zaire 440 589 593 870 1,620 844 444 322 535 301 Zambia 235 264 461 242 324 351 467 649 601 659 Zimbabwe . . . . 1 4 . . 26 2,259 4,233 3,470 3,417 (b) Exports from Australia $A'000 to: Algeria 230 4,597 5,108 12,691 2,429 3,068 2,650 465 2,005 7,987 Angola 177 4 9 442 114 140 36 35 2 . . Benin 928 92 41 21 22 6 25 43 9 2 Botswana 30 7 2 10 17 58 24 14 107 73 Bourkina Fasso 1 . . 29 34 9 321 8 15 13 11 Burundi 13 48 61 122 22 10 . . . . 43 . . Cameroon 511 26 8 80 16 1 24 5 173 4 Cape Verde Is . . . . . . 1 . . 1 40 . . 41 1 Central African Republic 4 2 . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . Chad 50 . . 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . Congo 53 17 7 . . 12 38 1 37 5 . . Djibouti 47 29 185 10 38 28 51 2 63 171 Egypt 134,573 162,754 144,970 187,635 193,971 326,913 409,942 335,874 411,423 390,267 Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Ethiopia 1,440 467 9,164 318 2,982 13,635 7,451 4,803 114 3,579 Gabon 1,041 62 94 66 . . 3 13 . . 2 9 Gambia 3 6 6 6 2 6 1 2 3 2 Ghana 225 2,905 706 3,666 3,510 14,586 104 257 25 112 Guinea . . 87 . . 100 . . 5 . . 25 6 1,127 Guinea-Bissau 57 . . 21 1 1 15 . . . . 2 2 Ivory Coast 8 209 123 191 1,179 1,294 55,644 638 127 320 Kenya 9,899 4,567 11,631 13,813 16,074 13,152 18,181 10,356 9,834 13,452 Lesotho 10 2 . . 60 . . 1 . . . . 1,950 122 Liberia 132 160 305 511 236 597 58 222 102 516 Libya 10,688 9,712 4,355 11,378 15,851 24,763 34,173 43,028 22,699 29,047 Malawi 446 284 130 120 110 362 395 331 190 913 Mali . . 5 1 6 2 . . 1 1 57 39 Mauritania . . 2 1 5 54 . . . . . . 38 259 Morocco 4,066 4,022 224 83 164 729 210 8,423 207 78 Mozambique 2,161 556 3,673 4,026 4,802 22 1,376 1,208 114 1,048 Namibia 82 860 24 76 3,634 6 43 64 11 153 Niger 18 3 8 737 362 10 230 85 533 608 Nigeria 2,855 6,087 5,769 11,139 2,292 2,379 4,073 5,682 1,650 1,160 Rwanda 37 5 7 6 8 7 24 7 5 5 Sao Tome &Principe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senegal 1,134 52 247 981 . . 32 42 6 3 41 Sudan 1,022 2,481 1,596 3,020 1,708 1,285 5,162 2,897 6,841 2,848 South Africa 97,861 90,958 69,415 65,654 67,547 93,393 132,758 145,539 144,533 281,734 Sierra Leone 52 49 57 14 55 1,817 368 86 26 21 Somalia 1,324 459 490 1,294 245 635 2,170 47 2,475 3,504 Swaziland 1 1 5 6 6 9 5 534 553 55 Tanzania 10,454 6,928 2,529 4,415 4,302 4,658 7,967 7,808 1,271 6,641 Tunisia 1,690 874 1,362 618 177 172 398 254 506 356 Togo 8 18 30 6 7 1 . . . . 2,206 32 Uganda 353 532 528 612 495 1,140 247 2,064 571 382 Western Sahara . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . 178 . . Zaire 584 3 3 . . 38 20 87 1,816 9 8 Zambia 11,609 10,983 13,717 7,414 7,708 14,444 12,718 9,650 5,128 807 Zimbabwe 10 3 . . 1 . . 54 2,362 4,247 5,808 3,994 . . denotes nil or negligible Source: Compiled from information supplied by ABS (2)- MAJOR ITEMS IMPORTED AND EXPORTED IN RESPECT OF EACH COUNTRY (FINANCIAL YEAR 1983/84)$'000 Indian Ocean Island States (a) Major Imports into Australia Comoros Other essential oils 1 Madagascar Tobacco 323 Coffee, not roasted 310 Prawns &shrimps &their meats 197 Vanilla 187 Cloves 150 Mauritius Jerseys, cardigans &jumpers of wool or fine animal hair 506 Tea 116 Sun glasses 108 Welding machines 56 Electronic automatic regulating controlling devices for temperature &pressure ets. 49 Paper novelties 42 Diamonds, worked, unmounted 36 Other measuring, checking, controlling instruments 31 Reunion Pepper &pimento 5 Vegetables &fruit, prepared or preserved by vinegar 2 Seychelles Stamps of philatelic interest 6 (b) Major Exports from Australia Madagascar Wheat (bulk) 475 Commodities for which details are not separately available Milled rice 18 Mauritius Flour of wheat 2434 Milk powder 1698 Meat of sheep, lambs &goats 1588 Inedible tallow 1317 Cheese &curd 1040 Peas, dried 820 Butter 715 Edible Offals 666 Uncoated printed paper rolls 571 Reunion Items for which details are not separately available 669 Meat of sheep, lambs &goats 325 Meat of horses, asses, hinnies, fresh, chilled or frozen suitable for human consumption 147 Edible offals 127 Kangaroo meat 61 Iron or steel, structures &parts thereof 36 Parts for harvesting &threshing machines (including lawn mower parts) 33 Lawn mowers 29 Seychelles Cheese &curd 162 Beef (boneless) 129 Meat of sheep, lambs &goats 61 Non alcoholic beverages 57 Ice cream 37 Prepared cereal food 34 White flour 19 Beer 14 Wine 13 Individual African Countries (a) Major Imports into Australia Botswana Furskins 4 Burundi Coffee, not roasted 99 Cameroon Antiques (exceeding 100 yrs) 151 Coffee, powder 81 Congo Veneer wood 9 Egypt Cotton yarn 65 Spices 37 Essential oils 21 Vegetables, otherwise prepared or preserved 12 Antiques (exceeding 100 yrs) 8 Rifle ammunition 7 Plants and parts of plants for perfumery 6 Ethiopia Coffee, not roasted 421 Cashew nuts 45 Jewellery 3 Ghana Cocoa beans 2 982 Printed matter 1 Guinea-Bissau Sculptures and statues 66 Ivory Coast Coffee, not roasted 3 513 Cocoa butter 1 574 Cocoa paste 1 385 Sawn wood, non-coniferous 67 Kenya Coffee, not roasted 913 Pyrethrum extract 802 Sisal and other agave fibres (waste) 634 Tea 557 Fluorspar 451 Cashew nuts 393 Lesotho Rough iron castings 100 Broom millet 18 Libya Gold (monetary) 1 Dresses 1 Suits 1 Malawi Tobacco, unmanufactured 5 947 Legumes dried or shelled 3 Mali Ferro alloys, other 13 Mauritania Toys 5 Morocco Crude fertilisers 1 479 Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 407 Agar-agar 55 Anchovies 42 Kalem, shumacks, rugs and the like 16 Peppermint oil 12 Mozambique Cashew nuts 70 Slate 43 Namibia Fluorosilicates 5 Kalem, shumacks, karaminie rugs 4 Nigeria Cocoa paste 218 Rwanda Coffee, not roasted 50 Pyrethrum 8 Senegal Animal and vegetable oils 1 Sierra Leone Coffee not roasted 67 Earth colours 1 South Africa Nitrogen and phosphorous fertilisers 16 797 Fish fillets (frozen) 13 496 Ferro-alloys 9 123 Synthetic fibres, discontinuous 6 529 Fish smoked 5 000 Industrial goods imported for processing and re-export 4 150 Fish prepared or preserved not elsewhere specified 3 977 Other condensation, polycondensation or polyaddition products 3 770 Selenium tellunum etc. 3 438 Newsprint paper 3 419 Sudan Gum arabic 198 Vegetable products (edible) 6 Vegetable seeds 6 Swaziland Wood pulp, long fibre unbleached 1 084 Eucalyptus oil 444 Wood articles (figures, ornamental) 165 Sporting goods 106 Packing containers 71 Furniture of wood 13 Tanzania Cotton, raw (not carded or combed) 1 219 Tobacco, unmanufactured 254 Sisal twine 222 Cashew nuts 163 Coffee powdered 132 Cloves 103 Sisal etc waste 77 Smoking pipes 23 Tunisia Kalem, shumacks, rugs and the like 66 Copper ware domestic 41 Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 13 Sunglasses 11 Uganda Coffee, not roasted 13 831 Tea 63 Western Sahara Pepper and pimento 9 Zaire Coffee, not roasted 262 Cobalt powders and flakes 29 Industrial diamonds 4 Zambia Tobacco, unmanufactured 475 Bars and rods of copper 88 Cobalt and cobalt alloys 20 Zimbabwe Tobacco, unmanufactured 2 425 Ferro-chromium 264 Hoists and winches 235 Iron or steel parts of stoves 73 Gold monetary (excluding coins) 60 Asbestos 56 Iron or steel wire (of other than high carbon or alloy steel) 35 (b) Major Exports from Australia Algeria Butter 3 107 High quality coking coal 2 944 Wool (greasy or fleece washed) 1 691 Bovine and equine hides (undressed) 144 Benin Parts of storage structures of iron or steel 2 Botswana Welded iron or steel wire mesh 53 Medical, surgical, veterinary instruments 10 Measuring instruments for measuring flow, depth and pressure of liquids 5 Bourkina Fasso Grass seeds 8 Cameroon Dictating machines and other sound repro- ducers 3 Cape Verde Islands Tree, flower and vegetable seeds 1 Djibouti Items for which details not available 168 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 3 Egypt Wheat (bulk) 303 231 Coal (high quality coking) 29 910 Wool (greasy or fleece washed) 12 875 Live sheep or lambs 1 744 Special transactions 609 Radio transmitters 390 Fire engines 332 Railway rolling stock 300 Wool carbonised and scoured 284 Equatorial Guinea Dies, tags and chasers for use in machines 6 Ethiopia Wheat (bulk) 2763 Fixed vegetable oils 410 Centrifugal pumps (for internal combustion engines) 211 Other pumps for liquids 42 Milk in powder or granules 38 Parts for metal working machines 19 Seeds fruit and spores for planting 17 Non-electric heating machinery (industrial) 16 Parts for pumps 13 Gabon Edible cattle offal 6 Cheese and curd 3 Gambia Parts for electronic components 2 Ghana Wood working machines 22 Insecticides 20 Wine 14 Safety glass 12 Special transactions 12 Guinea Aluminium and aluminium alloys unworked 1108 Passengers personal effects (declarable) 14 Seeds 4 Guinea-Bissau Seeds fruit and spores for planting 2 Ivory Coast Hop cones and lupulin 250 Harvester parts 34 Ploughs 11 Base metal fittings for furniture 7 Kenya Lubricating oils 9141 Wheat (bulk) 1894 Tallow, inedible 364 Pumps for liquids 227 Coin or disc operated amusement machines and parts 210 Salt 201 Machinery for cleaning, filling, labelling, etc. of containers 110 Domestic non-electric water heaters 109 Lesotho Telecommunications equipment 77 Miscellaneous commodities 45 Liberia Other excavating machinery (self propelled) 229 Sorting machinery for screening earth, stone, ores, etc. 195 Parts for excavating machinery 42 Boneless beef 16 Cheese and curd 11 Libya Live sheep and lambs 21026 Jams, jellies, etc. 4471 Lucerne 974 Parts for well sinking and boring machines 589 Taps, cocks and valves 562 Feed supplements for animals 197 Record players 130 Oats, unmilled 108 Malawi Tallow, inedible 577 Malt for brewing 184 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 92 Cheese and curd 38 Welding rods 5 Parts for motor vehicles 4 Mali Mixtures of odoriferous substances 26 Grass and legume seeds 6 Parts of pumps 4 Paper and paperboard boxes, bags, etc. 3 Mauritania Wool (degreased) 167 Bakery and confectionery machines 69 Prepared magnetic tape 11 Morocco Grass and legume seeds 63 Unmounted sheets and plates polarising material 11 Analysis, controlling, measuring, checking in- struments 2 Parts for ploughs and seeders, etc. 1 Mozambique Inedible tallow 233 Harvesting machinery parts 222 Other excavating machinery (self propelled) 117 Parts of ploughs 89 Parts for tractors 74 Bulldozers, angledozers etc 71 Other power generating machinery 65 Namibia Air conditioning machinery 59 Sorting &screening machinery (for earth and stone) 52 Survey instruments 22 Niger Powdered milk 555 Unexposed photographic film 48 Miscellaneous commodities 4 Nigeria Fencing wire 255 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 240 Dump trucks 183 Trailers &semi-trailers for goods 126 Medicaments 114 Parts for metal working machines 112 Rwanda Canned or bottled fruit 5 Senegal Measuring, checking, analysing &controlling instruments 39 Sierra Leone Telecommunications equipment 13 Cheese &curd 6 Somalia Flour 1693 Rice (parboiled brown) 1170 Pastry, biscuits, cakes, other bakers ware 280 Wheat 251 Power generator engines &motors 43 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 33 South Africa Non merchandise trade 110 457 Items for which details are not separately available 60 048 Tallow, inedible 13 516 Crustaceans &molluscs 9137 Wheat 8421 Parts &accessories for motor vehicles 6709 Internal combustion piston engines 5915 Sudan Harvesting &agricultural machinery &parts 634 Welding machines 407 Track laying tractors 300 Commercial road transport vehicles 179 Wheat 178 Springs of iron &steel 175 Swaziland Edible cattle offals 24 Lamb carcases 13 Guts, bladders &stomachs of animals 7 Machines for measuring &checking 3 Tanzania Wheat (bulk) 3476 Milk powder 1196 Tallow, inedible 854 Parts for pumps 249 Oil &grease 186 Seeders planters &fertiliser distribution equipment 103 Special transactions &commodities 73 Togo Chewing gum &related confectionery 25 Parts for pumps 7 Tunisia Grass &legume seeds 169 Sugar, refined 160 Analysis, measuring, checking &controlling instruments 24 Uganda Other machinery specialised for particular industries 217 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 119 Parts for pumps 31 Wine 6 Zaire Machinery for sorting &screening earth &stone 8 Zambia Tallow, inedible 479 Motor vehicles, parts &accessories 168 Radio transmitters (including a receiver) 31 Parts for construction &mining machinery 23 Passenger motor vehicles 21 Parts for iron &steel structures 13 Zimbabwe Tallow, inedible 1731 Wheat 1424 Parts for telecommunication equipment 273 Non-merchandise trade 173 Parts for electric components 78 Boring &sinking machinery 49 Trade: South Africa (Question No. 541) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What is the total value of trade between Australia and South Africa by each commodity group. (2) What has been the pattern of the trade between the 2 countries over the past 10 years, and how will this change in the future based on current developments. (3) What are (a) the commodities, and (b) the financial amounts involved of each company trading with South Africa. (4) As the Government has announced that it is no longer promoting trade between the 2 countries, what is the function of the Australian Trade Attache in Johannesburg. (5) What is the extent of Australian oil exports to South Africa. (6) Does the Government supply any military equipment, or the parts of any military equipment, to South Africa. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total value of trade between Australia and South Africa by each commodity group is as follows: Value $A'000 1983-84 Exports Imports Total of which: %. 281,734 132,365 0 Food and live animals chiefly for food %. 23,177 26,936 1 Beverages and tobacco %. 93 74 2 Crude materials inedible except fuels %. 6,873 5,361 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, etc %. 13 2,695 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes %. 15,420 228 5 Chemicals and related products, nes %. 5,300 32,900 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material %. 15,672 45,973 7 Machinery and transport equipment %. 37,742 7,247 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles %. 6,872 3,238 91-98 Other merchandise trade, nes %. 60,115 7,159 99 Non merchandise trade %. 110,457 552 Source: Compiled from information supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2) The pattern of trade between the two countries over the past 10 years is as set out below. It is very difficult to predict changes in this pattern but from a commercial viewpoint there would seem to be no major reasons, at present, why it should not continue in much the same form. AUSTRALIA'S TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICAValue $A'000 1974-5 1975-6 1976-7 1977-8 1978-9 1979-80 1980-1 1981-2 1982-3 1983-4 Exports 97,861 90,958 69,415 65,654 67,547 93,395 132,758 145,539 144,533 281,734 Imports 43,930 36,890 56,374 58,051 84,877 105,1835 110,643 90,701 84,944 132,365 Balance +53,931 +54,068 +13,041 +7,603 +17,330 +12,440 +22,115 +54,838 +59,589 +149,369 Composition of Exports Meat and meat preparations 2,155 804 206 260 - 79 3,885 1,853 385 342 Crustaceans and molluscs (fresh, chilled and frozen) 996 1,010 957 577 932 2,068 4,085 5,100 7,523 9,137 Wheat - - - - - - - - - 8,421 Rice 682 745 403 1,278 610 76 182 285 238 285 Copper matte, ores and concentrates - 377 2,307 838 - 2,968 - - - - Wood simply worked and railway sleepers 186 2,007 1,471 156 117 132 315 188 325 512 Crude vegetable materials, nes 342 352 263 667 688 793 2,871 2,083 4,173 1,940 Cattle hides 1,131 1,274 602 460 39 14 493 1,108 641 437 Petroleum and petroleum products 591 4,892 1 2 5,843 1,418 4 1,655 - 13 Animal oils and fats 7,176 6,916 6,040 10,223 6,898 9,428 8,183 10,919 6,482 13,564 Chemicals and related products of which: 4,846 3,219 1,856 2,737 2,884 3,306 4,951 4,879 3,789 5,300 Artificial resins and plastic material 1,268 338 156 514 241 91 975 226 302 333 Starches, inulen, wheat gluten, glues, etc. 165 270 572 441 757 1,100 1,827 1,390 1,073 2,044 Textiles 703 359 484 403 818 921 1,181 1,562 1,446 1,903 Iron and steel 4,049 2,856 1,750 901 711 1,534 1,074 968 668 785 Copper 23 178 163 27 63 4,118 1,946 1,216 362 982 Manufactures of metal, nes of which: 4,187 2,371 2,046 1,661 2,068 3,428 4,697 4,951 4,280 6,660 Base metal furniture fittings and mountings 235 167 105 105 91 191 459 499 280 652 Welding rods 704 474 325 203 454 916 942 513 529 641 Internal combustion piston engines and parts 1,631 898 398 1,159 1,038 1,093 1,693 7,150 7,199 6,634 Agricultural machinery (excluding tractors) and parts 4,199 4,020 3,642 2,573 1,760 2,535 5,587 7,911 3,623 4,058 Tractors - 75 252 - 1 454 2,114 70 511 2 Civil engineering plant equipment and parts 642 1,521 4,304 515 1,002 1,035 1,250 816 1,298 1,956 Other machinery specialised for particular industries 837 2,090 705 1,364 639 1,062 1,213 1,091 856 743 Metal working machinery etc. 1,139 521 294 559 522 669 1,791 1,237 970 1,466 Heating and cooling equipment and parts 419 169 121 347 172 714 1,531 1,879 523 1,390 Mechanical handling equipment and parts 654 421 216 1,346 477 120 235 316 98 206 Machine parts and accessories (non electric) 3,099 4,350 4,003 3,697 3,253 1,577 1,478 2,592 1,812 1,780 Office machines and ADP equipment 933 211 1,208 361 777 1,460 419 3,009 2,565 3,853 Electrical machinery apparatus and appliances nes and parts 3,253 927 1,133 1,996 912 1,686 4,465 4,397 2,176 2,885 Passenger motor cars 17 206 13,568 3,860 890 161 177 7 33 115 47 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods 1,565 543 - 1 107 91 11,166 13 006 7,310 94 Parts and accessories for road motor vehicles 5,399 5,302 4,089 2,993 5,005 5,441 8,831 11,125 9,510 6,709 Aircraft and associated equipment and parts 7 1 504 43 6 6 1,977 83 40 10 Ships, boats and floating structures 77 34 6 1,557 84 45 11 21 53 19 Measuring, checking etc. instruments and parts 921 609 728 760 839 2,233 1,999 1,039 393 871 Miscellaneous manufactured articles of which: 1,938 1,638 1,721 1,499 1,692 2,580 4,306 6,313 3,643 3,967 Perambulators, toys and games 219 314 355 246 300 577 1,279 1,844 927 1,159 Items for which details are not separately available 12,484 16,521 13,841 16,187 17,711 29,301 28,713 32,630 59,450 60,048 Non merchandise trade of which: 814 935 506 365 386 403 271 557 498 110,457 light vessels, fire floats, dredges of all kinds, floating cranes or docks, or submersible drilling or production platforms etc. nsa nsa nsa nsa nsa nsa nsa nsa nsa 109,249 Composition of Imports Fish, fresh, chilled and frozen 1,097 916 2,609 3,149 4,039 10,399 11,104 10,844 11,114 14,233 Fish, dried, salted, smoked or in brine 1,977 1,564 2,587 1,610 3,929 3,831 4,288 5,097 5,115 5,014 Fish, crustaceans &molluscs, prepared or preserved nes 2,073 2,106 3,544 5,219 5,973 9,160 4,889 1,949 2,346 3,9?7 Coffee &substitutes 47 38 1 41 . . 