Tuesday, 20 August 1985 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hansard 1985 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT (SECOND PERIOD) Pursuant to the Resolution of the House of Representatives passed on 31 May 1985, the House of Representatives met on Tuesday, 20 August 1985, at 2 p.m. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That the House expresses its deep regret at the death of Mr John Armstrong England, CMG, ED, a former Member for the Division of Calare, who died on 18 June 1985, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and family. John England was born in October 1911 in Brisbane and educated at Brisbane Boys College. At the age of 20 he commenced what was to be a long and distinguished career in the Australian defence forces by joining the Australian Garrison Artillery and later the Australian Light Horse. With the outbreak of war he transferred to the 2nd Australian Imperial Force and served with distinction in what was then West New Guinea, Morotai, Labuan and Sarawak. He was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1943 and was mentioned in dispatches. After the war he remained as a Reserve officer until 1962. John England was elected as the member for Calare in November 1960. He served in this House for 15 years until his retirement in 1975 and, as well as serving on a number of parliamentary committees, he held the position of Whip in his Party from 1972 until his retirement. He was a man who worked hard for what he believed and who served his electorate and his country well. On behalf of members of the Government, I extend to his widow and to his family our sympathy and our regret at his passing. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). John England was a very fine Australian. His service to the nation covered both war and peace, and a broad spectrum of service it was. The Prime Minister has mentioned his service with the Citizen Military Forces before the Second World War, his service during the war in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force, his service to this Parliament, and his service to the Northern Territory as its Administrator during a vital time in the Territory's history. Later, of course, he was Secretary to the Federal Council of the National Party of Australia. In John England we had a warm, personal human being who served in this Parliament. He evoked a great spirit of friendliness. His courage and his ability, together with that friendliness and courtesy, are I think a summation of the finest qualities in a lifetime of service in war and peace. He was a family man who found fulfilment in politics and soldiering and also even in the gentler pursuits of music and gardening. Those of us who worked with him for so long admired him greatly, and we extend our sympathy to his wife and to his family. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would like to support, on behalf of members of the National Party of Australia, the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). John Armstrong England, ED, was one of those Australians tall in stature and in spirit. He stood about six foot five and was one who, not only in physique but also in his manner and his bearing, added distinction to any gathering of which he was party. Over the years in which he served this Parliament he occupied many positions. Certainly during the period of the Whit-lam Labor Government, as Country Party Whip, he was one with whom many of us had fairly close association-not always to our advantage. He was certainly a man who, at war and in peace, served his country well. I know his family greatly treasure the period that he spent in the Northern Territory. As Administrator, at a very difficult and interesting time with the Territory moving into self-government, John played a leading role, and one that I know was valued not only by the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly but by all the residents of the Territory. After his retirement to Grenfell in south-west New South Wales, he and his wife moved into a new home and he developed a quite magnificent garden-one of the great prides of his latter years. I know that he dedicated himself to it in the same measure that he dedicated his life to the service of others. His strength of character, his involvement in the family and his concern for those whom he represented made John an outstanding man in my memory and certainly one of the outstanding members of this place. To his wife Polly and to his children, Gillian, Garth, Ian and Stephen, and their families, on behalf of all my colleagues, I extend our deepest personal sympathy. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page) —I join in the tribute today to the memory of the late John England. I first met John when he entered this House in 1960 and I enjoyed a close personal friendship with him from that time onward. He won a by-election for the seat of Calare in what was a hard fought campaign. His mentor at that time was Sir Charles Cutler, State member for Orange and, later, Leader of the Country Party and Deputy Premier of New South Wales. His early parliamentary career was directed to serving the central west of New South Wales in many fields. Together with the late Laurie Failes, a former member for the adjoining seat of Lawson, John England was a forceful, effective and, above all, popular public figure. His stature grew as he became recognised as one who championed the cause of rural Australia, and he devoted a special concern to people and, especially, supported the aspirations of the ex-service men and women of this country. John had an outstanding record as a member of the Citizen Military Forces and the Australian Imperial Force, in which he served with distinction, gaining the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, being mentioned in dispatches as a consequence of his service in New Guinea, Morotai, Labuan and Sarawak, which he later visited only a short time before his retirement from this House. John had a determination to uphold the highest principles in the discharge of his public and parliamentary duties and he expected the same standards from others. In this he was always strongly supported by his wife Polly and his family. During his time in the Parliament he served on many committees, but in particular on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which he regarded as an extremely important part of the legislative process. His service in the House as Whip of the Country Party was exemplary. He had a clear knowledge of the procedures and maintained a constant monitoring of the business of the House, often predicting ahead the course of legislation, so perceptive was his skilful approach to the task of Whip of the third party of this chamber. John and his wife had not travelled overseas during the first six terms he had served in this House. However, in 1974 he told me with great enthusiasm that he had decided to join an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. That took him to Europe, and subsequently to conferences in Tokyo and South Korea. He gained great satisfaction from his year as a delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. As is well known, after leaving the House of Representatives he served as Administrator of the Northern Territory. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) will be saying something about that shortly. I want to express my personal sympathy to John's wife, Polly, and to the members of the England family. His diligence, his dignity, his devotion and his loyalty are recognised today as we remember him for his distinguished service. He is equally well remembered in the central west of New South Wales as a great and proud Australian. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I join with previous speakers in extending condolences to the family of the late John Armstrong England. As we heard, Mr England passed away at the age of 73 years, following a long and distinguished career in politics, in government and in public administration. The former member for Calare also had a distinguished war record. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, during the Second World War Mr England served in New Guinea, where he was mentioned in dispatches and awarded the Efficiency Decoration. Mr England entered this Parliament in a by-election held in November 1960 and he represented the electorage of Calare until his retirement in 1975. As the member for Calare he served on the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. As already mentioned, he also served as the Country Party Whip in his last three years in this House. Following his retirement from Parliament in 1976, he was appointed by the Government as Administrator of the Northern Territory, a position he held for 4 1/2 years. I know from comments I have heard that he was held in great esteem by the people of the Northern Territory during that period of service. During Mr England's time as Administrator he was made a Commander Brother of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, and in the New Year's honours list of 1979 he was appointed a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George. John England spent great energy and time in serving his country, his electorate and his Party. He is survived by his wife Polly, daughter Gillian, and sons Garth, Ian and Stephen. On behalf of the people of Calare, I extend my deepest sympathy to his widow and family. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax) —A number of speakers today have paid tribute to the very fine military record and parliamentary and civic contributions of John England. Without reservation I endorse those tributes. When I first entered the Parliament, I sat in the House between John England and Jim Corbett, and I could have wished for no finer mentors or counsellors. My contribution today will refer to a particular sphere of service in which John England served with very great distinction-as Administrator of the Northern Territory. When I was made Minister for the Northern Territory, with the commitment to take the Territory to self-government, the office of Administrator was vacant. It was a most important position for its incumbent would not be merely the representative of the Commonwealth Government working with us and the Parliament of the Territory on the basis on which self-government could be established, on the achievement of self-government; he would assume a position almost synonymous with that of a State Governor, working with and advising the Northern Territory Government. Therefore the Administrator's task was to establish and elevate that office, to bring it a dignity and status commensurate with its enhanced importance. Knowing the calibre of John England, we had the privilege of appointing him to that office. Not only did John England abundantly and completely demonstrate and fulfil every single one of those attributes and expectations but also, with his wife Polly beside him, he brought such dignity and prestige to the office that he will stand in history as one of the great architects of self-government in the Territory. Throughout the Territory he was regarded with the greatest of affection and esteem. I will remember on the great occasion when self-government was proclaimed that John and Polly England were greeted with one of the greatest standing ovations I have ever witnessed as they drove to and mounted the dais at that ceremony. He was wise, intensely loyal, impeccably compassionate and fair; beloved by members of all parties, even welcome among the wharfies on the Darwin wharfs which he often visited. There have been few men like him. He was a tower of strength and, over the years, John and Polly England became numbered among my dearest and most intimate friends. We loved his company, his good humour and his strength. Indeed we had a love and a regard for them both, which makes his passing a deep personal loss. He was a great and loyal Australian-a magnificent man. The nation, its history and the history of the Northern Territory have been tremendously enriched because of John England's life and his service. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), my own Leader, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), and other honourable members in paying a tribute to one of the finest parliamentary members to have served in this House. He served with distinction for a period of 15 years and he will be remembered as a real gentleman in a true sense. He was a man of sterling character and impeccable integrity and principle. John was imbued with a deep sense of personal responsibility to his community. He served his country with distinction during the war and, of course, in peace he also never said no to undertaking an office in which he believed, in an effort to serve his society. As Administrator of the Northern Territory, both he and his wife Polly endeared themselves to all those with whom they came into contact. His efforts in the Northern Territory were monumental. Throughout my years of association with the Party organisation, John England was one of those people to whom I could always refer for advice in the knowledge that his advice would always be sound and right. He was undoubtedly one of the most loyal, dedicated and reliable friends that one could ever hope to know. Above all, he was a most devoted husband and family man. John will be sadly missed by all those who had the pleasure of serving with him and knowing him. Those who had the pleasure of knowing him were better for having done so. I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife Polly and all the members of his family. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory) —I would like to associate myself with the remarks being made in the House this afternoon in support of the motion of condolence to the family of John Armstrong England. Of course, I hardly knew John England before he came to the Northern Territory as Administrator of that Territory in 1976. I had heard, as other honourable members here would have been aware, of his distinguished military and public career-his 15 years of service in this House. When he came to the Northern Territory he was to some extent an unknown quantity to me but that was not so for very long. I shortly found that, in a very difficult and trying period of the constitutional development of the Northern Territory, I had a friend in John England. The people of the Northern Territory had good friends in John England and his wife Polly and they remember them with a great deal of affection. I do not suppose anyone not closely involved in the negotiations for Northern Territory self-government would have any great idea of the complexity, the difficulty and the frustration of those negotiations. In that time obviously John England had to adopt, as far as possible, a neutral position between the Commonwealth and the fledgling Northern Territory Administration or Northern Territory Government. But John England managed to give me the benefit of the experience that his long period in public office and public service had garnered for him. I mourn his death as the loss of a good friend, not just to me but to all the people of the Northern Territory. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —I shall be very brief, Mr Speaker. After one has been here for a day or two, one contemplates the people for whom there has been a general affection. I think in terms of Arthur Calwell and Ron Maunsell. I think very much in terms of John England. One reason for the respect and warmth that have gone out to John is the fact that I do not think any of us ever heard him, on a personal basis, say a word against anyone in this House, He had nothing but friendship and affection for all of us in this chamber. I had the great privilege of representing the then Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony, at the testimonial dinner that was held at Forbes to say goodbye to him when he was leaving the Parliament and going into the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory. I think all of us when we go to a social function can feel the warmth and the sense of feeling and affection. These sentiments were there in Forbes that night. He was a really beaut bloke and we will all miss him. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of Mr Frederick Ronald Birrell, a former Member for the Division of Port Adelaide who died on 23 July 1985, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders profound sympathy to his wife and family. Fred Birrell was born at Parkside in Adelaide in December 1913. He was educated at Adelaide Boys High School. As a young man he had a vigorous life. He distinguished himself on the sportsfield as a member of the 1934 Glenelg premiership team and worked hard in his local community. Fred Birrell joined the Australian Labor Party in the early 1930s and remained its loyal supporter all his life. He gave service to the Labor movement also as a trade union official for the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia for nearly 20 years. In 1940, he enlisted with the Royal Australian Air Force and served his country with pride throughout the war before being discharged in 1946 with the rank of sergeant. Fred Birrell was elected to Parliament in 1963 as the member for Port Adelaide and served in this place for 11 years. During that time he served his electorate diligently and never forgot the interests of the ordinary working men and women he represented. He was well known for the considerable efforts he made on behalf of individual constituents with problems. Fred Birrell had, in addition, a fine record of community service in Adelaide. He was the first Secretary to the Findon High School Council and was a foundation member of the Seaton North Progress Association. Fred Birrell was a loyal and hard-working member of the Australian Labor Party who served both his country and this Parliament well. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government I extend to his widow Patricia and to his three children, Pamela, Julie and Ronald, sincerest sympathy and regret at the loss of a fine Australian. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I also served in this Parliament with Fred Birrell. The Prime Minister has spoken of Fred Birrell's background, his service to the union movement and his service to the Australian Labor Party. He played a part in a real and active sense in the birth and growth of one of Australia's most important industries. For just over a decade he deeply involved himself in matters in this Parliament, but beyond the Parliament itself I recall his service in international parliamentary affairs. He served in the broader bipartisan elements of parliamentary democracy as we know it. He was a member, councillor and then deputy leader of three delegations to Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings between 1969 and 1972. Fred Birrell appeared to me to be a shy man. I was a much younger man when I first became a member of this Parliament, naturally enough, but I remember Fred. There seemed to me to be behind that shyness, however, a strong willed and determined personality and a man of the highest moral principles and standards. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend deepest sympathy to his wife and his children. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia, I join in the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Fred Birrell and I entered this place after the same general election. He was one of that generation of parliamentarians who had served his country at war, served his Party in peace and who then served this Parliament well. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a moment ago, one of the more notable aspects of Fred Birrell's life was the fact that he brought into this Parliament his record of industry within the motor vehicle manufacturing sector which developed in this country only after World War II. He certainly represented that industry particularly well. Through him, many of us in this place learned a great deal about the difficulties associated with the early stages of the industry's development and the problems of the work force and international competitiveness. To his wife and family, on behalf of the members of my family and my Party, I extend my deepest personal sympathy. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other speakers in offering condolences to Pat Birrell and the children, Pamela, Julie and Ron. Freddie Birrell was a good friend of ours in South Australia for a long time. He was of classic Labor vintage, together with the other Labor members who came from South Australia in that period: Jim Cavanagh, Jim Toohey, Clem Ridley, Clyde Cameron, Arnold Drury and Reg Bishop. All those people were not only great Labor representatives but they were also great personal friends. All of them participated with Fred Birrell to the utmost in the Labor movement. A quick reading of Fred Birrell's record will show that not only was he a long time servant of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, which was a carry-over of the historic carriage builders organisation of South Australia which laid the basis of manufacturing industry in South Australia, but also he was President of the Trades and Labour Council. He was active on the Labor Party executives in that State. In the community, long before that, Fred would have seen himself as the member for the district. Because of his children's attendance at the schools he was active as secretary of the high school councils and progress associations within his electorate. I think it is true to say on behalf of those people who served with Fred Birrell and those of us who knew him that Parliament did not see the best of him because he did not enjoy the best of health when he came here. He served here for 11 years. He was always renowned in South Australia for giving sound advice. Some people who have made a greater mark in the Parliament than Fred Birrell from South Australia would often make their way to his office or home to seek advice as to what they should be doing or what views they should be expressing. He had that sort of influence, not only in the trade union movement. For a long time after the war, he maintained enormous influence in the vehicle builders union, which was a very large union in the South Australian labour movement, and also in the Labor Party and the general labour movement. As the Prime Minister said, he not only excelled in his performance as a Labor Party representative and trade unionist but he also did almost the impossible: He played in a Glenelg premiership team. Glenelg has not won very many. He then came to represent the best district in Australia-Port Adelaide. Freddie Birrell was able to perform in many areas of life. He will be remembered for a long time by anybody who had ever met him or been associated with him or who, as I said, made his way to his door to seek his advice. He had a very close, good, healthy family relationship as is evidenced by his participation in community organisations. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney, DBE, who died on 1 June 1985, and places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service Dorothy Tangney was born in 1911, the third child in a family of nine children. Her father was an engine driver and the family was very poor. During her early years Dorothy lived in the mill towns of Mayanup and Holyoake. The family then moved to Fremantle. Here, Dorothy won a State secondary scholarship, which paid for her attendance at St Joseph's Convent for five years secondary schooling. On matriculation, like other young women, she used the monitor system, combining school teaching and part time study, to complete a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Western Australia. She continued, as a post-graduate student, to take out a Diploma of Education. At university she was active on student committees, notably the debating society and the University Labor Club, and became the first woman president of the Societies Council of the Guild of Undergraduates, an achievement recognised by the award of honorary life associateship of the Guild. She was the first woman to be so honoured. She began teaching in the heart of the Fremantle industrial area, where she witnessed daily the effects of depressed shipping conditions on the families of waterfront workers. She saw there the full effects of the Depression-malnutrition among children, young people forced to leave school early to look for some job in an often vain attempt to contribute to the family income, and families broken up by hardship and despair. This experience had a profound effect in shaping her beliefs and in hardening her resolve to work for better conditions for working men and women in Australia. Dorothy Tangney was naturally drawn to politics. An active member of the Australian Labor Party, she contested a State parliamentary seat in 1936 and 1939, and was placed on the Federal Senate ticket in 1940 and 1943. Although she was in fourth position, Mr Speaker-a position from which one would normally not expect to be elected-a voting landslide saw all four ALP candidates elected in 1943. As a result, she was the first woman to take a seat in the Australian Senate. Until 1967, she headed the ALP Western Australian nominations for the Senate ticket. Again, she was the first woman to do so for a major party. As the first woman senator, she bore an enormous responsibility. Many did not believe that a woman could succeed in the traditionally male area of parliament; nevertheless, her success was outstanding. On Dorothy Tangney's retirement one of her colleagues said that it was a tribute to the success with which she carried out her duties as a senator that other parties said: If women can do as splendid a job as Dorothy Tangney we had better also be represented by women in the Senate. Another colleague, Dame Ivy Wedgwood, said: She provided a bridge over which other women have been able to become members of this House. Dorothy Tangney's central political interests were driven by her early experiences in Fremantle during the Depression years. She was a strong advocate of governments taking responsibility for adequate social services. She championed Commonwealth assistance for schools and greater recognition of the position of deserted wives, civilian widows and war widows. Remembering the terrible cost of the effects of tuberculosis amongst the children of the Depression, she also strongly supported the campaign to eradicate tuberculosis-the great white death of the time. On her retirement, she referred with great pleasure to the introduction of the medical and pharm- aceutical benefits scheme and the free hospitalisation scheme, which were other long-standing personal concerns. Between 1943 and 1946, Dorothy Tangney was a member of the Joint Committee on Social Security, established by the Curtin Labor Government in 1943. She considered that some of her most valuable work was accomplished through serving on that Committee. By the time she left Parliament, the Committee's recommendations on such matters as child endowment and hospital benefits had all become law. In her period in Parliament, she made a substantial contribution to what she considered to be the revolution in the attitudes of politicians towards those social welfare reforms. A notable contribution outside the Parliament was Dorothy Tangney's membership of the Council of the Australian National University from 1951 until her retirement. She saw it grow from a collection of wooden huts in a paddock, as it was described in its early days, to an establishment with a world-wide reputation for scholarship and research. Again, she was the first and only woman member of that Council for many years. In 1967, Dorothy Tangney was created a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She accepted the award in these terms: I have accepted it upon my own responsibility because I think it is a step in the right direction. Women who are members of my party have not always had the recognition to which I think they have been entitled. In accepting this honour I think I have opened the door for them in years to come. Her parliamentary achievements were recognised also when in 1974 the new Federal seat in Western Australia was named Tangney. Dorothy Tangney retired from active politics in 1968. Colleagues from all parties praised her hard work, her sense of humour and wit, and her very considerable achievements as the first woman senator. I had the pleasure and the privilege of knowing Dorothy Tangney personally and of counting her as a friend. She was a remarkable Australian and her place in Australian history is firmly established. Her achievements in her time were the greater because she was a woman. The country, this Parliament and the party to which I belong have lost a great citizen. On behalf of the Government I wish to record our profound regret and sadness at the passing of this great Australian. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the motion he has moved. He is indeed correct in describing Dame Dorothy Tangney as a remarkable Australian. As he has recounted, she was elected to the Senate for Western Australia in the general election of 1943, and she served in that chamber for nearly a quarter of a century. Those of us who were here at the time recall only too well that she left reluctantly. As she said in her valedictory address to her fellow senators after her defeat in the 1967 election: I am very sorry to be leaving the Senate . . . I am not doing so voluntarily. I had hoped to be able to complete some of the tasks which I had set myself. I believe that statement was typical of Dame Dorothy Tangney, Australia's first woman senator. It exemplified both her frankness and quiet modesty. I say her quiet modesty, because she could have been forgiven for believing that the tasks she had accomplished were more than sufficient for one person. She was a tireless worker, both inside and outside the Parliament. Over nearly 25 years she served on innumerable committees and as a member of many important overseas delegations. The Prime Minister quoted a statement of Dame Ivy Wedgwood, who was a close and dear friend of my grandmother and was of great assistance to me when I first came into this Parliament. I know that the words the Prime Minister quoted from Dame Ivy could have been broadened to a considerable extent, such was the admiration that one of the pioneer women on our side of politics had for Dame Dorothy Tangney. As I said, Dame Dorothy Tangney was a tireless worker, both inside and outside the Parliament. Her chief interests were social welfare and the creation of new rights and opportunities for women. In these as in so many other areas of her public life, she was literally years before her time. Her vigorous arguments that the Federal Government had a financial responsibility to the unemployed, the sick and the infirm helped to create the social welfare policies that have been implemented by successive Federal governments. Similarly, in education she was a pioneer. The Prime Minister has described correctly and graphically her work as a foundation member and the only woman member of the Council of the Australian National University from 1951 to 1968, helping it to grow, as he said, in effect, from a run-down collection of army huts to an institution of the highest international standard. She knew the value of education. The daughter of an engine driver, she won her own education through scholarships, which led her to a teaching career for which she studied at night, after working by day to help support her eight brothers and sisters. The courage, determination and sense of humour which sustained her throughout the years of high endeavour were shown clearly when in 1967 she had only a slim chance of re-election, given her place on the Australian Labor Party Senate ticket. She said: `I have got my Irish up and I am going to fight like mad'. After her defeat, she said: `Well, you might lose everything else but you cannot lose your sense of humour. This was displayed amply in her valedictory speech. Her determination to provide a better, more secure and more fruitful life for all Australians is an example to us all. It is a tragedy that these feelings come out too infrequently-usually on the occasion of the death of such a person-but she, in many ways, epitomises the great contributor to Australian politics. It matters not one whit on which side of the Parliament one sat, the fact remains that Dorothy Tangney was a remarkable Australian, as the Prime Minister said. The Opposition joins him, with a great deal of sorrow, in expressing condolences to her family. We remember her for her tolerance, graciousness and sense of humour which were displayed so abundantly in a long and very distinguished career in this Parliament. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of members of the National Party of Australia, I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in this motion of condolence. Dame Dorothy Tangney was a remarkable lady, a lady who in every way epitomised the victory of a battler over the life of hard knocks. As has been amply explained, she was a person who paid largely for her own education and who came from a very impoverished background to be an outstanding citizen of her State and member of this Parliament. I understand that she was elected on the same day as Dame Enid Lyons. Because of the nature of our Constitution, Dame Enid Lyons took up her place in this House first, but as the Prime Minister said, Dame Dorothy Tangney was the first woman senator and was elected as one of the first female members of this Parliament. Dame Dorothy enjoyed the reputation of being first in many fields. In the eulogy paid to her after her death it was said that she was the first woman to occupy the President's chair in the Senate. She was the first woman to hold office on the Executive of the parliamentary Labor Party and the first woman to represent Australia at the British Empire Parliamentary Association Conference in 1948. She was also the first woman to sit on the Council of the Australian National University. But she was principally known as a champion of the underdog, and there is little doubt that her contribution in arguing for the needy contributed to the implementation of policies under Prime Minister John Curtin which first saw the Commonwealth bear legislative responsibility for providing help for the unemployed and the infirm. Certainly, she had a great sense of humour. I can well remember that those of us who stayed in the old Kurrajong Hotel on many occasions made her the butt of attempts to draw her into participating in various affairs that she would have preferred not to be part of. Indeed, my colleague the former member for Darling Downs, Ceb Barnes, whom some members of this House will remember, was lured into her boudoir one night as a result of a purported invitation from some other members of the Parliament, much to the frustration of both parties. She was a remarkable lady and one who made an enormous contribution in so many ways. Those of us who recall her can do so with pride. She was a remarkable Australian and her example could be followed advantageously by many people in this world. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in their remarks about Dorothy Tangney. Dorothy Tangney was elected on the same day as Fred Daly and I know that she was deeply touched when Fred rang her in 1974 and suggested that one of the two new seats that had been created as a result of the redistributions in Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory should be named after her. Of course, Fred had wanted a much larger redistribution and he only had the opportunity to name those two seats. Interestingly, the commissioners who in those days were responsible for recommending names, but not in fact naming electorates, had proposed that the electorate that became Tangney be called O'Connor. Had this been an opportunity for making controversial observations, I might have noted how differently that name of O'Connor might have been brought into this House. The name of O'Connor, of course, comes from my great grandfather. It was therefore with somewhat mixed feelings that I heard the news that Fred had decided to recommend to this House, and that this House had agreed, that the name O'Connor should be replaced by the name Tangney. It was only then that I got to know Dame Dorothy Tangney, because shortly thereafter I was pre-selected as the Australian Labor Party's candidate to contest the seat of Tangney, which I later won. There was a mild controversy during that elect-ion campaign in that both I and the candidate for the Liberal Party ended up being publicly associated with Dame Dorothy, or at least having Dame Dorothy publicly associated with us-I because of the Labor Party association and the Liberal candidate because his mother had apparently been taught by Dame Dorothy. I think Dame Dorothy was, to some extent, distraught by this confusion and I must say it was a matter of great attention at the time. But when we look back on it I think we realise that many people were delighted, and in fact wanted, to be associated with the great contribution that Dorothy Tangney had made to politics and indeed in representing Western Australia in Canberra. She spent most of her time in opposition and her frustration must have been considerable. I think everybody knows how difficult the role of an Opposition member or senator is, yet she never spared herself in trying to do whatever she could to bring about the changes which she sought in society. I think she was able to observe at the time of her retirement that so many of the goals for which she had fought had in fact been accomplished. I think that was a matter of great comfort to her. She travelled between Canberra and Perth at a time when travel arrangements were fairly prehistoric. She detested the aeroplanes which then traversed the continent, landing several times between here and there, and preferred to travel by train and sometimes by boat. As a result she was not seen in Western Australia as frequently as she would have liked, although she was probably seen there more frequently than I am these days. Notwithstanding her long absences from Western Australia, she was very much loved by the Western Australian community. I am sure that is the reason why she continued to represent Western Australia in the Senate for such a long time. I think Fred Daly's proposal that that electorate in Western Australia be named after Dorothy Tangney was a great proposal. Until the last election it had always been held by a Government member, but as a result of the redistribution it is now held and, I suppose, for the forseeable future will be held by an Opposition member. Notwithstanding that, it does mean that the name of a very great politician and a very great Western Australian will always be represented in this Parliament. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —I join the previous speakers in supporting this condolence motion for Senator Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney. As the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) stated, it is a rare privilege to be able to meet the person after whom one's Federal seat is named, and it is a privilege that I share with the Minister and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). I first contested the seat of Tangney in 1977. After winning that seat I took it upon myself to meet Dame Dorothy Tangney. When I visited her she was living in retirement in her family home in Claremont. On several occasions in the late 1970s I visited her until old age forced her into a local nursing home and, sadly, affected her ability to converse. During my visits Dame Dorothy took great pleasure in recounting stories of the Parliament as she knew it in the late 1940s, 1950s and into the 1960s. As the Minister for Trade has stated, it was not uncommon then for senators and members from Western Australia, instead of madly commuting weekly as we do nowadays, to travel to Canberra by train, plane or, as in Dame Dorothy's case, boat and then stay for the entire three-month sitting of Parliament before returning to their electorates in their home States. This style of parliamentary life-and I have heard other members and senators speak of it-created a much closer atmosphere and environment, and friendships naturally flourished more easily across party lines. Weekend Parliament House tennis parties were a great favourite of Dame Dorothy, and she enjoyed recalling those times and the many friends she made. This ability to mix readily with people on all sides of politics and from all walks of life was a hallmark of Dame Dorothy's career. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has rightly and adequately outlined the hallmarks of her career. Let me simply reinforce that by saying that her decision to enter parliament stemmed from her realisation that this was a logical place in which to work for improved living standards for those in greatest need and for Australia as a whole. As we know, with her election to the Senate, Dame Dorothy became Australia's first woman senator. Again, as the Prime Minister has outlined, she went on to record a number of firsts which cannot be beaten. In a Senate career which has spanned a few weeks short of 25 years, a career throughout which, I might mention, she was ably assisted by her sister, Phyllis Smith, who acted as her secretary, Dame Dorothy worked consistently to achieve improved social welfare. She spent all but six of her years in the Senate in Opposition, but her vigorous campaigning and assiduous committee work produced a long list of benefits for the disadvantaged. Her tireless efforts helped to win Federal Government acknowledgement of its financial responsibility for the unemployed and the infirm. As the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) has said, she was a consistent champion of the underdog. At the end of her long parliamentary career Dame Dorothy was deservedly created a Dame of the British Empire, and her distinguished contribution to public life has also given her the equally rare honour of having her portrait hung in King's Hall along with those of Prime Ministers and other great Australian leaders. Like all who met her, I found Dame Dorothy to be a very warm and compassionate person who was truly dedicated to the people's side of politics. This is amply borne out by even the most cursory reading of her career. From the age of 16 Dame Dorothy was a staunch Labor Party supporter, but her appeal transcended party political boundaries. This was very evident to me when I attended her funeral on 6 June. A large gathering of mourners from all walks of life and from all sides of the political spectrum was testimony to the great admiration and respect which she commanded. I am very proud to have met Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney, to have made her acquaintance, and to represent the Federal seat which bears her name. With her passing Australia has lost one of her social pioneering daughters. On behalf of the people of Tangney, I convey our deepest sympathy to her family. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —Dame Dorothy Tangney, the first woman to serve in the Australian Senate and part of a family of nine children, a family facing hardship, carried out all her duties with an outstanding capability and with an understanding of the needs of the working people, true to the Labor movement of which she was part and of which she was very proud. At a time when the contribution which women could make to public life was not popularly recognised, let alone appreciated, she paved the way for other women, including those in this House. She is remembered by Australian women with warmth and with gratitude, and I pay tribute to her. Ms FATIN(Brand) —I join other members in paying tribute to Dame Dorothy Tangney. As a Western Australian member of this House I feel privileged to have followed the first Western Australian woman to sit in the national Parliament. Often in years past I have called upon the political experiences of Dame Dorothy for direct-ion and inspiration. Very few women have served in this Parliament and I can imagine how daunting it must have been to be the first. We have heard today how exceptionally well she carried out her role as a senator. Dame Dorothy was a role model for all women wanting to enter parliament. I pay tribute to this great woman. Mr GEAR(Canning) —I am pleased to support the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As he pointed out, Dame Dorothy Tangney was a woman from a humble background who never lost sight of her origins. She was motivated to enter Parliament because she felt that it was unfair that some people appeared to have everything while others were in desperate need, and she used her energy and talent as a senator to do positive things to correct this imbalance. She was an architect, along with other members of the Australian Labor Party social services committee, of many of today's social benefits. The fact that we have unemployment and sickness benefits, and the fact that pensions are paid to deserted wives and wives of prisoners, is largely due to the efforts of Dame Dorothy Tangney. All of these benefitswere designed to assist people who are disadvantaged, usually though no fault of their own. It was fitting that a seat of the Federal Parliament should be named after her, and, like the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the current member for Tangney (Mr Shack), I was proud to have been first elected to Parliament in the seat that bore her name. She was a great lady of the Australian Parliament and of the Australian Labor Party. I join with my colleagues from both Houses in extending condolences to the family of Dame Dorothy Tangney. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for De-fence) —Very briefly, I should like to add my remarks to those condolences expressed in memory of Dame Dorothy Tangney. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) said many of the things of a personal nature that I would have said, so I shall not go over that ground. My memories of Dame Dorothy are largely personal. Her career in Parliament roughly coincided with that of my father. I can recollect meeting her on many occasions in a family situation. She had a very great sense of family, an Irish sense of family. That was very important in her preserving her sense of humour in the conditions in which she found herself living, in places such as the Kurrajong Hotel, with colleagues, as described by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). She required a sense of humour to cope with that situation, and she required also a substantial sense of humour to be a Labor member of parliament for a substantial part of the period from 1949 to 1972. It is a great thing that, since she left Parliament, she was celebrated in the way in which she has been by the hanging of her portrait in this building, by her recognition with an honour, and by the substantial tributes that have been paid to her here today. Dame Dorothy was one of a very substantial number of Labor members during that period who, in the normal course of political events, might have aspired to a ministerial position and an opportunity to do, in a much more systematic way, the things that are open to a member of the Executive but are not necessarily open to a member of the Parliament. All that one can say of Dame Dorothy in that regard is that insofar as members of parliament on an individual basis are capable of having a substantial impact on public policy, on the type of legislation by which this nation is governed, Dame Dorothy went about as far as any individual member of parliament could in making a substantial contribution to this country's future. My other personal involvement with Dame Dorothy was partly political. One of the earlier jobs I had to do was to scrutinise preferences in the ballot in which Dame Dorothy was finally removed-reluctantly, as she has revealed-from this Parliament in 1967. I had the futile task of trying to shift votes off the Liberal candidates on to the Labor candidate over a two-day or three-day period, and whilst we were able to get rid of a few hundred Liberal votes here and there, they were not, in the event, sufficient. One of the notable features of that ballot, which is probably now forgotten, is that in an electoral process which is cruel to individual candidates, Dame Dorothy polled a very substantial personal vote, although it was not, unfortunately, sufficient for her to be able to secure an extension of a very distinguished parliamentary career. As I have said, Dame Dorothy had a great sense of family. That sense of family was obvious in the way in which she treated her many relatives, many of whom looked to her to a considerable degree for their support through life, and a very large number of people in Western Australia will have felt a very substantial loss since Dame Dorothy died. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that the Governor-General in Council has agreed to my recommendation and appointed Mr Alan Browning, a Deputy Clerk of the House, to be Clerk of the House of Representatives on and from 31 July 1985. Mr SPEAKER —On 22 May, I presented a special report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings relating to the broadcasting of excerpts of proceedings on Australian radio and television stations. Shortly after the presentation of the report the House agreed to the authorisation of the broadcasting of excerpts under such conditions as were determined by the Committee. Appended to the special report were guidelines governing access by media organisations to the audio signal of proceedings for the purposes of taking excerpts. The Joint Committee subsequently met and considered those guidelines in the light of media comment on their desirability and practicability. As a result the Committee has determined conditions of access which I now present for the information of honourable members. The conditions as determined represent some modification to the original guidelines. One of the areas of greatest significance to which I draw the attention of honourable members is that the Committee has determined that for the length of the trial period excerpts may be taken from adjournment debates and proceedings after 11.30 p.m., which are not currently broadcast live. Other modifications are that the guidelines now spell out that excerpts are not to be used for the purposes of political party advertising or in election campaigns, and they now state explicitly that qualified privilege only shall apply to broadcasters. Another modification is that the fortnightly return which was previously required to be provided to the Committee by media organisations is no longer a requirement for access to the signal. Alternative monitoring arrangements have been entered into, and I will present to the House a return drawn from the monitoring at the conclusion of the trial period. I remind honourable members that from the commencement of proceedings today excerpts of debates and proceedings may be taken by broadcasting organisations for later broadcasting. Honourable members will also be aware that the House has authorised the televising of portions of the proceedings relating to the Budget speeches of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Guidelines concerning the television coverage have been agreed to and I present a copy of them for the information of honourable members. Mr SPEAKER —On 28 February 1980, Mr Speaker Snedden made a statement to the House concerning new arrangements by which members could seek detailed information on the parliamentary departments for which the Presiding Officers are responsible. Since then the practice has been that, where a member desired to ask a question relating to the administration of any of the departments of the Parliament, the member indicated to the Clerk that he or she intended to lodge with the Speaker a request for information. At the conclusion of the next Question Time, the Speaker called the member to indicate his or her intention to make the request and, after the member had done so, the Speaker asked that the request, in writing, be handed to the Clerk. I have reviewed this practice and decided that the need for the member to indicate in the House an intention to lodge a request is an unnecessary procedure. In future a member need only lodge his or her request with the Clerk either directly or through the medium of the Table Office. This will make the arrangements similar to those which apply to Questions on Notice. No other change is proposed. If the request is in order, it will be published in the next issue of Hansard and I will provide, in due course, a written reply which will also be printed in Hansard. The existing procedure-whereby less detailed requests for information may be asked orally of the Speaker-continues without change. Mr SPEAKER —From time to time I note the presence in the galleries of former long-serving members of the Parliament. I note today the presence of Frank O'Keefe, the former long-serving member for Paterson. I am surprised that he has come back to see us so soon, but I am sure honourable members will give him a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —What action is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations taking to ensure that the lawful agreement made between the Mudginberri abattoir and its employees under a legitimate Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission award is protected from union action which is both illegal and in contradiction of clear Commission rulings? Mr WILLIS —The Government has been very concerned about this dispute which, although covering only a small number of employees, is obviously a matter of much greater national import. Many issues are involved and I will not canvass them in this response. Later in the day there will be an opportunity to go into them in more depth. Let me say, briefly, that the Government has been concerned to do all that it can to end the industrial action which has taken place in response to the Commission's decision. It is highly regrettable that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has seen fit to take direct action against the Commission's decision. One can understand in some respects its concern about the wider implications of the decision that was made. Nevertheless, that is something that should be dealt with in the industrial processes and not by direct action. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government has been attempting to ensure that this matter is dealt with properly through the industrial processes and that today the AMIEU has decided to seek to take this matter back to the Commission. The precise form of its application is not yet known to me. This matter will be resolved only by the processes before the Commission. It is a nonsense to argue that it can be resolved by resorting to action in the industrial court. The whole array of action taking place there is making it more difficult to resolve this issue. In relation to the picket which applies at the Mudginberri abattoir, I am not able to say when it will be lifted but I would expect that to be done very shortly because there would be no way in which the Commission would hear any application from the AMIEU before the picket was lifted. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —In the light of the Minister for Trade's impending visit to China I ask him to provide the House with the latest available figures on Australia's exports to China. Do those figures provide further evidence of the robust state of the Australian economy? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. It is true that next week I will be spending a few days in China continuing the good work that was done by my predecessor and, more latterly, by the Prime Minister and a number of other Ministers who have been working very diligently to secure a long term and mutually beneficial trading relationship with the People's Republic of China. The results of those efforts are beginning to show up in the statistics in a very tangible form. The figures for 1984-85, which have just become available, indicate that Australia's exports to China jumped by some 73.4 per cent in that year and passed the $1 billion mark for the first time. The principal item remains wheat, but at just under 29 per cent it represents a smaller share than it usually does as our exports across the board increase and the relationship becomes much broader and one which is likely to endure and continue to grow. It is my intention on Thursday to make a more detailed statement about the developing relationship with China, but we are seeing an increasing number of visits by important Chinese political figures and, indeed, from commercial and other provincial delegations coming from China to Australia. There was one just yesterday from Jiangsu province. I think what is interesting about this whole development is that there is a very real concern on the part of the Chinese, as there is on the part of the Australian Government, to see this relationship develop into the future. There was a very successful mission involving transport matters just recently which Senator Button and I were able to follow up in Sydney last week. There was a very enthusiastic reception on the part of representatives of the private and public transport sectors in Australia to the report of that delegation. I think that that delegation through the setting up of a very high level co-ordinating group between Australia and China will see new opportunities develop in the transport sector as well. If we are able to nurture this relationship we will see it grow in a way which is of benefit not only to Australia but also to the the People's Republic of China. Mr SHACK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations another question on Mudginberri. How does the Minister justify the failure of Commonwealth meat inspectors to cross the illegal Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union picket line at Mudginberri? Why does the Government, by its inaction, support this illegal picket which continues in clear defiance of lawfully made orders of the Federal Court of Australia? Mr WILLIS —In answer to the first part of the question, it is not for me to justify the actions of the Australian Public Service Meat Inspectors Association. If the honourable member wants to know the answer to that question he should ask the meat inspectors, not me. In regard to the second part of the question, the Government has taken some action in regard to the meat inspectors. This is a matter again which we will go into in greater detail later on, but it is a fact that the meat inspectors were asked to cross the picket line and that when they refused to do so they were stood down. It is also the case that the three meat inspectors involved were off the site for some three weeks, from about the end of May to about 24 June. Whether they are regarded as being stood down or on strike is perhaps a matter of semantics. The fact is that they refused to cross the picket line and, therefore, were not paid for that time. It is a nonsense to say that the Government has taken no action. Furthermore, the Government's actions have been the subject of appeal to the Federal Court in respect of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Government's actions were thoroughly upheld by the Federal Court. So the government has nothing to apologise for in relation to that matter. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Science explain what role the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will play in the development of Australia's space industry? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. I will take it slowly for the benefit of the honourable member for Tangney. Mr SPEAKER —Order! As long as the honourable member makes it brief. Mr BARRY JONES —CSIRO has designated space research and development as a high priority area. It has set up the CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications-COSSA-to develop and implement space policy and planning. It is collaborating with Landsat to develop an experimental system to receive and process the greatly improved data available from the new generation of Landsat satellites. This of course will be of enormous significance to the mining industry, the resource industry and agriculture generally. The world will be entering a new era of space use with space stations in the mid-1990s. CSIRO is participating in several international studies to define research goals. It is also participating in two major space science projects: QUASAT, an orbiting radiotelescope, and Giotto, the satellite which will intercept Halley's comet. We are also developing a number of specific technologies that have very broad application, not only in the communications industry but also, of course, in micro-electronics generally and in satellites, on which we are increasingly dependent, both for entertainment and for meteorology, commercial information and a whole variety of other areas. Mr SHACK —I direct another question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Again, in the light of the Mudginberri abattoir dispute, will the Minister now concede that sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act are the only pieces of effective legislation which protect employers and employees from illegal trade union action? Will the Minister now categorically state that he and the Government have abandoned any further attempts to remove this legislation from the statute books? Mr WILLIS —The answer to both parts of the question is no, I will not. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What importance does the Government place on the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly in relation to arms control? Mr HAYDEN —I will be leaving on Saturday to go to Geneva to participate in the Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Australia will be putting forward certain points at that conference about the need to persevere with the non-proliferation treaty regime and to try to encourage non-signatory nations to become signatories of the treaty. That in itself, as the Leader of the Opposition knows from past experience, is a daunting task. More specifically, we will be seeking to encourage supplier countries of nuclear technologies and resources for peaceful purposes to ensure that the full scope safeguards monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency are applied where those transactions take place. In doing that, we will be very much putting to the fore the propositions which were explicit in the Slatyer report on the nuclear industry as it would affect this country. Beyond that, we are proceeding with our efforts to have put in place a comprehensive test ban treaty which goes beyond the non-proliferation treaty review. Of course, that matter is also under consideration at Geneva. Those points, and the recent achievement of the Prime Minister at the Pacific Forum Conference, where he was successful in having concluded a treaty for a nuclear-free zone for the South Pacific-a signal achievement and one of only three such treaties in the world, the others being the Treaty of Tlatelolco, covering the Latin American countries, and a very special one covering Antarctica-I think represent quite convincingly the credentials and determination of this Government in its pursuit of arms control and disarmament. We will continue to pursue these matters. We are fortunate in having an Ambassador for Disarmament who is active, in Geneva and elsewhere in multilateral fora, in promoting Australia's concern on these matters. With recent developments which are in prospect in the area of the nuclear arms race, it is absolutely essential that countries such as Australia maximise every opportunity presented to them to try to mobilise international support designed to bring about pressure, which, hopefully, will result in a curbing of the arms race, followed by a reduction in nuclear arms. One day we may even be fortunate enough to see the elimination of nuclear arms and effective control on conventional arms. I regret that those developments are beyond my lifetime. Mr HUNT — My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the fact that the Government has refused since May to take the necessary actions to provide Commonwealth meat inspectors at the Mudginberri abattoir, will the Minister immediately authorise Northern Territory inspectors, who continue to work at Mudginberri, to certify produce for export so that the abattoir can commence fulfilling its export meat contracts? Mr KERIN —This question is very interesting. The Opposition really does not seem to have an idea of its own. On one day we hear an argument from the National Farmers Federation and a day or two later the Opposition issues a Press release picking up the same point. What is now happening in this dispute is that the Opposition and people such as the Queensland Premier are seizing on it for political purpose and are trying to exacerbate the dispute. What the Government is about is dispute settlement; it is not about dispute widening. All we hear from the Opposition is a lot of political parroting from members who are prepared to use this dispute for their own murky political purposes. If honourable members opposite really want to understand why the Government has been taking the position it has taken, they should first of all read the affidavit that went before the Federal Court-that is a public document-and also the decision of Mr Justice Neaves on this whole matter. They would do that if they were seriously interested in the facts relating to this dispute and the reasons why the Government has taken the actions it has taken. To do as the honourable member for Gwydir suggests would not be in the interests of the meat industry and is not consistent with the Government's policy in its attempts to resolve this dispute. The Government has consistently taken action to ensure that this dispute between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia at Mudginberri does not become a major dispute involving the whole meat industry on an ongoing basis, with substantial adverse national implications for that industry and for Australia's reputation as a reliable exporter of agricultural products. The Court has backed the decision-making process of the Government in dismissing the case brought against the Government by Mudginberri. It needs to be said again and again that this dispute is between the AMIEU and MATFA. The Government is not an employer involved in the principal dispute. The Court has determined that the action being taken by the AMIEU at Mudginberri is illegal. The Government is not condoning any of that illegal action. This is being handled by the courts; the court process is still under way. The Government is not taking sides. It has taken several steps to try to resolve the dispute, including four times directing Commonwealth meat inspectors assigned to Mudginberri to report for duty and facilitating negotiations between the principal parties. Unfortunately, one side, the AMIEU, is persisting with action which is illegal and which the Court has determined is illegal. The other side, MATFA, with the urging and support of the NFF and people such as Bjelke-Petersen, wishes to engage us in actions which would escalate the dispute, for its own organisational purposes. The Commonwealth has been trying to contain the dispute and to get Mudginberri producing again, but MATFA and the NFF, which has bought into this dispute, will not even attend a round table conference organised by the Government to deal with the issues at the basis of this dispute. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has told the House that some of the Government's efforts in this matter are now being successful, and we may see some resolution of the dispute. We will not get dispute resolution in a matter as complex as this, concerning the issue of union coverage and section 45D, if people use this dispute for their own murky political purposes. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of allegations that the new immigration guidelines are biased against people from certain national, ethnic or cultural backgrounds? Are these allegations correct? Mr HURFORD —I am aware of the alleg-ations and they are not correct. They relate to just one part of the immigration program; that which is for extended families-the brothers, sisters and non-dependent children. They relate to the fact that, in spite of the Government's having changed the planning levels, to increase from 14,000 to 16,000 the numbers coming in under the extended families program, it was necessary at the same time to tighten the points system. The reason for that was that two-thirds of the way through the last financial year, 1984-85, we had already filled the planning level. To continue to have a rationing system which at the end of the financial year would not bring us out somewhere near the numbers in the program for the planning level for that particular category just could not be condoned. The Government looked at the best way of revising that points system. I am glad to say that there is bipartisan support for the approach we took; namely, that employability should be the key when we need that points system to ration the numbers. I am glad to tell the honourable member for Calwell and the House that `employability' does not necessarily mean the ability to speak English. One does not need to be able to speak English, for instance, to be a chef in a Greek restaurant and one will not be required to do so under our points system. But we have to face the fact that in many cases English is required, particularly in our service industries, where a lot of jobs are available. However, we will make sure that that requirement does not discriminate against any particular race. An enormous number of people from the Philippines speak English and a lot of applications have been made under our skilled worker program and extended families program from places all around the world. Those applicants will be successful if they come under the heading of people who are employable in this country. In concluding, I make the point that the more we are able to tailor our program to aid the magnificent economic recovery that is taking place in this country, the more liberal we will be able to be in the future with the numbers that we bring into this country. When we are liberal, we will be liberal across the board. We will make sure that the numbers are increased also under the extended families program. Mr CONNOLLY —I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment whether he is aware of regulation 5, sub-section (2), of the regulations governing camping in Kakadu National Park, which states: A person shall not camp in a park or reserve otherwise than in a camping area unless he is the holder of a camping permit. Penalty $1,000. Can the Minister advise the House whether a camping permit was issued to the meatworkers union members picketing within the boundary of Kakadu National Park? If so, on what date was the permit issued? Under what conditions, if any, was it issued? If no permit was issued, will the Minister advise the House why he has not asked for the removal of the picket from the Park? Does he propose to levy a fine under the regulations and, if not, why not? Mr COHEN —I am not aware whether a permit has been issued. I will find out and let the honourable member know. Mrs DARLING —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister will be aware of the concern within the ex-service community regarding amendments to the Repatriation Act arising from the Treasurer's May economic statement. The specific complaints which are the main source of concern and I would like the Minister to address are allegations, firstly, that the Government has reneged on its commitment to consult with veteran groups regarding changes to the system and, secondly, that it is seeking to impose on claimants an onus to prove their claims before the repatriation authorities. Is there any substance to these allegations? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for her question. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has advised me that the Government has agreed to consult widely on the provisions of the legislation and that as of now something like 95 per cent of the recommendations of the advisory committee on the repatriation legislation, chaired by the National Chairman of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, have been included in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs have travelled to 66 centres around Australia to conduct seminars on the Bill. Additional seminars have been conducted by veterans' organisations and officers of the Department have responded to invitations from those organisations to participate in those seminars. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs is giving close consideration to the range of representations he is currently receiving in respect of this legislation. On the second aspect of the honourable members question, the allegation that the Government has reversed the onus of proof and imposed an onus on the claimant to prove his or her case is wrong. I emphasise that this is not the case. Section 25 of the Repatriation Act guarantees that no onus can fall on a claimant and this is not being amended. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is required under the Act to invest-igate thouroughly all claims and place all evidence before the determining authority. There is no requirement on the claimant to produce evidence. Proceedings before repatriation authorities-this is important and should be noted-are essentially investigative and not adversorial. There are safeguards in the legislation to allow for the frequent absence of records, particularly as they relate to wartime, and the difficulties that such absences can pose for claimants. Finally, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has sought an independent legal opinion from Mr David Bennett, QC, on whether the May amendments effectively impose an onus on the claimant and the advice provided by Mr Bennett is quite explicit and emphatic. He advised that no such onus is imposed. Mr TUCKEY —My question is directed to the first Prime Minister to have his promises qualified by a `use by' date. I ask him whether he told a number of journalists in Fiji that the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, had breached a Cabinet decision when he commented on the Murphy case? Mr HAWKE —I have no intention of commenting in this House on private conversations that I have with anyone, let alone with a number of journalists in Fiji. Let me say again in this House, as I have said so many times both publicly and privately, that there is no Minister in whom I have greater confidence than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who discharges his duties in an exemplary fashion. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. In regard to the project definition study of the submarine project, is it envisaged that the amount allocated will exceed $26m? If so, will the Minister give us details of what the extra money is for and how it serves Australia's interests? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, the amount will exceed $26m by some $6m. The reason for that is simply that we have brought forward into the project definition study, as a result of our decision to construct six submarines in this country, an element of research and work that was to have been done after the project definition phase in regard to the construction of the submarine in Australia. Previously, under considerations which applied at the outset when we were looking at constructing at least one submarine overseas, then perhaps some of the subsequent vessels in Australia, there would have been an opportunity to conduct that study over a period after the project definition study. That, of course, is not open to us in the situation in which we will now be. We are cheerfully obliged to consider Australian industry involvement in conjunction with the project definition study. One of the spin-off benefits of bringing both those studies effectively together in the project definition study is that that examination and encouragement of Australian industry involvement will be conducted during the competitive phase of the assessment. It is likely to be very much to the benefit of the project that we are able to conduct that study at the competitive phase of development. In terms of the overall cost of the study, a considerable proportion of that $6m will be picked up in savings in not actually having to go through with that phase subsequent to the arrival at successful conclusions to the project definition study. In the first instance, benefits will arise from that competitive environment in which the study will be conducted. The second benefit will be that we will be able to move to construction in Australia that much faster. It will assist in that process with very considerable benefits to the Australian heavy engineering industry. A further benefit, I think, which would apply in any case, is that we will have a systematic study of encouraging the maximum possible Australian involvement in what will be an extremely important project, both for the defence of this country and for the recovery of Australian heavy industry. Mrs SULLIVAN —I refer the Prime Minister to his recent public statement: I have made it quite clear to my Ministers that they are to stick to their portfolios-and any movement outside of that will be dealt with. If they operated outside that either in a factional or a non-factional way, yes, they would go. I ask the Prime Minister whether this means, as has been widely reported in the Press, that he will sack any Minister who comments on matters outside his or her portfolio? Mr HAWKE —I find it remarkable to hear questions from the other side about the standard of ministerial behaviour and the relationship between a Prime Minister and his Ministers, given the steady comings and goings of Ministers under the Administration of the previous seven years of conservative rule. The Ministers of the Administration since March 1983 have had a steadfast application to the duties of their portfolios which has produced for this country a dramatic recovery from the worst economic recession for 50 years that this country suffered under the collective incompetencies of the Fraser Administration. I have the utmost faith that the Ministers in my Cabinet will continue to discharge their obligations in their portfolios in a way which will continue to give this country the benefit of the recovery, to which I have referred, and, as always, that they will pay due heed and attention to the correspondence and the conversations I have with them. Mr GAYLER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Federal Government prepared to provide assistance to the sugar industry given the state of that industry and following the finalisation of the 100 day committee report? Why have there been no negotiations with the Queensland Government on responses to that report? Mr KERIN —I am sure that all members of this House realise the very serious situation in the sugar industry. This morning, even in the Age newspaper, the situation in the Caribbean was pointed to and recently we have had reports of what is happening in the Philippines. There up to 400,000 people are in a desperate state because of the collapse of the world sugar industry. We have to understand and accept that we are in a very different ball game with respect to this industry. This is not just a cyclical downturn. Quite a few things have happened and we are having to look at this industry in a far different light. Of course, the Federal Government is willing to provide meaningful assistance to the sugar industry which, as I have said, is suffering mainly from the ravages of the selfish and destructive policies of the European Economic Community in subsidising sales of sugar to the extent of $350 a tonne, and the policies of countries such as the United States of America, which is also supporting its industry. They are the two main causes, but as well as those there is a world oversupply of sugar as a lot of countries were encouraged into its production. The assistance to the Australian industry should be integrated and should take at least three forms. First of all there should be adjustment assistance to help those people with basic long term viability in the industry, in the form of carry-on finance, debt reconstruction and those sorts of measures. Secondly, there should be the removal of the Queensland State Government's regulations which are adding to the costs of the industry and preventing adjustment that would help the industry with its cost structure. Thirdly, there is a need for the