3,536 29 35 63 ?? Feeding stuff for animals (excluding unmilled cereals) 2,782 2,259 1,397 296 369 1,705 1,401 182 349 284 Stone sand and gravel 102 132 176 312 489 1,386 2,387 3,181 2,123 2,340 Natural abrasives, nes 1,328 511 647 701 1,046 1,211 1,788 1,485 195 244 Clay 393 262 344 286 375 354 1,247 1,569 771 1,047 Ores &concentrates of base metals 904 155 129 164 206 698 3,982 4,183 196 282 Coal, coke &briquettes 270 . . 272 393 68 241 160 46 1,444 1,472 Petroleum &petroleum products 2,331 1,579 4,923 6,740 20,651 465 7,590 575 797 1,222 Fixed vegetable oils &fats 1,377 874 398 6,354 1,600 158 427 351 201 84 Organic chemicals 106 110 278 258 741 1,629 2,148 2,031 1,684 1,053 Inorganic chemicals 1,082 1,698 3,283 1,587 2,955 11,658 7,063 4,413 4,068 6,066 Dyeing &tanning extracts 648 1,031 1,467 1,333 1,247 1,549 2,236 1,822 1,474 1,788 Medicinal &pharmaceutical products 80 51 248 112 329 345 719 839 884 1,248 Manufactured fertilisers . . . . . . . . 3 . . 9 91 3,373 17,932 Artificial resins &plastic materials 2 14 106 347 563 1,124 427 213 991 3,807 Paper &paperboard 223 249 299 568 659 554 733 883 1,257 7,222 Textile yarn 961 1,097 2,374 3,443 5,197 6,680 4,983 5,198 3,841 9,367 Special textile fabrics &related products 59 20 360 507 1,042 790 933 1,736 1,653 1,483 Floor coverings 33 146 346 545 662 1,008 1,056 350 301 322 Clay &refactory construction materials 28 18 27 25 24 66 7,253 1,526 76 1,469 Glass 1,278 627 941 434 1,718 3,881 883 1,150 2,675 1,057 Precious &semi precious stones 2,309 2,581 2,162 2,426 2,263 1,347 1,011 1,524 551 257 Pig iron, spiegeleisen, sponge iron etc 7,460 5,157 7,958 4,524 6,445 15,258 11,047 8,487 3,331 9,134 Iron &steel universals, plates &sheets 406 95 569 810 894 404 711 1,192 2,078 1,486 Iron or steel tubes, pipes &fittings 16 29 4 12 115 211 317 621 1,868 1,068 Wire products (excluding electric) &fencing grills 325 467 168 379 183 571 841 300 1,197 1,268 Tools 530 747 945 903 1,250 1,916 2,190 2,727 2,186 1,625 Household equipment of base metals 90 90 283 390 471 720 856 1,241 2,048 2,042 Manufactures of base metal, nes 782 739 1,202 732 629 1,163 1,598 1,908 1,190 3,058 Machines specialised for particular industries 718 428 1,228 906 1,594 1,776 1,657 667 988 2,375 General industrial machines &equipment &parts 476 626 1,097 876 752 1,335 1,351 2,168 2,096 1,864 Electric fuses, switches etc &parts 223 316 313 445 487 756 1,091 897 968 864 Road vehicles 637 175 433 648 517 759 918 859 541 490 Special transactions &commodities 565 649 103 153 93 169 465 512 793 4,647 Items for which details nsa 199 38 76 43 359 424 556 390 898 2,505 Non merchandise trade 882 785 836 163 1,516 272 898 945 675 552 Groups may exclude certain data which is confidential. nsa not separately available. nes not elsewhere specified. . . denotes nil or negligible trade. (3) Information provided to Australian Customs by importers and exporters on individual trade transactions is not available for publication. (4) The activities of the Trade Commissioner in Johannesburg in respect of South Africa are limited to providing marketing information and assistance to Australian firms. The Trade Commissioner is also responsible for development of Australia's trade with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. (5) The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its preliminary figures for 1983/84 record the only oil exports to South Africa as being refined petroleum products valued at $13,000. (6) No. The Government continues to implement the UN Security Council's arms embargo against South Africa. Commonwealth Vehicles: Department of Trade (Question No. 611) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Five; (b) Approximately twenty per year. (2) (a) Two officers of Secretary or equivalent status and three Senior Executive Service officers of the Department are permitted to permanently garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence; (b) The Departmental officers occasionally garaging Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence are of various levels. (3) (a) The officers permanently garaging Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence do so to provide transport to and from work, supplemented as necessary to attend to official duties out of normal work hours; (b) Permission to occasionally garage a Commonwealth vehicle at a place of residence can be granted where there is a special requirement for an officer to use such a vehicle out of normal work hours in the course of carrying out official duties. Department of Finance: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 661) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The average employment for the relevant authorities is as follows: 1. Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office: 1979-80 427 1980-81 408 1981-82 401 1982-83 401 1983-84 405 1984-85 403 (6 months July to December 1984) 2. Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: 1979-80 33 1980-81 37 1981-82 37 1982-83 35 1983-84 40 1984-85 43 (6 months July to December 1984) Department of Housing and Construction: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 667) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full-time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983, (b) 1984. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are 2 statutory authorities for which the Minister for Housing and Construction is responsible. 1. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC). (a) average staffing level was 592 in the calendar year 1983. (b) average staffing level was 464 in the calendar year 1984 (current actual staff 362). 2. Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (HLIC). (a) average staffing level was 50 in the calendar year 1983. (b) average staffing level was 55 in the calendar year 1984. Department of Finance: Staff Numbers (Question No. 689) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department of Finance (average full-time employees) 1979-80 881 1980-81 888 1981-82 880 1982-83 882 1983-84 890 1984-85 906 (6 months July to December 1984). Department of Transport: Staff Numbers (Question No. 698) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed fulltime in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The average number of fulltime operative staff employed at the end of each month in the Department of Transport in 1983 and 1984 was as follows: (a) March-December 1983, when the Department was being established: 1,386. (b) January-December 1984, when the Department was more fully established: 1,522. Prices Surveillance Authority: Guidelines (Question No. 712) Mr Rocher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Did he issue declarations under the Prices Surveillance Act on 8 March 1985 to place the wholesale price of packet tea, tea bags, and instant coffee under surveillance by the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA); if so, why. (2) What guidelines establish the process for considering areas for potential PSA surveillance. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I issued the declarations on 7 March 1985, and they took effect on 12 March 1985, the date of their gazettal. This action followed a recommendation to me by the Prices Surveillance Authority that the wholesale prices of packet tea, tea bags and instant coffee be made subject to surveillance by the Authority. Since the Authority came into being on 19 March 1984, it has been assessing the need for prices surveillance in particular industries, in accordance with the Government's policy that surveillance is to be exercised selectively. The Authority found that small numbers of suppliers were dominant in the markets for packet tea, tea bags and instant coffee. This situation indicates a potential for the exercise of market power and a lack of competitive discipline in price setting. Further, packet tea, tea bags and instant coffee are popular items in household budgets and in that sense price changes may be seen as having pervasive economic effects. (2) In my Second Reading Speech of 30 November 1983 on the Prices Surveillance Bill 1983 I announced that the selection of goods and services for surveillance would focus on areas where effective competitive disciplines are not present and where price or wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. Generally, both conditions have to be met before a body is made subject to surveillance. I also indicated that, in considering the selection of areas for surveillance, I would consult with the Authority which would, in turn, liaise with the Trade Practices Commission as appropriate. These processes are being followed. Department of Social Security: Disability Pensions (Question No. 771) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: What progress has been made towards implementing the Government's policy to exclude disability pensions, including the general and special rate, and family allowances from consideration as income for the payment of service pensions. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Disability pensions are income for the purpose of assessing social security pensions. The Government has no commitment to vary the current arrangements. The question of disregrading disability pensions cannot be considered in isolation given that they are, in many respects, similar to other forms of income which are taken into account under the income test. There is also a significant cost involved in exempting disability pensions amounting to some $85m in a full year. Family allowances are not counted as income in the assessment of social security pensions and benefits. Assets Tests: Property Valuations (Question No. 1064) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) How many pensioners living within post-code areas 4621, 4625-28, 4630, 4660, 4662, 4670-80, 4683, 4694-95, 4718-19 have had their pensions (a) cancelled or (b) reduced, since the introduction of the assets test. (2) How many of these pensioners were subjected to property valuations as listed in question 16 on the assets test form. (3) How many of the pensioners referred to in part 2 have (a) lodged appeals or requests for another valuation of their respective properties and (b) applied for assistance under the hardship provisions of the Social Security Act. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information requested is at present only available as at 8 March 1985, when the conversion to the assets test was made for pay-day 21 March 1985. Pensions Pensions Postcode cancelled reduced 4621 Biggenden 25 7 4625 Gayndah 29 9 4626 Mundubbera 9 9 4627 Eidsvold 15 1 4628 Abercorn - - 4630 Monto 27 8 4660 Childers 16 16 4662 Torbanlea - 7 4670 Bundaberg 134 84 4671 Gin Gin 17 17 4672 Avondale 1 - 4673 Yandaran 2 - 4674 Rose Dale 3 1 4675 Berajondo - - 4676 Lowmead 4 - 4677 Miriam Vale 5 - 4678 Bororen 4 2 4679 (unused postcode) . . . . 4680 Gladstone 22 29 4683 (unused postcode). . . . 4694 Yarwum 2 . . 4695 Mount Larcom 2 - 4718 Moura 7 2 4719 Theodore 5 4 The above statistics include Social Security pensioners only. (2) and (3) The information requested is not collected by postcode. Helipads (Question No. 345) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Which helipads in the Sydney area have received dispensation from Regulation AGA-7. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: AIP AGA-7 provides general standards for the operation of helipads. There are helipads in the Sydney area which do not meet the requirements either because of their physical characteristics or their proximity to one of the airports, or both. However operations at such helipads are not necessarily prohibited. Each helipad is considered on its merits and specific authorisation may be provided to compensate for the limitation of the site. Specific authorisation may limit the scope and/or class of operations. The following helipads in the Sydney area have been granted specific authorisation. My response to Question No. 339 regarding helipads in the Sydney area is also relevant. Organisation/Individual Helipad Site Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd, Epping Channel 7 Television Centre, Epping Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney Channel 2 Television Centre, Gore Hill Dick Smith Adventure Pty Ltd, North Ryde Cnr Lane Cove and Waterloo Roads, North Ryde Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd, Kellyville Cnr Khartoum and Talavera Roads, North Ryde Heliflite Pty Ltd, Castle Hill 69 Windsor Road, Castle Hill Prince Henry Hospital, Little Bay Prince Henry Hospital Anzac Parade, Little Bay Repatriation General Hospital, Concord Western side of Yaralla Bay, Concord Mr B. Rose, Point Piper Wingadal Place, Point Piper Mr R. H. Smith, Terrey Hills 1 Booligal Road, Terrey Hills Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, Brighton-le-Sands Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards Television Corporation Network Pty Ltd, Willoughby Channel 9 Television Centre, Willoughby United Telecasters Sydney Ltd, North Ryde Channel 10 Television Centre, North Ryde United Telecasters Sydney Ltd North, Ryde 39 Darling Harbour Animal Imports (Question No. 462) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) What quantity of animal (a) skins, (b) horns and (c) skulls have been imported pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 in (i) 1982 and (ii) 1983. (2) What procedures now apply for importation of animal (a) skins, (b) horns and (c) skulls from (i) Zimbabwe, (ii) Canada, (iii) The United States of America, (iv) Mexico and (v) Europe. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 did not commence operation until 1 May 1984. As a consequence, no animal skins, horns or skulls were imported into Australia under the Act in 1982 and 1983. (2) The importation of products (such as skin, horn and skulls) derived from animals listed in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Wildlife Protection Act requires the issue of a permit under the Act prior to the arrival of the products ('specimens') in Australia or an external Territory. Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), except for cetaceans, is contained in Schedule 1 to the Act; Appendix II of CITES is contained in Schedule 2 of the Act; cetaceans (whales, porpoises, dolphins) are listed in Schedule 3 to the Act. Australia has been a signatory to CITES since 1976. A permit to import a specimen of a Schedule 1 or 2 animal for private or commercial purposes may only be issued under the Act if the animal was bred in captivity (defined in Regulation 8 to the Act) or, in the case of a Schedule 2 animal only, taken from the wild in accordance with a management program approved by me under the Act (defined in Regulation 5 to the Act). There are approved management programs for the Zimbabwean and South African population of Loxodonta africana (African elephant) and the British Columbian populations of Ursus arctos (brown bear) and Canis lupus (wolf). A permit to import a specimen of a Schedule 3 animal for private or commercial purposes may only be issued if the animal has been bred in captivity. A permit to import a specimen of a Schedule 1, 2 or 3 listed animal for scientific research or zoo to zoo exchange may be issued providing strict requirements of the Act are met concerning the establishment of bona fides. In addition to the above, an authority to import Schedule 1, 2 or 3 specimens may be given under the Act to: a Registered Scientific Institution, in pursuance of the non-commercial loan, donation or exchange of the specimens for the purposes of scientific research, and a travelling circus, exhibition, zoo or menagerie, providing all such specimens are subsequently re-exported prior to the expiry of the authority. The above provisions apply irrespective of the overseas country of export. Application to import is made on an approved form, which should be forwarded to: The Director, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, GPO Box 636, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Attention: Wildlife Protection Section A fee is payable for the issue of permits and authorities under the Act. Permits are not required under the Act to import specimens of animal species not listed by CITES. High Technology Graduates (Question No. 471) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether there is a current shortage of high technology graduates in Britain. (2) Is he also able to say whether the 1985 British Budget provides a 3 year program for additional places in selected higher education institutions, principally in engineering and technology. (3) What comparable decisions have been made by the Government to meet the current shortage of high technology graduates in Australia. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The OECD Review of National Science Policies in Australia drew attention to the need for highly skilled and well educated personnel to ensure that technological advances are effectively used in Australian industry. The last two Budgets have provided additional funds to increase significantly opportunities for students to undertake higher education courses. The current Government Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission provide for higher education enrolments to increase by at least 15,000 places between 1984 and 1987. This growth will improve Australia's supply of educated, skilled personnel able to implement technological advances in industry and the public sector. Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No. 616) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Officers permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their place of residence: permanently-674 occasionally-21 (approx) (2) Officer levels differ from State to State and often garaging arrangements vary regularly according to staffing movements. In Regional Offices, State Headquarters and Central Office they are generally all a Class 6 classification and above or are involved in field work as are Field Officers, Social Workers and Aboriginal Liaison Officers. In addition to the above, ten members of the Senior Executive Service in Central Office and State Headquarters currently have access to Commonwealth vehicles in accordance with Public Service Board prescriptions. Due to the limited number of vehicles available to cover all eligible SES officers, use is restricted to officers in those positions most likely to be called on outside hours. (3) Vehicles are generally garaged privately because of security reasons and not to provide an officer with transport to and from work. Officers who do garage Commonwealth vehicles at their place of residence are permitted to use the vehicles for transport to and from work. As a general rule, however, the vehicles are not provided to transport other staff members to and from work. Department of Trade: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 665) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Number of Staff 1 July '84- Authority 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 31 Dec '84 Australian Overseas Projects Corporation 9 10 12 15 19 17 Export Development Grants Board 70 85 96 95 96 88 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation 90 88 93 95 96 95 Department of Trade: Personnel (Question No. 693) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983, (b) 1984. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Number of Staff 1 July '84- Department of Trade 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 31 Dec '84 Central and Regional Offices 1 234 1 233 1 231 *1 092 1 075 1 062 Trade Commissioners Act Staff 606 605 596 592 595 587 Australian Uranium Export Office 14 16 11 *7 . . . . * On 11 March 1983 the Department of Trade was created, succeeding the Department of Trade and Resources. The Australian Uranium Export Office was subsumed under the new Department of Trade. Farm Cash Operating Surplus (Question No. 725) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What was the average farm cash operating surplus of: (a) dried vine fruit growers, (b) wine grape growers, (c) citrus growers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Preliminary estimates of the average farm cash operating surplus in 1983-84, of those specialist multi-purpose grape growers who specialised in dried vine fruit in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics' multi-purpose grape industry survey in 1983-84, was estimated to be above $8,900. (b) Preliminary estimates of the average farm cash operating surplus of growers in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics wine-grape industry survey in 1983-84, was estimated to be about $14,400. (c) Preliminary estimates of the average farm cash operating surplus of growers in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics citrus industry survey in 1983-84, was estimated to be about $17,200. Major Rural Industries: Farm Cash Operating Surplus (Question No. 726) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What has been the average farm cash operating surplus in 1985 dollars for each of the major rural industry groups in each year since 1980-81? (2) Is the average farm cash operating surplus an accepted measure of farm productivity; if not, what is and what are the annual figures since 1980-81? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Average farm cash operating surplus in 1985 dollar terms for each of the major rural industry groups since 1980-81 is shown in table 1. Table 1 AVERAGE FCOS IN 1984-85 DOLLAR TERMS All Sheep Beef Sheep- AAGIS Horti- surveyed only only beef Wheat (c) Dairy culture Industries (a) 1980-81 19,192 19,504 36,114 60,450 35,940 30,188 22,579 35,760 1981-82 15,323 18,929 25,431 63,379 34,107 29,431 14,505 32,524 1982-83 9,687 15,562 19,702 27,330 19,391 25,891 15,600 20,123 1983-84 (b) 9,802 13,561 26,753 62,721 32,183 29,240 14,288 30,811 1984-85 (b) 11,856 15,626 29,924 38,934 24,962 19,386 17,063 23,771 Source: BAE surveys of rural industries- (a) Definitions of surveyed industries are: Wheat growing industry: farms with at least 40 ha of wheat sown for grain. Sheep only: farms with at least 200 sheep but fewer than 50 beef cattle and less than 40 ha of wheat sown for grain. Beef only: farms with at least 50 beef cattle but fewer than 200 sheep and less than 40 ha of wheat sown for grain. Sheep-beef: farms with at least 200 sheep and at least 50 beef cattle, but less than 40 ha of wheat sown for grain. Dairy: farms with at least 30 dairy cows. Horticulture: The Australian Horticultural Industries Survey covers the apple and pear, multi-purpose grape, deciduous canning fruit, citrus and winegrape growing industries. To be eligible for inclusion in this survey, a farm must have a crop equal to or exceeding a certain level, which varies according to the type of crop and the region sampled. The sample is selected from a farm population covering approximately 90 per cent of a region's crop area. (b) Figures for 1983-84 are preliminary estimates and figures for 1984-85 are projections. (c) The Australian Agricultural and Grazing Industry Survey (AAGIS) covers the sheep only, beef only, sheep-beef and wheat industries. (2) Average Farm Cash Operating Surplus is not an accepted measure of farm productivity. Total factor productivity is measured by the ratio of quantity of total outputs to the quantity of total inputs. Measures of total factor productivity are not available beyond 1981-82. An alternative measure of financial productivity is the ratio average nominal rate of return to capital and management, excluding capital appreciation, which is a measure of efficiency with which resources are employed in agriculture. Estimates of this measure are presented in Table 2. Table 2 AVERAGE NOMINAL RATE OF RETURN TO CAPITAL AND MANAGEMENT EXCLUDING CAPITAL APPRECIATION All Sheep Beef Sheep- Horti- surveyed Item Unit only only Beef Wheat AAGIS Dairy culture industries Rate of return to capital and management 1980-81 % -0.42 -1.45 0.99 2.98 1.05 2.30 -0.60 1.03 1981-82 % -0.64 -2.02 1.41 4.83 1.74 1.51 -5.63 1.34 1982-83 % -3.48 -2.42 -3.17 -2.18 -2.56 0.12 -4.70 -2.36 1983-84 (a) % -1.39 0.10 2.22 4.12 1.48 1.49 -4.66 1.87 1984-85 (a) % -1.55 0.04 1.39 0.56 0.23 -1.13 -2.93 0.03 (a) Figures for 1983-84 are preliminary estimates and figures for 1984-85 are projections Pensions: Assets Test (Question No. 760) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Was his Department instructed to conduct seminars on the assets test; if so, where and when were these seminars conducted. (2) How was it decided where they would be conducted. (3) How many officers of his Department were involved in conducting the seminars. (4) What amount was spent on advertising the seminars. (5) What was the itemised cost of conducting the seminars, including any reimbursement of travel expenses for departmental officers attending them. (6) How many people attended each seminar. (7) Was a report prepared on the seminars; if so, will he table the report in the House. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information strategy designed by my Department for the implementation of the asset test included a range of measures to ensure the public could obtain correct information about the asset test. Departmental officers were encouraged to attend meetings and to hold seminars as widely as possible. (2) and (3) The location, timing and target populations for such meetings were a matter of individual State Headquarters or Regional Office discretion. (4) and (5) State offices of my department were not requested to keep statistics, however it is estimated that more than 200 seminars were held in cities, suburbs and country areas. Costs of advertising the seminars was not separated from general publicity costs (hotlines etc.) which were in the order of $105,000. (6) Each meeting was attended by one or two staff as part of their normal duties and, where travel was involved, usually as part of the normal visitation program. Separate costings are not available. Attendance figures were not kept. (7) No report of the seminars was prepared. Special Trade Commissioner: Geneva (Question No. 767) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Will he table in the House the short list of nominees for the position of Special Trade Representative to Geneva. (2) If not, why did he appoint a previous Department of Foreign Affairs member and senior member of the Premier of Victoria's staff rather than a specialised member of the Department of Trade skilled in trade matters. (3) Are the 2 Special consultants, Mr Bayutti and Mr Pilavachi, appointed by his predecessor still employed by the Government. (4) Will he table in the House a list of the marketing achievements gained for Australia by the engagement of Special Trade Commissioner, Mr Joe Doueihi, specialising in the Middle East, during his one year appointment by his predecessor. (5) Did the question of Special Market Adviser in the Trade Commissioner Service, specialising in the Middle East, exist before the appointment of Mr Doueihi. (6) Who is currently filling this position. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is not usual practice to divulge information associated with appointments by the Governor-General and I do not propose to depart from that. (2) The officer selected was judged to be the most suitable for the position. A former Foreign Affairs officer, at the time of the appointment he was a Commissioner of the Victorian Public Service Board. (3) Mr Bayutti is still employed by the Government. Mr Pilavachi is not. (4) Since his appointment as Special Markets Adviser, Middle East, Mr J. C. Doueihi has concentrated on encouraging Australian companies to examine the Middle East market and introducing these companies to Arab companies. Mr Doueihi has visited the Middle East four times and has uncovered a number of trading and joint venture opportunities which he has pursued with Australian companies. Products involved have included processed foodstuffs, chilled meat, barley, coal, agricultural equipment, animal fodder and coolrooms. Other major projects have included marina development, maintenance services and hospital development. Last month a Kuwaiti Television crew visited Australia to prepare a series of documentaries promoting Australia and its industry for broadcast throughout the Gulf. This was a direct result of an initiative by Mr Doueihi. (5) No. (6) Mr J. C. Doueihi. Electoral Division of Lowe (Question No. 888) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Which roadworks within the electoral division of Lowe have been declared to be (a) national roads and (b) urban arterial roads. (2) Has an application been submitted by the New South Wales Government for the declaration of Country Road 33 between Parramatta Road, Homebush, and Ryde Bridge, Rhodes, as an urban arterial road; if so, (a) what was the date of the application, (b) when was the application approved and (c) what is the estimated cost of updating the road. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) There are no national roads within the electoral division of Lowe. (b) I have arranged for the Department of Transport to forward to the honourable member a copy of the relevant declaration map detailing the declared urban arterial roads within his electoral division of Lowe. However, for the honourable member's information, the declared urban arterial roads within his electoral division are: - Victoria Road, Drummoyne - Marlborough Street, Drummoyne - Bayswater Street, Drummoyne - Westbourne Street, Drummoyne - Lyons Road, Drummoyne, between Great North Road and Victoria Road - Great North Road, Drummoyne - Ingham Avenue, Five Dock - Ramsay Road, Five Dock, between Great North Road and Wattle Street/Dobroyd Parade - Gipps Street, Concord - Queens Road, Concord - Fairlight Street, Five Dock, between Great North Road and Ramsay Road - Parramatta Road - Western (F4) Freeway - Paterson Street, North Strathfield, between Concord Road and Gipps Street - Concord Road, Concord - Sydney Street, North Strathfield, between F4 and Concord Road - Young Street, North Strathfield - Leicester Avenue, North Strathfield - Cooper Street, Strathfield, between Leicester Avenue and Concord Road - Morwick Street, Strathfield - Railway Parade, Burwood - Paisley Road, Burwood - Dickinson Avenue, Croydon, between Railway Parade and Thomas Street - Thomas Street, Ashfield - Frederick Street, Ashfield - Elizabeth Street, Ashfield - Liverpool Road, West Strathfield, between Pemberton Street and Parramatta Road - Coronation Parade, South Strathfield - The Boulevarde, South Strathfield - Redmyre Road, Strathfield, between Raw Square and The Boulevarde, - Raw Square, Strathfield - Beresford Road, Strathfield, between Broughton Road and Elva Street - Albert Road, Strathfield, between Elva Street and Raw Square. - Elva Street, Strathfield, between Beresford Road and Albert Road - Arthur Street, Homebush West - Broughton Road, Strathfield - Pemberton Street, West Strathfield - Marlborough Road, Homebush West - Richmond Road, Homebush West - Proposed connector between Richmond Road and Marlborough Road near Hudson Bay at Homebush West. - Proposed road between Parramatta Road and Concord Road near Horseshoe Bay (2) Yes. (2) (a) 14 February 1983. (2) (b) 5 July 1983. (2) (c) I have not as yet received any proposal from the New South Wales Government for the upgrading of this road and so am not aware of the estimated cost. Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No. 912) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) With respect to the garaging of Commonwealth vehicles at officers' places of residence, is any officer permitted to use the allotted vehicle on other than work days, that is, at times when the officer is not on duty. (2) In the case of a vehicle garaged in the Australian Capital Territory, may the officer use the vehicle for recreation purposes outside the Territory. (3) Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority reporting to the Minister issued guidelines for the use of these vehicles; if so, what are the terms of the guidelines. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes-however such use must be work related. (2) No. (3) The staff of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are required to adhere to the instructions and procedures for vehicle usage contained in CSIRO Financial Directions. Officers of my Department and my remaining Authorities are required to adhere to the 'Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority' issued by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. Queensland: Industrial Action Mr Lionel Bowen —On 16 April 1985 (Hansard, page 1155) Mr Braithwaite asked the following question, without notice: I refer to the request by the Premier of Queensland that the Government act under sections 45D (1A) and 80 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act to prevent the proposed trade union blockage of Queensland. I ask whether the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce will obtain an injunction to prevent an un-Australian attack on the people of Queensland. If he is not proposing to take such action, on what basis is he condoning these illegal acts? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is the Government's judgment that an action brought under the Trade Practices Act for an injunction would be likely to aggravate the unsatisfactory situation in Queensland. The Prime Minister has made clear that the dispute can be readily resolved by discussions between the parties. The Queensland Government has refused to take part in such discussions. Non-Government Schools in Victoria (Question No. 109) Mr Brumby asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 February 1985: Which Victorian non-government schools received capital grants from the Commonwealth and what was the amount paid to each school in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to the date of the answer of this question. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer, which is current as at 26 February 1985, to the honourable member's question. School Amount $ Grant Payments to Victorian Non-Government Schools in 1983-84 Camberwell Grammar School, 55 Mont Albert Road, Canterbury 174,000 St Kevin's Presbytery (Serpell Primary School), Herlihys Road, Lower Templestowe 268,000 St Kevin's College, Moonga Road, Toorak 166,500 Mountain District Christian School, Cnr Macclesfield Road and Jindabyne Court, Monbulk 100,000 St John's Regional College, Caroline Street, Dandenong 81,300 McKillop College, Russell Street, Werribee 354,469 St Francis Xavier Presbytery (St Anthony's Primary School), 143 Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio 6,423 St Peter's School, 2 Parkside Avenue, Keilor East 209,200 St Martin of Tours School, Silk Street, Rosanna 2,300 St Joseph's School, 56 Waterloo Road, Trafalgar 1,100 St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School, 51 Plume Street, Norlane 45,500 Sacred Heart School, Hart Street, Colac 35,400 Holy Rosary School, 556 Napier Street, White Hills 5,500 Sacred Heart Primary School, Piper Street, Yarrawonga 2,300 St Clare's Parish (St Catherines Primary School), 10 Gladstone Street, Lalor West 156,800 St Colman's School, Dunlop Street, Mortlake 3,300 St Jude the Apostle School, George Street, Scoresby 7,799 St Columba's Primary School, 24 Glenhuntly Road, Elwood 3,000 All Saints School, P.O. Box 557, Portland South 291,300 St Martin de Porres' School, Military Road, Avondale Heights 4,500 St Mary's School, 11 Pearson Street, Sale 2,700 St Edmunds School, 14 Lacey Street, Croydon 450 Mowbray College, P.O. Box 172, Melton 34,000 Toorak College, Old Mornington Road, Mt Eliza 8,000 St Joseph's Marist Brothers College, 100 Backly Street, Fitzroy North 53,100 Blackwood Community School, 19 Leonard Street, Northcote 800 St Patrick's School, Petral Street, Geelong West 4,400 St Dominic's Parish (Catholic Primary School), P.O. Box 96, Melton 424,500 St Thomas the Apostle School, 57 Central Road, Blackburn 4,400 Assumption College, Sutherland Street, Kilmore 3,300 Sacred Heart School, 4 Newcastle Street, Newport 15,300 St Annes Primary School, 60 Knees Road, Park Orchards 27,700 Trinity Regional College, 33 Saxon Street, Brunswick 4,800 Immaculate Heart of Mary School, 48 Monash Road, Newborough 29,800 St Joseph's School, 18 Kaye Street, Charlton 33,458 St James' Primary School, 61 Davison Street, Richmond North 9,300 St Aloysius' School, 34 Stevens Street, Queenscliff 1,800 St Joseph's Primary School, Campaspe Street, Rochester 3,200 St Mary's School, 210 Grimshaw Street, Greensborough 3,419 St Paul's Primary School, 200 Glengala Road, Sunshine West 7,200 Goold College, 27 Fenwick Street, Geelong 31,832 St Raphael's Primary School, Cooper Street, Preston West 9,200 St Michael's School, Springbank Road, Springbank 1,000 St Patrick's College, 1431 Sturt Street, Ballarat 23,500 St Anne's Primary School, Austin Road, Seaford 3,800 Village School Limited, 481 Maroondah Highway, Ringwood 4,200 St Mary of the Angels School, Chapel Street, Nathalia 3,200 St Mary Magdelene's School, Bolwarra Street, Chadstone 5,301 Nazareth School, Griffith Street, Grovedale 4,400 St Augustine's School, 71 Somerville Road, Yarraville 15,500 Sacred Heart School, 107 King William Street, Fitzroy 19,800 St Mary's Primary School, High Street, Rutherglen 1,700 John Paul College, McMahons Road, Frankston 6,920 Parade Preparatory College, P.O. Box 95, Fairfield 117,700 Plenty Valley Montessori School, Aqueduct Road, Diamond Creek 175,600 St Mary's Parish School, 29 Victoria Street, West Melbourne 12,780 St Patrick's School, 66 Alma Street, St Arnaud 2,400 St Monica's Primary School, Wingfield Street, Footscray 8,400 Loyola College, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia 50,256 St Paul the Apostle Primary School, 78 Matthew Flinders Avenue, Endeavour Hills 92,732 St Peter's Presbytery (St Mary's Primary School), 13 Davisson Street, Whittlesea 50,000 St Augustine's School, Golf Links Road, Frankston 169,500 St James Apostle Primary School, Derrimut Road, Hoppers Crossing 100,000 Sacred Heart Girls' College, PO Box 228, Oakleigh 24,000 St George's School, Drummond Street, Carlton 15,139 Christ the King College, Margaret Crescent, Braybrook 100,000 Corpus Christi School, Ormond Road, Kingsville 28,018 St Margaret Mary's School, 51 Mitchell Street, Brunswick North 8,452 Geelong Christian School, St David Street, North Geelong 28,000 Catholic Primary School, 230-240 Sunshine Road, Kealba 120,993 St Thomas More's Primary School, Canadian Bay Road, Mount Eliza 4,900 St Gregory the Great School, 396 Manningham Road, Doncaster 4,990 St Bernadette's Primary School, 59 Westmoreland Street, Sunshine North 30,800 St Keiran's Primary School, Lloyd Street, Moe 173,000 St Joseph's School, 54 Fitzgerald Street, South Yarra 5,555 St John Vianney's School, Brisbane Terrace, Parkdale East 4,163 Mercia Parish Primary School, Thornhill Road, Highton 4,600 Our Lady of the Assumption School, 9 Centre Dandenong Road, Cheltenham 144,600 St Joseph's School, 46 Otter Street, Collingwood 156,000 St Peter and Paul's School, Montague Street, South Melbourne 27,185 Northside Christian College, PO Box 100, Bundoora 23,500 St Joseph's School, 101 Stokes Street, Port Melbourne 24,330 St Peter's Primary School, Killeen Street, Sunshine South West 34,000 Resurrection Primary School, Gum Road, St Albans West 12,510 Holy Family School, PO Box 34, Doveton 54,982 Catholic Regional College, Bulman's Road, Melton West 4,775 St Dominic's School, 145 Highfield Road, East Camberwell 1,400 Yarraville Catholic Girls' College, 6 Avoca Street, Yarraville 52,300 Montessori Primary School, 2-6 Roselea Street, South Caulfield 3,300 St Margaret Mary's School, 51 Mitchell Street, Brunswick North 55,176 St Peter and Paul's School, Montague Street, South Melbourne 2,815 St John's School, 494 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 8,300 St Peter's Presbytery (St Mary's Primary School), 13 Davisson Street, Epping 50,000 Holy Child Primary School, Blair Street, Dallas 72,612 Braemar College, Woodend 1,123 Grant Payments to Victorian Non-Government Schools in 1984-85 Holy Family School, PO Box 34, Doveton 18 St Joseph's Presbytery (Catholic Primary School), 212 Boronia Road, The Basin 150,775 St Kevins's Presbytery (Serpell Primary School), Herlihy's Road, Lower Templestowe 301,000 St Mary's School, 58 Clegg Road, Mount Evelyn 336,900 St Clare's Parish, 10 Gladstone Street, Lalor West 50,000 Don Bosco Primary School, 496 Princes Highway, Narre Warren 135,800 St Monica's Boys School, 13 Robinson Street, Moonee Ponds 300,000 Our Lady of Mt Carmel School, 53 Macedon Street, Sunbury 50,800 St Patrick's Primary School, Drummond Street, South Ballarat 137,000 St Joseph's College, 21 Dickson Street, Echuca 474,500 Chanel College, Anakie Road, Lovely Banks 333,737 St Thomas More's Presbytery (St Paul's Primary School) PO Box 100, Belgrave 327,400 St Peter's School, 2 Parkside Avenue, Keilor East 78,898 St Patrick's Primary School, 9-11 William Street, Port Fairy 24,477 St Therese's Primary School, Albion Street, Bendigo 148,200 St Bernard's College, 1 Beryl Street, Essendon West 291,874 Beacon Hills Christian College, Toomuc Valley Road, Pakenham 258,600 Sacred Heart College, 147 Knight Street, Shepparton 106,500 St Joseph's Marist Brother's College, 100 Barkly Street, Fitzroy North 287,600 Catholic Primary School, 34 Academy Avenue, Mulgrave East 445,200 Mazenod College, Kernot Avenue, Mulgrave 377,700 Sacred Heart Primary School, 1 Clifton Grove, Preston 17,560 St James Apostle Primary School, Derrimut Road, Hoppers Crossing 142,000 Holy Child Primary School, Blair Street, Dallas 204,000 St John's Greek Orthodox College, 885 Drummond Street, Carlton 560,200 All Saints School, PO Box 557, Portland South 98,500 Billanook College, Cardigan Road, Mooroolbark 60,750 Melbourne Rudolph Steiner School, 213 Wonga Road, Warranwood 115,700 St Martin De Porres School, 158 Military Road, Avondale Heights 42,400 Catholic Primary School, 230-240 Sunshine Road, Kealba 63,400 St Kieran's Primary School, Lloyd Street, Moe 108,650 St Theresa's School, 16 Drummartin Street, Albion 61,300 Marist-Sion College, Skinners Road, Warragul 341,000 St Anthony's Primary School, PO Box 216, Noble Park 322,100 St Clement of Rome School, 78 Manningham Road, Bulleen 120,000 Mountain District Christian School, corner Macclesfield Road and Jindabyne Court, Monbulk 38,200 Kilvington Baptist Girls' Grammar School, corner Leila and Katandra Road, Ormond 233,700 St Bernard's Primary School, 36 Patterson Street, Coburg East 9,891 St Augustine's School, Golf Links Road, Frankston 195,100 St Paul the Apostle Primary School, 78 Matthew Flinders Avenue, Endeavour Hills 43,813 Sacred Heart School, Hart Street, Colac 49,200 St John's School, corner Eleanor and Essex Streets, West Footscray 46,977 St Joseph's School, 46 Otter Street, Collingwood 210,994 Yavneh College, 11 Mercer Road, Armadale 4,600 Loreto College, 1600 Sturt Street, Ballarat 108,300 Christ the King College, Margaret Crescent, Braybrook 52,850 Gandel Besen House, 15 Mayfield Street, East St Kilda 342,200 Worawa College, 1 Overton Road, Frankston 28,800 Rev Father Lower (St Anthony's Primary School), St Francis Xavier Presbytery, 143 Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio 28,200 Father Dillon, St Peter's Presbytery (St Mary's Primary School), 13 Davisson Street, Epping 137,500 Sacred Heart College, 94 High Street, Kyneton 219,709 St Kevin's College, Moonga Road, Toorak 57,700 Catholic Regional College, PO Box 152, Camperdown 38,000 Marian College, Glengala Road, Sunshine West 273,800 St Paul's School 'Woodleigh', Golf Links Road, Baxter 81,000 St Francis of Assissi School, Childs Road, Mill Park 24,100 Adass Israel School, 10-12 King Street, Elsternwick 179,200 St Leo's College, 1 Hay Street, Box Hill 127,700 St Patrick's School, Patrick Street, Stawell 23,000 St Monica's College, 16 Davisson Street, Epping 472,700 Avila College, 32 Charles Street, Mount Waverley 162,300 St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School, 51 Plume Street, Norlane 15,402 Knoxfield College, Burwood Highway, Wantirna South 25,500 St Mary's School, 43 O'Donnell Avenue, Myrtleford 45,000 Padua College, Oakbank Road, Mornington 149,400 St Joseph's College, 154 Twelfth Street, Mildura 149,400 St Colman's College, 152 Knight Street, Shepparton 96,200 St Michael's School, 8 Brougham Street, North Melbourne 240,600 St Mary's Primary School, Fir Street, Whittlesea 8,400 Trinity Regional College, 33 Saxton Street, Brunswick 25,700 Assumption College, Sutherland Street, Kilmore 348,000 St Brendan's School, 103 Wellington Street, Flemington 61,000 Christian Brothers' College, 11 Westbury Street, St Kilda East 166,700 Presentation College, Hawker Street, Moe 250,000 St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield Avenue, Beaconsfield 167,800 The Westbourne School, Sayers Road, Werribee 283,400 St Andrew's Private School Ltd, 139 Noble Street, Newtown 100,000 Galen College, 2 Philipson Street, Wangaratta 133,860 St Margaret's Primary School, The Esplanade, Maribyrnong 3,300 St Fidelis Primary School, 448 Saunders Street, Moreland 75,000 St Peter's Primary School, Killeen Street, Sunshine South-West 59,000 St Ignatius' School, 16 The Vaucluse, Richmond 40,340 St Monica's Primary School, 1B Whitehall Street, Footscray 75,000 St Brigid's School, 378 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy North 4,958 Ghilgai, Lot 3, Liverpool Road, Kilsyth South 3,200 Sacred Heart Primary School, 101 Grey Street, St Kilda West 75,000 Moonee Vale Christian School, 9 Navigator Street, Maribyrnong 75,000 Geelong Christian School, Creamery Road, Bell Post Hill 75,000 Parish Priest (Holy Trinity Primary School), Catholic Presbytery, 49 George Street, Scoresby 197,166 St Joseph the Worker School, 79 Wilson Boulevard, Reservoir North 75,000 St Peter Chanel Primary School, 39 Harrison Street, Deer Park 75,000 Hamilton College, Chaveer Street, Hamilton 35,800 Sacred Heart College, Retreat Road, Newtown 10,000 Our Lady Star of the Sea Primary School, P.O. Box 201, Ocean Grove 253,537 St Mary's School, P.O. Box 10, Thornbury 75,000 St Timothy's School, 21 Stevens Road, Vermont 75,000 Loyola College, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia 179,681 Army Training School Complex (Question No. 187) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) When does he expect to receive advice from the New South Wales Government suggesting sites for a proposed Army Training School Complex and a separate manoeuvre area. (2) When does the Government expect to make a final decision on the matter. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the continuing anxiety and uncertainty over this matter of a large number of people living in 10 per cent of New South Wales; if so, will he take steps to resolve this issue. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 13 March 1985 the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, proposed three location options for the proposed Army School Complex-Singleton, Dubbo and Bathurst-Orange, with a preference for Singleton. Mr Wran suggested only one location for the proposed manoeuvre area, an area north-west of Cobar. (2) On 28 March 1985 I announced that the area recommended by the New South Wales Government for Army manoeuvres would be the subject of detailed study to determine its suitability. On 9 May 1985 I announced that an area between Bathurst and Orange, which had been identified by the Premier, Mr Wran, would be the subject of detailed study to determine its suitability for Army's School of Artillery and Infantry Centre, and their associated training areas. (3) I am aware of the feelings of the people living in the proposed study area and appreciate their concern. I am ensuring that the complex environmental studies and the environmental impact statements which will require to be conducted before the Government can make any final decision on the proposal are completed as quickly as possible. Department of Education: Language Availability Performance Allowance (Question No. 207) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A total of four employees within the Minister for Education's portfolio receive the language availability performance allowance; three in the Australian Capital Territory and one in Western Australia. (2) The Central Office of the Department of Education has compiled a register of departmental staff in the ACT with any language skills, including those who qualify for payment of the allowance. The register contains information on whether the language skills are oral or written, and the degree of proficiency of the officer concerned. State Offices of the Department and authorities within the Education portfolio either have, or are compiling similar registers. (3) The information on officers with language skills is readily available to all areas of the Department. In some offices the names of these officers are contained in the phone directory or held by the switchboard. All counter areas are made aware of the information or where it may be found. Murray Valley Salinity and Drainage (Question No. 249) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the resolution, passed at the Annual General Meeting of the Murray Valley League in June 1984, which supports the recommendations made in the Maunsell and Partners' report on Murray Valley Salinity and Drainage of 1979 on pages 37, 38, 55 and 56. (2) Is it a fact that many farmers, especially in state government horticultural irrigation areas, use flood or furrow irrigation which generally wastes water and increases salinity. (3) Has his attention been drawn to (a) the conclusion on page 69 of the Water 2000 report and (b) the report of Kinnaird, Hill, de Rohan and Young entitled South Australia River Murray Irrigation Overview Study: if so, in view of their findings, is it considered that resource management as opposed to resource development, for irrigation, is a more appropriate step to take. (4) What action does the Government propose to take to encourage improved on-farm irrigation management and practices. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) While flood irrigation is widely used for pastures and some grain crops, furrow, spray and drip irrigation techniques are used for horticulture. The most recent developments in horticulture, such as drip lines and microjet sprays, ensure the more efficient use of water, while at the same time reducing accessions to groundwater tables and associated salinity problems. (3) (a) Yes. (b) This report has not been released by the South Australian Government. Nevertheless, it is evident from current water management problems in some irrigation areas, as well as the increasing cost of new water supplies, that the more efficient management of existing irrigated agriculture is now more appropriate than the development of new irrigation areas. (4) Generous concessions under the Income Tax Assessment Act in relation to expenditures for the conservation and conveyance of water and salinity control measures are providing worthwhile incentives for better on-farm irrigation management. In addition, funds available under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program are being used for research into better irrigation practices in South Australia. At this stage, no further direct action is contemplated by the Commonwealth to improve on-farm irrigation management. Mr Gerald Hansler: Report on the River Murray Basin (Question No. 253) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Has the Government received a report from Mr Gerald Hansler, Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission, following his visit to Australia in 1984; if so, what recommendations has Mr Hansler made in relation to management of the Murray-Darling Basin and what action will the Government take on these recommendations. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Mr Hansler recently forwarded to the Government a written report on his visit entitled Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations on Management of Water and Related Resources of the River Murray Basin. With respect to the Commonwealth's role in River Murray matters, Mr Hansler's comments included expanded technical and financial assistance to the River Murray Commission and the relevant States would aid in the adoption of available technology to address current management problems; interchange of Commonwealth and State personnel would be beneficial in terms of both liaison and policy formulation on River Murray matters. With respect to the role and functioning of the River Murray Commission, Mr Hansler suggested, inter alia, that State Premiers should represent their respective States on the Commission rather than senior officers of State water agencies as is currently the case; the River Murray Commission should have investigative powers throughout the whole Murray/Darling Basin; the Commission's authority should be expanded to include all aspects of water and related land-use issues; and the States should retain their current power of veto over decisions concerning River Murray management. The new River Murray Waters Agreement is now being implemented, and it is the view of the Government that a reasonable passage of time must be allowed before the effectiveness of the new Agreement in dealing with current river management problems can be assessed. Mr Hansler's report will constitute a valuable contribution to the Government's deliberations in any future review of the operation of the Agreement. Department of Resources and Energy: Film and Video Production (Question No. 264) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Resources and Energy has commissioned films from Film Australia on energy conservation and energy management subjects. (2) No production is carried out within the Department. (3) Three films were produced for my Department's Energy Conservation Branch during 1983-84 by Film Australia. The title and cost of each film is as follows: Saving Energy Makes Good Cents-Cost: $42,000 Dennis Doyle-Energy Manager-Cost: $90,737 The Energy Crisis Thing!-Cost: $139,000 (Jointly funded by States and Commonwealth under the National Energy Conservation Program). (4) No professional quality production equipment is held by my Department. (5) Not applicable. Department of Resources and Energy: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 369) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The following tables set out the information requested in respect of (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils under my jurisdiction: (a) Statutory Authorities AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Date and period Remuneration Name of appointment as at 3 May 1985 Travelling allowance Professor M. H. Brennan (Chairman) Member from 12.1.82 Chairman from 27.5.83 (3 years) $20,283 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr B. J. Hill (Deputy Chairman) Member from 11.4.85 (3 years) (Commonwealth Public Servant) Rates applying to the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service Dr D. G. Walker Member from 26.5.83 (3 years) (Chief Executive Officer and Director, Research Establishment) Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Dr J. G. Morris Member from 31.5.83 (3 years) $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY Mr T. A. O'Brien (Commissioner) First appointed 5.2.76 Reappointed 29.2.84 (3 years) *$81,193 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day * (Mr O'Brien is a former Departmental Secretary now holding the offices of Commissioner of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and President of the River Murray Commission. Salary retention is at the middle rate for Secretaries) PIPELINE AUTHORITY Mr R. C. Coulton (Chairman) First appointed 24.7.81 Current term 1 year $17,981 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr R. N. Townsend (Deputy Chairman) First appointed 8.7.80 Current term 2 years $10,141 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr T. R. Baker (Executive Member) First appointed 13.5.77 Current term 5 years $68,287 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr J. W. Macbean First appointed 17.1.79 Current term 2 years $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day JOINT COAL BOARD Mr J. M. Wilcox (Chairman) 26.10.84 (7 years) $72,873 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr W. Chapman 26.10.84 (5 years) $57,261 Rates applying to the Senior Executive Service in the Australian Public Service Mr A. C. Girard 22.12.80 (7 years) $57,261 Rates applying to the Senior Executive Service in the Australian Public Service (b) Advisory Panels or Councils NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION COUNCIL Date Remuneration Name of appointment as at 3 May 1985 Travelling allowance Mr J. E. Kolm, A.O. (Chairman) 1.7.83 $16,860 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr J. O. Zehnder 20.8.79 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr A. H. Hams, A.M. 25.6.81 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr G. H. Taylor 25.6.81 (Commonwealth Employee) Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr R. A. Durie 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Professor R. E. Collins 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Associate Professor G. D. Sargeant 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr I. Lowe 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr M. S. Farrell 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Professor F. Larkins 24.6.83 $9,052 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr W. J. McG. Tegart 25.6.81 (Commonwealth Public Servant) Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr W. B. Rotsey (Executive Member) 24.6.83 (Commonwealth Public Servant) Rate applying to the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service Membership is not for a specified period. TECHNICAL STANDING COMMITTEES (TSC) OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION COUNCIL The Chairman of each Technical Standing Committee is a member of Council and receives no further remuneration. A per diem of $131 is payable in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determinations. Not all members of TSC's claim payment. Members employed by the Commonwealth are not eligible for separate remuneration. Membership is not for a specified period. Date Name of appointment Travelling allowance TSC 1 TECHNOLOGY OF FUEL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Mr J. O. Zehnder (Chairman) 20.8.79 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr R. J. Allen 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr D. J. McGarry 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr D. J. Forman 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 2 COAL MINE SITE TECHNOLOGY Mr A. H. Hams, A.M. (Chairman) 25.6.81 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr B. Allen 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr B. J. Eldridge 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr F. Fairclough 9.10.79 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr B. K. Hebblewhite 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr S. K. Nicol 30.6.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Professor F. Roxborough 11.4.85 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 3 TECHNOLOGY OF COAL UTILISATION Dr G. H. Taylor (Chairman) Appointed to TSC 1 20.9.78 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr M. Bosio 1.8.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr N. A. Brown 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr R. G. Davies 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr C. R. Irving 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr F. Walker 20.9.78 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 4 TECHNOLOGY OF SYNTHETIC FUELS Dr R. A. Durie (Chairman) 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr P. Huggins 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr B. S. Newell 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Professor P. Rickard 18.7.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr D. E. Roney 20.9.78 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 5 SOLAR, NUCLEAR AND WIND ENERGY Professor R. E. Collins (Chairman) 24.6.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr M. J. Boyley 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr T. Crawford 26.7.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr J. L. Symonds 26.7.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr J. D. Kalma 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr D. F. Koch 26.7.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 6 ENERGY CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES Associate Professor G. D. Sergeant (Chairman) 24.7.81 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr P. M. Chapman 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr D. H. Giles 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr V. E. Jennings 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr M. Lay 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Professor T. A. McMahon 18.7.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr D. G. Williams 2.6.80 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Mr M. Wooldridge 1.3.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 TSC 7 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Dr I. Low (Chairman) 24.6.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr R. M. Gifford 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 Dr H. D. W. Saddler 11.4.84 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Where stay is in excess of 10 hours $30 NATIONAL MAPPING COUNCIL The National Mapping Council is comprised of the Heads of the Division of National Mapping, Royal Australian Survey Corps, Hydrographic Office (RAN), Australian Survey Office, each State mapping agency and the Surveyor General of the Northern Territory. Membership of the National Mapping Council is for the duration of the time that the above offices are held. Accordingly, there is specific date or period of appointment to the National Mapping Council. Current holders of these offices are: Mr C. Veenstra (Chairman) Col. A. W. Laing Captain J. A. L. Myres Mr J. W. Sleep Mr K. J. Davies Mr V. F. Urban Mr R. E. Holmes Mr R. G. Roberts Mr B. H. Bridges Mr W. G. Henderson Mr P. J. Wells No additional remuneration or travelling allowance is paid in respect of membership. The rates applicable to the parent organisation are met by the parent organisation. AUSTRALIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE ON REMOTE SENSING BY SATELLITE (ALCORSS) ALCORSS comprises representatives from the Commonwealth, CSIRO, each State, the Northern Territory, industry, universities and colleges of advanced education. Representation may vary from meeting to meeting. No additional remuneration or travelling allowance is paid in respect of membership. The rates applicable to the parent organisation are met by the parent organisation. AUSTRALIAN COAL CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL (ACCC) Members of the ACCC are: Minister for Resources and Energy (Chairman) New South Wales Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy Six delegates from the Australian Coal Association Six delegates from the National Liaison Committee of Combined Mining Unions One delegate from the Australian Collieries Staff Association One delegate from the Australian Council of Trade Unions Each organisation nominates its representative for each meeting. There are no formal periods of appointment. No additional remuneration is paid to representatives but travel expenses may be reimbursed on request. NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH COUNCIL (NWRC)* Date Remuneration Travelling Name of appointment as at 3 May 1985 allowance Mr K. D. Green (Chairman) 12.11.82 $267 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr K. W. Lewis 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr J. S. Hancock 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr J. M. McIntyre 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr R. P. Stirling 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr J. G. Beale 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Professor J. Imberger 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Professor W. D. Williams 12.11.82 $211 per diem Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Dr N. K. Boardman 12.11.82 (Commonwealth Em- ployee) Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr A. Manderson 12.11.82 (Commonwealth Public Servant) Rates applying to Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service. Appointments to the NWRC are not for a specified period. * Met twice in 1982. Operations currently in abeyance. NATIONAL PETROLEUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NPAC) Remuneration Tribunal Determinations provide the following rates of remuneration for Chairman and members of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee. Chairman $286 per diem Member $211 per diem Not all members claim payment. Members employed by the Commonwealth are not eligible for separate remuneration. Date Name of appointment Travelling allowance Sir Frank Espie, O.B.E. (Chairman) 12.9.79 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr F. A. L. Connell, A.M. 12.9.79 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr A. W. Gorrie 19.9.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr A. R. Inglis 4.3.85 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr W. J. Kelty 12.9.79 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr G. Lightfoot 19.9.83 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr B. R. Lunn 4.3.85 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr L. E. Marks 14.4.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr R. B. Nicholson 4.3.85 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr P. S. Parkin 14.4.82 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Mr D. L. Willis 4.3.85 Capital City $125 per day Other than Capital City $95 per day Membership of NPAC also includes the following State and Commonwealth organisations. These organisations nominate their representatives and the representatives may change from meeting to meeting. Representatives of these organisations do not claim sitting fees. Department of Resources and Energy Energy Authority of New South Wales Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, Victoria Department of Mines, Queensland State Energy Commission of Western Australia Department of Mines and Energy, South Australia Hydro-electric Commission, Tasmania Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory Department of Territories Membership of NPAC is not for a specified period. NATIONAL OIL SUPPLIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NOSAC) Membership of NOSAC comprises the following Commonwealth, State and other organisations. Each organisation nominates their representatives: Department of Resources and Energy Department of Trade Department of Territories Energy Authority of New South Wales Department of Industry, Technology and Research, Victoria Department of Mines, Queensland State Energy Commission of Western Australia Department of Mines and Energy, South Australia Hydro-electric Commission, Tasmania Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory Ampol Ltd Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd Esso Australia Ltd Mobil Oil Australia Ltd BP Australia Ltd The Shell Company of Australia Ltd BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd Santos Ltd These organisations have been members of NOSAC since its establishment in October 1982. Membership is not for a specific period. No additional remuneration of travelling allowance is payable. The rates applicable to each organisation are met by that organisation. SNOWY MOUNTAINS COUNCIL Date Name of appointment Remuneration D. J. Ives (Chairman) 26.1.81 (Commonwealth Public Servant) K. J. Rodda, O.B.E., E.D. (Deputy Chairman) 7.7.76 (Commonwealth Public Servant) F. Brady 9.2.79 (State Government employee) J. B. Cunneen 4.7.77 (State Government employee) C. J. Joyce 29.11.84 (State Government employee) D. J. Constable 1.10.82 (State Government employee) T. A. O'Brien 5.2.76 (Commonwealth employee) J. F. Butterworth 25.1.84 (Commonwealth employee) There is no specified period of appointment. Travelling expenses are met by the member's organisation, not the Snowy Mountains Council. Department of Health: Union Membership (Question No. 435) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The key points in the memorandum and action to be taken on it were notified to Departmental staff in Central Office on 24 July 1984 following consultation with Staff Associations. Copies of this circular were distributed to Regional Offices on 2 August 1984. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority (formerly the Capital Territory Health Commission) and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission brought the memorandum to the attention of all staff in early August 1984. The Health Insurance Commission which is not in a statutory relationship with the Public Service Board, did not draw it to the attention of its staff. (3) Additional action taken by my Department and all statutory authorities within my portfolio to encourage union membership includes: providing to new recruits at the time of induction information on the role and activities of staff associations; advising staff of the names and locations of staff association work-place delegates and contact officers. Introductory pamphlets and application forms are also made available to staff; providing details to staff association representatives to help them identify those staff eligible to become members including the names and locations of new recruits. The above actions were taken immediately following notification to staff on dates indicated in (2) except in respect of the Health Insurance Commission which has facilitated union membership since 1974. Assets Test: Readily Available Funds (Question No. 457) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) What comprises readily available funds in the test for hardship benefits under the assets test. (2) Are (a) investments for a fixed term, (b) jewellery and (c) paintings, classed as readily available funds. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Readily available funds for the purpose of the hardship test are assets which can easily be converted to cash and include amounts held in bank accounts, building society and credit union accounts, fixed deposits, bonds, shares and other similar investments. (2) Investments lodged for a fixed term are regarded as readily available funds for the hardship test if they are able to be realised; where this is the case, the value taken into account is their immediately realisable value. Jewellery and paintings are not regarded as readily available assets. Mr Robert Trimbole (Question No. 536) Mr MacKellar asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: What has been the cost to the Australian Government of the search for Mr Robert Trimbole, both in Australia and overseas? Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Insofar as the Australian Federal Police are concerned I am advised that the information sought by the honourable member is not readily available as it would involve an assessment of costs incurred as a result of a substantial intelligence effort over a number of years. To research fully the request would require an extensive and unreasonable deployment of resources away from other more pressing police commitments which I am not prepared to authorise. Australian National Railways Commission (Question No. 556) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: Does the Australian National Railways Commission intend to close the Mount Gambier to Adelaide and Naracoorte to Kingston lines; if not, what changes to services and railway station operations on these lines (a) have been made in the last two years and (b) will be made in the near future. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian National Railways Commission AN has advised me that it does not intend to close the Adelaide to Mount Gambier railway line. Possible closure of the Naracoorte-Kingston line has been investigated on several occasions, including when it was operated by the former South Australian Railways. Such investigations are continuing, but no decisions have been taken by AN. (a) Changes made in the past two years have been the withdrawal of the station-master from Lucindale in May 1984 and freight services 755 (Wednesdays ex Adelaide) and 744 (Thursdays ex Mount Gambier) have been replaced by on-demand services since February 1985. (b) Future changes to services currently being investigated are alterations to the Mount Gambier-Adelaide passenger service. Various changes are being examined with a view to upgrading the night service, in particular a large reduction in travel time, a late afternoon departure to avoid overnight journeys, and an improved refreshment service. This may also involve reductions in day train services, to take account of substantial reductions in rail patronage since 1980. In connection with upgrading night passenger services, freight train services may be modified. No decisions have yet been made. AN has conducted two market surveys in connection with these proposals, and has consulted extensively with communities and employee organisations. There will be further consultations with these bodies and with the South Australian Minister of Transport before any decisions are made. Commonwealth Vehicles: Department of Community Services (Question No. 603) Mr Cadman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1985. (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of officers permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their place of residence is: permanently-39; occasionally-2. (2) Officer levels differ from State to State and often the garaging arrangements vary according to staffing movements. Generally officers are of a senior classification. (3) Vehicles are generally garaged privately because of security reasons and not to provide an officer with transport to and from work. Officers who do garage Commonwealth vehicles at their place of residence are permitted to use the vehicles to transport themselves to and from work. As a general rule, however, the vehicles are not used to transport other staff members to and from work. Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 642) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: When are meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General scheduled to be held and what subjects are on the agenda for each meeting. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met on 2 May 1985 and is scheduled to meet on 26 July 1985, 20 September 1985 and 6 December 1985. The following matters are on the Standing Committee agenda: STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL Agenda 1. Forfeiture of illegally obtained assets. 2. Australian Institute of Judicial Administration: Application for composite government funding. 3. Sexual reassignment. 4. Jurisdictional problems: Conflicts between Federal and State Courts (and integrated courts system). 5. Crimes-States' powers. 6. Residual constitutional links. 7. Family Law-Reference of power. 8. International transfer of prisoners. 9. Hague convention on the service of documents abroad. 10. Foreign Judgments: Submission to the jurisdiction. 11. Carriers' liability: Civil aviation. 12. International Treaties and Conventions: Representation of officers. 13. Judicial salaries and conditions of employment. 14. Reciprocal enforcement of Judgments: Bilateral Treaty. 15. Reciprocal enforcement of Judgments: Inferior Courts. 16. Administration and Probate-Recognition. 17. Royal Commissions: Costs of complying with subpoenas. 18. International sale of goods. 19. Prisoners (interstate transfer). 20. Authorised trustee investments. 21. Privacy. 22. Evidence on commission. 23. Debts-Interest to Judgments. 24. Hague Convention: International child abduction. 25. Computer related crime. 26. Computers and the law. 27. Study of the use of interpreters in the Australian legal system. 28. Juveniles (interstate transfer). 29. Interstate exhibits and search warrants. 30. Enforcement of fines. 31. Evidence reproduction legislation. 32. Drugs. Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 656) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Full time staff Year ended employed 30 June 1980 66 30 June 1981 74 30 June 1982 84 30 June 1983 106 30 June 1984 155 (July-Dec 1984-166 average). AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Full time staff Year ended employed 31 December 1984 1 INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Staff average Financial year for year 1979-80 372 1980-81 363 1981-82 339 1982-83 311 1983-84 301 1984 (June-Dec.) 289 Department of Transport: Staff Numbers (Question No. 671) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ASC). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The number of people employed full time in each of these authorities was as follows: Date ANRC ASC ISC 30 June 1980 11,756 3,578 . . 30 June 1981 11,173 3,668 . . 30 June 1982 10,957 3,941 . . 30 June 1983 10,458 3,802 . . 30 June 1984 10,051 3,657 13 Department of Community Services: Staff Numbers (Question No. 685) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Community Services was created on 12 December 1984. At that time 2005 full-time operative staff were transferred to Community Services from Social Security (1720) and Health (285). The new Department has also been provided with an average operative staffing level of 2322 for the 1984-85 financial year. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism: Staff Numbers (Question No. 700) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 17 April 1985. How many people were employed full-time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is: The number of full-time staff employed in my Department as at 30 June 1983 and 1984 respectively was 62 and 133. The average operative staffing level for the period 1 July-31 December 1984 was 134.5 Department of Health: Staff Numbers (Question No. 701) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The average staffing level of my Department and during each of the past five years was: (b)- 1979-80 4,656 1980-81 4,585 1981-82 4,534 1982-83 4,651 1983-84 4,709 The average for the first half of 1984-85 was 4,577. Department of Territories: Staff Numbers (Question No. 703) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in: (a) 1983; (b) 1984. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Following are details of the number of people employed in my Department as at 30 June of each of the last 5 years. No. of Year people 1980 3,324 1981 3,283 1982 3,276 1983 3,386 1984 3,565 Tertiary Education Institutions: Overseas Students (Question No. 715) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many overseas students were enrolled at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following is the total number of students giving overseas home addresses as at time of first enrolment: 1983 1984 Universities 10,797 12,303 CAE's 2,776 2,891 Western Australian Tertiary Education Institutions: Special Assistance for Students Program (Question No. 716) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What amounts have been allocated to (a) the University of Western Australia, (b) the Murdoch University, Western Australia, (c) WAIT; and (d) WACAE, under the Special Assistance for Students Program. (2) What are the guidelines for the allocation of financial assistance to students under this program. (3) What is the total amount available under this program in 1985. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) $106,000; (b) $33,500; (c) $102,500; (d) $87,000. (2) The guidelines for the Special Assistance for Students Program were tabled on 19 March 1985. (3) $3.566m. Northern Sydney Electorates: School Cadet Units (Question No. 820) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 April 1985: (1) Which independent schools and public schools in the Electoral Divisions of North Sydney, Mackellar, Warringah, Bradfield and Bennelong currently maintain school cadet units with limited support and how many cadets are there at each of the units. (2) What is the estimated cost of the limited support to these units in 1984-85. (3)What are (a) the sources of extra cost not borne by the Government which are incurred by cadets at schools receiving only limited support and (b) the average level of such extra costs borne by cadets in such units. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- Cadet strength as at Electoral Division Unit 30.3.1985 (a) North Sydney St Aloysius College 331 St Pius X College 116 Sydney C of E Grammar School 302 *North Sydney Boys High School 92 (b) Mackellar Pittwater House Grammar School 185 (c) Warringah nil nil (d) Bradfield nil nil (e) Bennelong nil nil (f) Number of independent school cadet units: 4 (g) Number of public school cadet units: 1 *Denotes public school (2) Nil cost to Army in 1984-85. (3) The extra costs not borne by by the Government are: (a) Consumer goods such as food, clothing and expendable stores and equipment; (b) Transport costs (however some transportation may be provided within Army training areas at no cost); and (c) Sanitary costs, ammunition and incidentals. Costs to these units (based on information provided by the individual schools) for the FY 1984-85 were: $ (a) North Sydney Boys High School 7,800 (b) St Pius X College 30,000 (c) Pittwater House Grammar School 44,500 (d) Sydney C of E Grammar School 60,000 (e) St Aloysius College 10,000 The average costs borne by each cadet during FY 1984-85 was $148 per cadet. School Cadets (Question No. 821) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 April 1985: (1) How many cadets are there currently receiving (a) full support and (b) limited support; and how do they compare with the number of cadets in units based in schools at the end of October 1983. (2) If numbers are less, has the Minister taken steps to ascertain the reasons for the decline; if so, what are these reasons. (3) Has the Government met its expectation of raising 20 regional cadet units; if not, how many are currently in operation. (4) Is it expected that the projected saving of $3 million on the cadet scheme in 1984-85 will be achieved: if not, what is the estimated figure and what is the reason for the variation from the Budget estimates. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The number of cadets receiving full support as at 30 September 1984, was 2046 (These are the most recent numbers available); (b) The number of cadets receiving limited support as at 30 September 1984 was 15,468. The number of cadets receiving full support as at 30 September 1983 was 20,938. 494 of these were in open units. Therefore 20,444 cadets were in school units. (Statistics are maintained on a quarterly basis only). (2) The reason for the drop in the overall number of cadets was that a small number of school based units elected to withdraw from the scheme. The main reason cited by them was the cost of continuing. A further reason is that sufficient community sponsors have not been identified for all the proposed Regional Units. (3) No. The new scheme introduced in financial year 84-85 proposed that 20 regional cadet units would be raised in 34 different locations throughout Australia. As at 6 May 1985 the following exist: (a) 10 regional cadet units formed from existing open and/or socio-economically disadvantaged school-based units covering 17 locations. (b) 3 new RCU community based units covering 5 locations. A further 4 new RCU community based units are currently being negotiated and should be raised prior to July 1985. (4) No record can be found of the 'projected saving of $3 million' mentioned in the question. The following information is offered: 1. prior to the restructure being announced the old scheme cost $11m annually; 2. the Budget provision for the financial year 84-85 was $2m; and 3. the actual expenditure is now estimated to be $2.6m, the main reason for this being the increased costs of officers of Cadets allowances. Northern Sydney Electorates: School Cadet Units (Question No. 822) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 April 1985: (1) Which independent schools and public schools in the Electoral Divisions of North Sydney, Mackellar, Warringah, Bradfield and Bennelong had cadet units receiving full support in November 1983. (2) How many cadets were enrolled in each unit at each school. (3) Are any of the schools amongst the 10 public schools which received full support from the commencement of the current scheme. (4) What are the locations of the regional cadet units in the five electoral divisions and what is the current strength of each. (5) What is (a) the distance and (b) the average travelling time by public transport, from each of the schools specified in part (1) to the nearest regional unit. (6) At what time and on which day of the week, does each regional cadet unit meet. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) From the designated Electoral Divisions, 5 schools had cadet units receiving full support in November 1983. They were: (a) St. Aloysius College (b) St. Pius X College (c) Sydney C of E Grammar School (d) North Sydney Boys High School (e) Pittwater House Grammar School One of these schools, North Sydney Boys High School is a State Government School. (2) Listed below are the strengths of the subject cadet units as at 30 Sept 1983 (Statistics are maintained on a quarterly basis only): (a) St. Aloysius College 392 (b) St. Pius X College 207 (c) Sydney C of E Grammar School 337 (d) North Sydney Boys High School 80 (e) Pittwater House Grammar School 185 (3) No. (4) It was not proposed to raise any Regional Cadet Units in those particular locations during the introduction of the new Cadet Scheme. (5) Listed below is the distance and the average travelling time by public transport from each of the subject schools to the nearest regional cadet unit: Travelling Unit Distance RCU time (a) St. Aloysius College 49km Ingleburn 1 hr 11min (b) St. Pius X College 73km Erina 1 hr 14min (c) Sydney C of E Grammar School 51km Ingleburn 1 hr 18min (d) North Sydney Boys High School 51km Ingleburn 1 hr 18min (e) Pittwater House Grammar School 62km Ingleburn 1 hr 25min (6) Listed below is the time and day of the week that each regional cadet units meets: Unit Time Day (a) 11 RCU Woodridge, Qld 1500 Wed. (b) 22 RCU Ingleburn, NSW 1900 Fri. (c) 24 RCU Grafton, NSW 1900 Thu. (d) 25 RCU Erina, NSW 1900 Fri. (e) 26 RCU Wollongong, NSW 1900 Thu. (f) 40 RCU Greenacres, SA 1900 Fri. (g) 41 RCU Warradale, SA 1900 Wed. (h) 60 RCU Warrane, Tas. 1900 Wed. (i) 70 RCU Larrakeyah, NT 1930 Wed. Ministerial Staff (Question No. 826) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 April 1985: How many (a) electoral staff, (b) ministerial staff and (c) seconded departmental staff, work for each Minister and what are their classifications. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The details as at 1 May 1985, including salary rates, are set out in the table below prepared by the Department of the Special Minister of State. For completeness the number of Consultants employed by Ministers as at 1 May 1985 is also shown. (c) My Department is not generally aware of any seconded departmental staff who work for Ministers. Secondment of Departmental staff to a Minister's office is an informal arrangement between the Minister and his Department. An officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, at the Clerical Administrative Class 11 level, assists me in my role as Leader of the House in addition to performing other duties as Parliamentary Liaison Officer. Another officer from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, at the same level, assists the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Journalist Electorate Senior Assistant Officer Private Private Private Grade Grade Grade Personal Secretary Clerical Consult- Ministers Secretary Secretary Secretary A4 A2 A1 Secretary Typist Assistant 3 2 1 ants Mr Hawke* 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 (Gr. 5) 1 1 1 2 Mr Bowen* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Senator Button 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Senator Grimes 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 *2 Mr Willis 1 2 1 1 1 1 (Gr. 2) 1 1 Mr Keating 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Mr Young 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Senator Walsh 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 Mr Hayden 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Senator Ryan 1 2 1 1 1 1 *2 2 Senator Evans 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr Dawkins 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 Mr Kerin 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Mr West 1 1 1 1 1 2 Mr Beazley 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 Mr Hurford 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Mr Howe 1 1 2 1 1 1 *2 2 Mr Morris 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr Brown* 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dr Blewett 1 1 1 1 3 Mr Jones 1 1 1 1 (Gr. 2) 1 1 Mr Scholes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr Duffy 1 1 1 1 1 2 Mr Cohen 1 1 1 3 Mr Holding 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *2 Senator Gietzelt 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Mr Uren 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * In addition to the above Mr Hawke has one Principal Private Secretary, one Principal Adviser, two Senior Advisers, one Adviser/International Relations, one Speech Writer and one Assistant Personal Secretary. One Assistant Personal Secretary is allocated to Mrs Hawke. * In addition to the above Mr Bowen has one Principal Private Secretary and one Senior Adviser. * One position is job-shared. * Mr Brown also has responsibility for the National Media Liaison Service and the Ministerial Media Group. Officers of the Ministerial Media group are allocated to Ministers as required. SALARY RATES FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF As at 1 May 1985 Classification Salary Range ($) p.a. *Principal Private Secretary *Principal Adviser 58318 *Senior Adviser *Adviser/Int Relations *Principal Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 49517 *Senior Adviser to Deputy Prime Minister *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister in Cabinet 47356 *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister not in Cabinet *Speech Writer to Prime Minister 45117 *Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 37564-39135 *Private Secretary 34846-36172 32351-33520 29855-31025 *Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister 27015-27772-28529 24596-25377-26157 22091-22681-23271-23862 *Assistant Private Secretary 24596-25377-26157 22091-22681-23271-23862 19640-20231-20821-21411 *Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (Journalist Grade A4) 38600 *Journalist Grade A3 36361 *Journalist Grade A2 34099 *Journalist Grade A1 30702-31860 Personal Secretary 21656-22247-22838 Assistant Personal Secretary 19396-19929-20465 Electorate Officer 3 23906-24624-25394-26163 Electorate Officer 2 20828-21597-22367-23136-23906 Electorate Officer 1 19391-19853-20315-20828 Secretary/Typist 17268-17801-18337 15674-16074-16476 Clerical Assistant Grade 5 17021-17502-17980 Clerical Assistant Grade 2 13546-13769-13992-14215 * Ministerial Staff Allowance of $7847 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions but the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and both the Journalists Grade A2 on the Prime Minister's staff receive Ministerial Staff Allowance of $15694 per annum. Ministerial Staff Allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. Australian National Line (Question No. 829) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) When did the Australian National Line (ANL) cease its services to (a) Darwin and (b) ports in North Queensland. (2) What amounts were owing by port authorities, in the cities where services were discontinued, for special ANL port installations. (3) Will the amounts owing to the port authorities be paid in full to redeem the debts on these now useless installations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) February 1984. (b) October 1984. 2. I am not in a position to provide this information. The port authorities in Darwin and North Queensland are the responsibility of the Northern Territory and Queensland Governments respectively. The information should be sought from these Governments. 3. Under the Australian Shipping Commission Act, the settlement of any outstanding contractual issue between ANL and another party, including a port authority, is a matter between ANL and that party. Holbrook By-Pass (Question No. 835) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Has a target date been agreed on with the New South Wales Government for the completion of the Holbrook by-pass as part of the Hume Highway National Highway Construction Program. (2) Has planning been commenced for this by-pass and can an assurance be given that funding will be available upon completion of all planning and design work. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) I understand that the Department of Main Roads, New South Wales, has commenced preliminary planning. The project has not yet been submitted for my approval. If it is submitted, I shall determine its priority in the context of overall National Highway objectives. Medicare: Refund Claims (Question No. 845) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: Is it a fact that delays in settlement of Medicare refund claims are being experienced by claimants who prefer to be known by other than their first name and whose doctors' accounts are so worded; if so, will action be taken to redraft Medicare enrolment application and claim forms so that a preferred name can be indicated. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Health Insurance Commission is not aware of delays in payment of Medicare benefits for the reason stated by the honourable member. The Commission is obliged to refuse benefits when an account/receipt is presented for payment and the Commission has no record of a Medicare enrolment being effected for the patient (where eligibility for Medicare benefits has not been confirmed). The Commission does not consider that there is a need to alter either the enrolment application or claim form as the incidence of delays, for the reason stated by the honourable member, would be minimal. The Commission has advised however, that claimants who are experiencing delays for this reason may apply to have their Medicare records amended to show their preferred name first. Assistance for Inventors Scheme (Question No. 846) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 April 1984: (1) How many applications have been received by his Department for an inventor's grant under the Assistance for Inventors scheme for each State and Territory in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c)1984-85 to 31 March. (2) How many applications for each State and Territory were successful in these periods and what amount was received by each applicant. (3) What have been the costs of conducting this scheme, exclusive of actual grant moneys, in each period. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Some 3,000 inquiries from investors seeking assistance for development of inventions are processed each year under the Assistance to Inventors Scheme. The numbers of such inquiries leading to formal* applications for inventors grants for each State and Territory in each of the specified periods are set out below: 1.7.84- 1982-83 1983-84 31.3.85 NSW 40 75 33 Vic. 32 108 86 Qld 23 23 19 WA 12 15 16 SA 19 24 5 Tas. 4 11 12 ACT 7 7 11 NT 0 0 1 Total 137 263 183 * A formal application under the Assistance to Inventors Scheme requires lodgement of a patent application with the Australian Patent Office including provisional specifications. Preparation and lodgement by a Patent Attorney of the required patent application involves an estimated cost to the inventor of some $500 to $1 000. Inventors are only encouraged to proceed with a formal application if preliminary screening indicates the respective inventions have merit. (2) The numbers of formal applications for each State and Territory which were successful in attracting grants under the Scheme in each of the specified periods are set out below: 1.7.84- 1982-83 1983-84 31.3.85 NSW 3 8 1 Vic. 10 9 2 Qld 1 2 0 WA 1 2 0 SA 3 4 1 Tas. 1 1 1 ACT 4 1 0 NT 0 0 0 Total 23 27 5 The amounts of the grants approved under the Scheme in respect of each of these applications are set out below together with the names of the respective applicant inventors. It is to be noted that the preferred method of disbursement of financial assistance under the Scheme involves payment of amounts to selected third parties who are commissioned to provide the approved assistance to the inventor. The amounts shown would therefore not necessarily have been received by the respective inventors. New South WalesJ. Maher 10 000 S. Deratz 8 381 J. Mackaness 10 000 D. Spalding 3 310 J. Wilson 9 100 W. Rayner 9 987 D. Pfeiffer 10 000 I. McIntosh 3 000 D. Baldwin 3 700 J. Waterhouse 1 416 N. Powell 11 369 B. McPhee 1 250 Victoria W. Fix 2 500 I. Johnston 10 000 A. Jacobson 10 000 G. Austin 6 000 A. Szucs 4 000 R. Goldie 5 000 C. Darroch 1 200 S. Stern/P. Weill 4 200 W. Brennan 4 500 L. Chinnery 5 000 M. Sakai 7 010 A. Heath 1 350 B. Ward 5 000 D. Behrend 8 328 L. Cunningham 7 013 W. Nugent 10 960 P. Brown 3 500 R. Fitzherbert 2 000 E. Whitfield 1 600 T. Oaten 13 670 R. Hill 1 000 Queensland S. Woodridge 2 400 R. Gardner 2 000 D. Fretwell 5 200 Western Australia J. Elliott 10 000 M. Perrins 1 100 J. Doman 2 700 South Australia N. Croser 500 P. Johannsen 8 580 B. Asenstorfer 10 000 Y. Schevach 14 285 K. Schuppan 800 J. Piechnick 15 285 J. Bowey 5 000 R. Piddington 7 000 Tasmania W. Westcott 5 000 R. Thomas 3 500 I. Dundas 10 810 Australian Capital Territory K. Flynn 7 375 A. Barker/M. Rayner 9 850 G. Taylor 2 750 S. Pratt 2 850 M. Ellis 6 837 (3) The annual cost of administration of the Assistance to Inventors Scheme, exclusive of financial assistance, is estimated to be almost $500 000. Department of Defence: Portsea (Question No. 851) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Will the Commonwealth area at Portsea remain in possession of his Department after the departure of the Officer Cadet School at the end of 1985; if so, to what use will the area and facilities be put. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department is currently conducting a study into the future use of Portsea. The study will take account of State Government views and local considerations and will examine the extent to which Commonwealth land at Point Nepean could be released. A public announcement about the future use of the Point Nepean area will be made following Cabinet consideration and consultation with the Premier of Victoria. Cost of Air Fares for Members and Senators (Question No. 881) Dr Charlesworth asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: Has there been a saving in the cost of air fares incurred by members due to the new sitting pattern introduced in 1984. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The costs of travel by senators and members to Parliamentary sittings are not readily separable, and my Department does not have the staff resources to undertake a detailed dissection of the relevant costs. However, my Department has advised that it has discerned a trend which indicates that the revised pattern of sittings has resulted in a reduction in air fare costs for senators and members to travel between their homes and Canberra to attend the Parliament. Department of Social Security: Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No. 907) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) With respect to the garaging of Commonwealth vehicles at officers' places of residence, is any officer permitted to use the allotted vehicle on other than work days, that is, at times when the officer is not on duty. (2) In the case of a vehicle garaged in the Australian Capital Territory, may the officer use the vehicle for recreation purposes outside the Territory. (3) Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority reporting to the Minister issued guidelines for the use of these vehicles; if so, what are the terms of the guidelines. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, officers of this Department are not permitted to use the alloted vehicle when the officer is not on duty. The vehicle may be used outside of normal business hours for official Departmental purposes only or in cases of emergency. (2) No. (3) The Department follows practices and procedures based on guidelines laid down by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in the handbook 'Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority'. Department of Transport: Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No. 908) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) With respect to the garaging of Commonwealth vehicles at officers' places of residence, is any officer permitted to use the allotted vehicle on other than work days, that is, at times when the officer is not on duty. (2) In the case of a vehicle garaged in the Australian Capital Territory, may the officer use the vehicle for recreation purposes outside the Territory. (3) Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority reporting to the Minister issued guidelines for the use of these vehicles; if so, what are the terms of the guidelines. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ASC). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The information provided relates to each of these agencies. Department of Transport and Inter-State Commission: (1) No. (2) No. (3) The Secretary of the Department of Transport has personally instructed officers who garage vehicles at their residences of the need to observe the requirements detailed in the publication 'Rules for The Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority' which was issued by the former Department of Administrative Services. Australian Shipping Commission. The Commission has no Commonwealth vehicles. Australian National Railways Commission. (1) No. (2) No. (3) The General Manager of ANRC has issued guidelines for the use of official vehicles based on 'The Rules for The Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority' (AGPS 1983) issued by the former Department of Administrative Services. Department of Social Security: Salaries and Travelling Allowances (Question No. 375) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information sought by the honourable member is contained in the table below: DSS-STATUTORY APPOINTMENTS Date Position Name appointed Term Expiry Commissioner for Employees' Compensation -$53,917 p.a. Mr D. Corrigan 2.12.82 7 years 1.12.89 OTHER APPOINTMENTS Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Grace Basaglia 29.11.84 1 year 28.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Teofila Cohen 12.3.85 1 year 11.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Jennifer D'Arcy 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Jane Deamer 20.9.84 1 year 19.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Michael Flynn 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Jeffrey Goldstein 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Robert Hayes 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr John Kirkwood 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Regina Graycar 4.7.84 1 year 3.7.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms June Moore 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Edward Neumann 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Lillian Horler 8.10.84 1 year 7.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Kenneth Smithers 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Monica McRae 29.8.84 1 year 28.8.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Robert Sorby 1.8.84 1 year 31.7.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Carole Baker 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Elizabeth Cliffe 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Margaret Dilosa 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Kenneth Duncan 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Michael Horsburgh 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Kathleen Kline 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Faith McAskill 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Marcia Nolan 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Margery Wilson 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Convenor -$211 per day Ms Toni Stephens 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr James Carman 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical Member -$48.50 per hour Dr John Daniels 20.9.84 1 year 19.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Jean Edwards 25.9.84 1 year 24.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Tom Macken 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Andrea Mant 4.10.84 1 year 3.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Permanent tribunal member* Ms Heather Cole 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Ms Elaine Hoole 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Mr Victor Paterson 31.10.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Mr Kevin Springett 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Vacant-temporarily occupied by Mr R. Newett 22.8.83 Temporary n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr G. Rinaudo 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Ms Diane Clark 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr Graeme Page 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr Mathew Foley 19.11.84 1 year 18.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Mark Conway 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Geoff Smiley 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Willma Bowman 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Rev. Colin Arkell 17.10.84 1 year 16.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Anthony Arden 19.1.85 1 year 18.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Brian Courtice 3.1.85 1 year 2.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr John Lynch 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Des Milliner 1.12.84 1 year 30.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Full-time member* Mr R. W. Hughes 6.10.81 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Full-time member* Mr B. W. Viertel 31.1.84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Legal member and chairman -$211 per day Ms M. J. Nyland 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Legal member and chairman -$211 per day Mr R. J. Whitington 29.11.84 1 year 28.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr J. J. Court 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr D. P. Finnegan 20.1.85 1 year 19.1.1986 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Social work member -$180 per day Ms D. E. Gordon 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Departmental member and secretariat manager* Mr J. Beruldsen n.a. Pending permanent staffing action n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$211 per day Ms Moira Rayner 25.9.84 1 year 24.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$211 per day Ms Valerie French 17.12.84 1 year 16.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$ 211 per day Mr John May 1.12.84 1 year 30.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman -$ 211 per day Ms Jacqueline Musk 25.10.84 1 year 24.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Teresa Coughlin 5.10.84 1 year 4.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Rev Michael Rowden 4.1.84 1 year 3.1.1986 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Libby Lloyd 8.10.84 1 year 7.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Jan Carter 12.10.84 1 year 11.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Lindsay Barr 5.10.84 1 year 4.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Norman Marinovich 23.12.84 1 year 24.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Terry Pitsikas 31.5.84 1 year 30.5.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Full-time member* Mr W. G. McKennay Jan. 84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Chairman -$211 per day Mr Chris Webster 19.1.85 1 year 18.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Hilary Dobson 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Ron Carruthers 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Pauline Carruthers 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Community member -$180 per day Ms Marguerite Scott 25.11.84 1 year 24.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Chairperson -$211 per day Ms Sue Curnow 17.11.84 1 year 16.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Martin Muls 28.9.84 1 year 27.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Charles Milne 25.12.84 1 year 24.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Chairperson -$211 per day Ms Pamela Burton 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Evans 4.2.85 1 year 3.2.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Alan Merrifield 28.1.86 1 year 27.1.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Permanent member* Ms Kay Wagland 11.10.84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Dr Terry Carney 6.11.84 1 year 5.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Ms Lillian Cooney 8.11.84 1 year 7.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Dr Jocelynne Scutt 25.10.84 1 year 24.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Vaughan Klessling 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Damien Maguire 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Christopher Loorham 29.9.84 1 year 28.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Kevin Travers 22.1.85 1 year 21.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Peter Arndt 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Nick Crofts 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Robert Kamener 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Syd Preston 21.1.85 1 year 20.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Carmel Benjamin 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Suzy Birch 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Goodman 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Shirley Horne 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Elizabeth Marshall 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Edith Morgan 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Morris 7.11.84 1 year 6.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Jane Nichols 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Janet Paterson 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 *Denotes that the person is a full-time Commonwealth/State Public Servant and therefore does not receive any additional remuneration over and above normal salary. (2) (a) The remuneration payable for each position is included with the table provided in answer to part (1) of the honourable member's question. (b) The travelling allowance payable to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for each overnight stay is $100 (capital city rate) or $70 (other than capital city rate). An allowance of $24 is also payable for travel involving an absence of at least 10 hours, without an overnight stay. The occupants of the other positions listed in the above table are entitled to a travelling allowance for each overnight stay of $100 (capital city rate) or $80 (other than capital city rate). In addition, an allowance of $30 is payable for travel involving an absence of at least 10 hours, without an overnight stay. In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard (page 1717) of 23 April 1985. Permanent Residence and Australian Citizenship (Question No. 107) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Were Change of Status applications to permanent residence approved (a) in 1979-80 for 6844 cases, (b) in 1980-81 for 4470 cases, (c) in 1981-82 for 5358 cases, (d) in 1982-83 for 7669 cases and (e) in 1983-84 for 9534 cases. (2) In each year what was the number of approvals by country of citizenship. (3) In each year and by country of citizenship what was the number of approvals by each relevant sub-section of Section 6 of the Immigration Act. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The figures cited as approvals for Change of Status are correct for each of the years shown. (2) The answer to this question is provided in the attached table-'Applications Approved for Resident Status Following Entry for Temporary Residence' for the financial years 1979/80 to 1983/84. (3) Statistical information is not available in the form required by this question. Information showing basis of policy under which approved is, however, available in summary form and is provided as a separate tabulation -'Applications Approved for Resident Status Following Entry for Temporary Residence by Basis of Policy' for the financial years 1979/80 to 1983/84. APPLICATIONS APPROVED FOR RESIDENT STATUS FOLLOWING ENTRY FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE BY BASIS OF POLICY Financial Years 1979-80 to 1983-84 Financial years Basis of policy 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Political Asylum . . . . . . . . . . Spouses, Children, Aged Parents 3,417 3,221 3,007 5,049 7,434 Refugees 469 46 20 12 13 Authority to Work 1,800 434 1,112 1,491 936 Compassionate Case 1,101 753 1,101 991 994 Not Stated 57 16 118 126 157 Total 6,844 4,470 5,358 7,669 9,534 Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. APPLICATIONS APPROVED FOR RESIDENT STATUS FOLLOWING ENTRY FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE FINANCIAL YEARS 1979/80 TO 1983/84 Financial Years 1979/80 to 1983/84 Country of citizenship 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 U.K. 1,653 945 1,658 2,885 3,078 Ireland 82 39 62 121 149 Northern Europe: Austria 29 15 12 25 30 Belgium 9 11 11 16 19 Denmark 23 12 5 20 30 Finland 11 10 7 5 22 France 86 48 51 94 121 Germany 134 123 185 262 341 Netherlands 70 60 86 83 146 Norway 10 9 7 4 13 Poland 128 119 421 486 353 Russia 10 14 12 16 12 Sweden 29 14 22 32 41 Switzerland 34 32 32 36 42 Other Northern Europe 49 34 27 28 52 Total Northern Europe 622 501 878 1,107 1,222 Southern Europe: Cyprus 46 35 24 40 76 Greece 226 253 147 192 299 Italy 283 203 304 237 331 Malta 24 26 21 14 30 Portugal 37 42 15 17 22 Spain 14 16 17 28 17 Yugoslavia 264 281 252 314 456 Other Southern Europe . . . . . . . . . . Total Southern Europe 894 856 780 842 1,231 Middle East: Arab Rep. of Egypt 20 32 24 29 56 Iran 59 62 37 36 68 Iraq 28 38 9 36 26 Israel 35 47 38 33 43 Jordan 9 12 1 3 9 Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon 66 80 30 45 120 Saudi Arabia 10 . . . . 1 . . Syria 43 6 2 8 30 Turkey . . 54 70 82 103 Other Middle East . . 1 . . 1 9 Total Middle East 270 332 211 274 464 North America: Canada 135 86 124 226 295 U.S.A. 366 239 278 368 542 Total North America 501 325 402 594 837 South &Central America: Argentina 40 5 9 11 15 Brazil 11 9 6 20 16 Chile 34 17 26 36 38 Colombia 6 6 4 6 18 Equador 3 1 1 1 4 Jamaica 3 . . 1 . . . . Mexico 8 3 2 12 1 Paraguay . . . . 1 1 1 Peru 11 11 3 12 26 Trinidad &Tobago 2 1 . . 6 2 Uruguay 22 9 4 8 14 Venezuela 2 . . . . 1 2 Other S &C America 5 7 8 8 28 Total S &C America 147 69 65 122 165 Africa: Ethiopia 1 2 3 7 3 Kenya 1 . . 3 . . . . Mauritius 22 16 12 21 68 Nigeria 3 2 6 6 4 Seychelles 1 4 5 3 9 South Africa 76 43 37 58 66 Tanzania 1 2 2 . . 5 Zambia 1 . . 1 1 1 Zimbabwe 5 5 4 12 9 Other Africa 13 16 9 25 25 Total Africa 124 90 82 133 190 Asia: Bangladesh 17 7 6 9 11 Burma 2 3 4 6 13 China 221 109 81 111 242 Hong Kong 244 145 50 41 93 India 86 73 67 101 95 Indonesia 147 93 98 136 155 Japan 80 40 64 80 73 Kampuchea 4 1 . . 4 . . Korea 60 35 19 19 44 Malaysia 531 343 300 357 388 Pakistan 23 15 17 21 20 Philippines 121 93 170 292 399 Singapore 100 58 56 58 96 Sri Lanka 59 16 42 26 53 Thailand 69 31 48 69 87 Vietnam 488 60 21 35 44 Other Asia 28 31 26 11 31 Total Asia 2,280 1,153 1,069 1,376 1,844 Oceania: Christmas Is. . . . . . . . . . . Cocos Is. . . . . . . . . . . Fiji 166 93 70 96 154 Kiribati . . 1 1 2 . . Nauru 3 1 1 1 . . New Caledonia . . . . . . . . . . New Zealand . . 1 1 8 11 Papua New Guinea 32 8 27 20 43 Solomon Is. 8 1 2 1 8 Tonga 55 50 39 63 94 Tuvalu . . . . 2 . . . . Vanuatu 4 2 1 1 1 Other Oceania 3 3 7 23 29 Total Oceania 271 160 151 215 340 Not Stated . . . . . . . . . . Stateless . . . . . . . . 14 Grand Total 6,844 4,470 5,358 7,669 9,534 Source of Information-Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard (page 1326) of 17 April 1985.