provision of price support by both the State and the Federal governments to keep what is the world's most technically efficient sugar industry operating until some sort of international agreement can restore some semblance of normality or sense to this world sugar market. In reply to the second part of the honourable member's question, the Federal Government is prepared to negotiate or discuss with the Queensland Government the details of the assistance package. It has to be integrated and it has to take into account the three things I have enumerated. For its part the Queensland Government says it wants to talk to the Queensland industry before discussions and/or negotiations can begin. It says it can start talking in about a week, and I hope it will. I make just three points about the report of the committee chaired by Mr Russell Savage. First it was a tripartite committee of the industry and State and Federal governments. The report by Mr Savage was presented to the two governments even though the Queensland Government gave it to the Press before Mr Savage had even presented it to Mr Turner and myself, without any consultation with the Prime Minister. That is typical of Joh's discourteousness. Secondly, all parties were kept informed on discussions as they proceeded and were fully briefed on the report's contents prior to its release. Thirdly, its conclusions are in line with the general thrust of the Federal Government's thinking on the restructuring of the sugar industry. I emphasise that we want to help as soon as possible. There is an absolute need for both governments to work together and to make a financial contribution to this industry. So far no date that I have suggested has been suitable to Mr Turner. I trust this is not the reticence of Mr Turner or the Queensland Government to discuss the matter, nor intimidation by the Premier of that State. Mr McGAURAN —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement that an excess of factionalism has harmed the Government and to his declaration that if he had his way there would not be any group meetings at all, and I ask: Did the Centre Left faction, the Left faction and his own right wing faction all have their faction meetings yesterday? Mr HAWKE —It will come as a great surprise to everyone in this House, I think, that from the other side of the House we get questions about factions. Let us have a look at where the factionalism within this Parliament really exists. It is so bad on the other side of the House that when the retiring President of the Liberal Party, whom the Leader of the Opposition was not able to preserve-my God, I bet he wishes he had been able to-looked at the scene in his own ranks and saw that the division was so deathly, he was moved to say: `Disunity is death'. He was talking to the Opposition. So the honourable member should not talk to us about factionalism. I simply say this about our great Australian Labor Party, which was returned by the people on two occasions to recover this country from the mess into which that factionalism had it descend: We have been able to rescue this country from that mess. The Opposition was so factionalised that it put the economic interests of this country second to its own interests. It knew very well that the value of the Australian dollar was pitched at the wrong level but because its members were fighting one another, it would not set the value of the dollar at its right level. Its factionalism was not played at the margin. It played its factionalism away to the detriment of the economic interests of this country. We, as a party and as a government, have conducted ourselves in a way which has recovered this country from the depths of recession into which the Opposition had put it. Now let us look at the existing divisions on that side of the House before we have anything to say about our own. The divisions between the Leader of the Opposition and his loyal Deputy are such-they love one another so much-that the Australian Financial Review on 26 July of this year was moved to say this about the Opposition's factionalism: So suspicious is each of the other and so intense is Mr Howard's desire for the top job that a `spill' for the leadership position initiated by either man is seen by senior Liberals as highly likely. The best is yet to come. The article went on to state: `You can cut the air with a knife when they are together,' A senior Liberal is quoted as saying that. Look at the factionalism between the Macphee camp and the Howard camp. They are light years apart in ideological positions. There is only one thing that unites them and that is their utter contempt for the Leader of the Opposition. The latest count has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about only six votes off getting the job of the Leader of the Opposition, and it is not surprising. Mr Speaker, look at the great talent sitting over there that he banished to the backbench. Yes, look at it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I realise there is likely to be excitement on both sides of the House but I suggest that honourable members are going beyond the limits of proper behaviour. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —As a great upholder of the parliamentary institution, it breaks my heart to see that talent on the back bench. Look at the Carltons, the Spenders-these people of great talent who have been replaced by these non- entities. Why are they there? They are there for one reason only, because the current temporary Leader of the Opposition thought that he could rely on their votes, but he cannot. At least half of them have deserted him and they are in the group that are plotting with the Deputy Leader to replace him. I do not want to take the opportunity, as tempting as it is, to quote at any length from this fascinating document. Government members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —No, no, I will not. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I am craving your indulgence. I think that in fact the reservations that this agitated man has about quotations ought to be dismissed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I just ask this: We would wish the Prime Minister to spend as much time as possible quoting from documents. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Peacock —It would certainly improve his syntax. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I am going to resist the temptation to quote from this document which is, so it happens, the transcript of an address given by the National President of the Liberal Party. I simply want to conclude by saying that the National President of the Liberal Party comes from the State of New South Wales, which has an unparalleled record for getting rid of leaders of the Liberal Party. I hope that he does not transfer into the national sphere his success in New South Wales in dumping successive Liberal Leaders, because I simply want to say in conclusion, on behalf of myself and everyone on this side of the House, that I hope the present Leader of the Opposition remains exactly where he is. We are comfortable with him and with his leadership of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —I present a report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House on the following proposed work in the parliamentary zone: Australian National Gallery administrative accommodation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 94 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, I present the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australia-New Zealand Foundation annual report for 1983-84. The report was made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984, I present the report of the operations of the Curriculum Development Centre, together with a report on financial statements by the Auditor-General. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission 1985-87 triennium supplementary report for 1986-87. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 17A of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission annual report for 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report for 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present an interim response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the inquiry into the grape and wine industries. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, I present the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation annual report for 1984. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation annual report for 1984. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947, I present the annual report for 1984 of the Services Canteens Trust Fund, the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund together with the Auditor-General's report, audited income statements and balance sheets on these funds. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the handicapped programs, together with an associated summary of recommendations, and the text of a statement by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee on the Management of Radioactive Wastes arising from the medical, industrial and research use of radionuclides. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 40(3) of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, I present the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on ceramic electric jug bodies-developing country preference, and the Industries Assistance Commission interim report on electric lamps-filament lamps. The reports were posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present a paper on the working relationship between the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Customs Service. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the review of tariff classification amendment procedures. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council report 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on radioactive waste management 1983-84. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dawson has sought my indulgence to make a brief statement to the House. I call the honourable member. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to bring to your attention a situation that occurred in the recess. In March I asked a question on notice of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) which sought some information for the year ending 30 June 1985. The answer was given to the Clerk of the House on 30 July 1985. I seek indulgence to explain that a week before the answer to the question was received by the Clerk it became the subject of a Press release reported in a daily newspaper in northern Australia to the effect that it gave credit to the question that I actually asked. The answer was given in that Press release. It appears to me that under standing order 150 a question remains the property of the House until it is properly answered and returned to the House. I asked the question. A copy of the answer was supplied to the Table Office and then to the Clerk of the House. It has not yet been printed in Hansard. Yet a week before that happened there was a report in the Mackay Daily Mercury which verified the source of the information as a question by Mr A. Braithwaite and gave exactly the same details as were contained in the question. I notice also in the Short Description of Business and Procedures, on page 65, that a breach of privilege can be constituted in a `disobedience to the rules or orders of the House or committees'. If it is not implied in standing order 150 it can certainly be inferred that the disclosure of that information to the public and the Press a week before it was given to me is a `disobedience to the rules or orders of the House'. At best, there has been a lack of the normal courtesy in these matters in that the Minister should have made that information available to me. At worst, it is political incompetence, and it could be suggested that it is an offence against the privileges of the House. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Health seeks my indulgence to respond. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —I remind the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) that those who deserve courtesy will receive courtesy. The honourable member for Dawson put his question on the Notice Paper. He then proceeded, without any evidence, any facts or any figures at all, up and down the Central Queensland coast, not only to lambast the general policy of categorisation but to instance the specific hospitals contained in his question as victims of the categorisation policy. As I say, that was done without any evidence, without any substance to support those allegations. Thus, when the mat- erial-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to continue too far with that argument. The question and the statement are different matters. Dr BLEWETT —Thus, when the material became available to me, I had no hesitation in releasing it to the Press in that area, which had been full of these allegations in the recent past. I point out that the material confounded completely the statements that had been made. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —by leave-On 19 July this year, I requested Mr Brian O'Dovovan, a former Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, to inquire into and report upon the operation of the community housing expansion program in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government appreciates the thorough and expeditious manner in which his report was completed and presented to it. This investigation was instituted following doubts about whether there was adequate protection of the Commonwealth's interests in the allocation of some $1.4m under the community housing expansion program in the Australian Capital Territory, and in particular the circumstances surrounding a grant of $133,000 to the Wyuna community. As I announced on 19 July 1985, the Government commissioned Mr O'Donovan to inquire into and report on: (a) All aspects of the financial and administrative arrangements concerned with grants under the Australian Capital Territory CHEP and, in particular, the grant to Wyuna Community Incorporated; (b) The adequacy and effectiveness of existing safeguards of the Commonwealth's interests in properties purchased with grants under the Australian Capital Territory CHEP and funds provided for purchase of such properties; and (c) Measures which might reasonably be taken to ensure that the Commonwealth's interests are fully protected. Mr O'Dovovan reported to the Government last week, and at the conclusion of this statement I will be tabling his report. I should say at the outset that Mr O'Donovan's report states that expenditure on the program has increased the stock of housing in the Australian Capital Territory available to low income earners. This accords with the aims of the program. However, Mr O'Donovan believes the existing safeguards of the Commonwealth's interests are inadequte, and he has recommended a number of additional measures. In considering these recommendations the Government decided that, in regard to the Australian Capital Territory community housing expansion program, it is of paramount importance that action be taken to ensure the maximum protection of the Commonwealth's interests, with the objectives of the program being a secondary issue. Accordingly, the Government has decided that officers from my Department and the Attorney-General's Department will negotiate with existing recipients of CHEP grants for the maximum protection of the Commonwealth's interests. Wherever possible, the measures recommended by Mr O'Donovan will be implemented. These measures are, in essence, to obtain and register mortgages over properties already purchased and, where the purchase has not been completed, for a Commonwealth co-signatory to the bank account in which the CHEP grant is held. I will be receiving quarterly reports from the Secretary of my Department on each recipient's compliance with its deed of grant. I should also point out that independently of the O'Donovan report, my Department and I had taken steps to secure the Commonwealth's interests. Formal breach procedures under Wyuna's deed of grant had been commenced and legal action initiated through the Australian Government Solicitor's Office. The other co-operatives had been contacted and asked to register the Commonwealth's interest on the title. Those with unspent grant money had been asked to agree to the Commonwealth being a co-signatory on the relevant bank account. An examination of all other non-statutory grant schemes in my Department had been commenced. Early this year I decided that I would not be seeking funds for CHEP in the 1985-86 financial year and on 18 July I announced a consultancy to examine the need for and form of alternative public housing in the Australian Capital Territory. There is a need for further action and for improvement of the administration of my Department. Accordingly, the Secretary will be developing proposals to improve the management of the Housing Branch and will also review other schemes in my Department with the aim of improving the relationship between the management tasks of the Department and the resources available to it. It is likely that one or two officers from elsewhere in the Public Service will be temporarily seconded to assist departmental management in this task. The report identifies the problems which can arise when a body which is independent and outside ministerial control is given responsibility for determining the objectives, criteria and recipients of grants. These issues raise significant problems of general application, including: the need for a clear distinction between the responsibilities of Ministers and Departments and the responsibilities of the outside body; the need for a clear separation between the making of recommendations on individual proposals and the encouragement, facilitation and development of those proposals; the establishment of clear criteria or guidelines for assessment of proposals before funds are made available; and identification of all resource requirements, including those needed for effective administration, when considering proposals for new initiatives. Accordingly, the Government has decided that the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance and the Public Service Board are to prepare a report on the Service-wide implications and on ways and means of ensuring more effective systems for administration and financial supervision of non-statutory grant programs. As I mentioned, the Commonwealth has already taken action in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court in relation to the grant made to Wyuna Community Incorporated. The Government has given careful consideration to whether it should table the whole of the O'Donovan report given that litigation has commenced. It believes, however, that discussion on matters of this kind should not be stifled merely because there is civil litigation pending, because of the greater public interest in upholding freedom of discussion on matters of general public concern. However, while the raising of these matters in Parliament is protected by Parliamentary privilege and is consistent with the sub judice convention, care needs to be taken with the reporting of these matters outside Parliament. That is a matter on which elements of the media should take their own counsel. The actions taken, and to be taken, by the Government in regard to the Australian Capital Territory CHEP recognise financial and administrative deficiencies. I conclude by quoting the final paragraph of the O'Donovan report: . . . I would express my agreement with the view that the identity of persons associated with an application for a CHEP grant cannot, as such, be a relevant consideration in deciding whether or not the application should succeed. I would also wish to record that I have no reason to believe that any person concerned in making the recommendation for the grant to Wyuna acted other than honestly. I table the report of the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory and present the following paper: Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory, Ministerial Statement, 20 August 1985. Motion (by Mr Scholes)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorise the publication of the report of the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(4.13) —I am forced to comment on the statement made by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) because it is nothing more than a farrago of nonsense teased together with an icing of hocus-pocus. The simple fact of the matter is that we are talking about a community housing expansion program. One would think that that is a very simple matter. One would think that the formulation of such a program would be well within the capability of almost any department of state. It is the sort of program for which there are numerous precedents. Yet we have the extraordinary, unbelievable, scandalous situation before us in which we are asked to accept the statement and to authorise the publication of the report of the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a disgrace, and an indictment of this Government and the Minister, that this report had to be commissioned let alone authorised for publication. This so-called community housing expansion program was set up by the former Minister for Territories and Local Government, the present Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), in August 1983. I understand that he said that he was confident that the CHEP would `set a national precedent for increased flexibility in public housing'. It is flexible all right! I do not have the report but I have managed to get some pages of it. Certainly the Minister was not proud of it; he did not send me a copy beforehand. Mrs Kelly —He did. He just did not give it to you. He sent it to your officials. Mr EVERINGHAM —He did not send me a copy. Paragraph (d) on page 40 of the report states: The guidelines adopted for 1983-84 were so highly flexible that they could not, I think, be regarded as a program. That is what Mr O'Donovan said. The last sentence of the guidelines reads: Proposal (sic) will not be automatically disqualified on the grounds of not meeting any or all of the above criteria. It is unbelievable. For many years the Department of Territories has had the responsibility for administering a home loans program for the Australian Capital Territory and I cannot understand why it could not administer a program involving around $2m. Mr O'Donovan was asked to examine what the Commonwealth's interests were in relation to the protection of the moneys. One would have thought that that was elementary and that it was hardly necessary for someone to have to inquire into and report on a housing scheme of this nature. Where one lends money, particularly where the Government lends money, some sort of security should be sought. That is exactly what Mr O'Donovan says in paragraph 4.3 on page 2. It is almost incredible that this former Crown Solicitor should have to be appointed to tell this Minister and this Government that they should be seeking security for the loan or grant of public moneys. One would have thought that it was simply common sense that one did not give out cheques without getting some sort of security over the titles that are the subject of those loans and grants. From a very brief reading of the report, it appears that in this situation grants, gifts, have been given away willy-nilly without any regard whatsoever for security. It appears that most of the so-called community members of the committee set up allegedly to advise the Minister have also been recipients of loans. It is unbelievable that such a cataclysm, such a catalogue of incompetence and utter bungling, should occur. I turn to some of the words of wisdom in the Minister's statement. He said: . . . I should say at the outset that the O'Donovan report states that expenditure on the Program has increased the stock of housing in the Australian Capital Territory available to low income earners. We will come to that when dealing with the report but it certainly did not increase the stock of housing for low income earners in the case of the loan to Wyuna Community Incorporated because the same people were living in the houses after the loan was given as had been beforehand. All that happened was that taxpayers' money was transferred from the Department of Territories, under the Minister's control, to the pockets of private citizens. The Minister continued: . . . Mr O'Donovan believes the existing safeguards of the Commonwealth's interests are inadequate, and he has recommended a number of additional measures. It is laughable that this former Crown Solicitor should have to tell the Minister and his Department that they ought to take a mortgage on these properties to protect the Commonwealth's interests. I turn to page 3 of the statement, where the Minister says: Accordingly, the Government has decided that officers from my Department and the Attorney-General's Department will negotiate with existing recipients of CHEP grants for the maximum protection of the Commonwealth's interest. I certainly hope that they can negotiate pretty well because on a brief reading of the report it appears that any litigation that may be launched, at least against a number of the parties, is doomed to failure at the outset. It seems as though the money has been given away. It is beyond belief. Wherever possible, the measures recommended by Mr O'Donovan will be implemented. Why was the money ever given? The Minister stated further: I will be receiving quarterly reports from the Secretary of the Department on each recipient's compliance with its deed of grant. Why did he not just say: `I have locked the stable door after the horses have all bolted'? Ms Jakobsen —Probably because it is such a cliche. Mrs Kelly —Ha, ha! Mr EVERINGHAM —The honourable member will be laughing on the other side of her face when she reads the report. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Canberra will cease interjecting. Mr EVERINGHAM —An examination of all other non-statutory grant schemes has been commenced in the Minister's Department. Earlier this year he decided that he would not be seeking funds for CHEP in the 1985-86 financial year. I think we would like to know why and when. Of course, he then goes on to say: . . . there is a need for further action and for improvement of the administration of my Department. That is the understatement of the year. Even this Minister, who should know the basics of administration, should be aware that we have to get some security when we are making loans or grants of public money. Why blame the Department for the scheme? After all, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) was more than happy to say that his scheme would set a national precedent for increased flexibility in public housing and so it has. There is flexibility to walk right through the scheme. I now turn to that paragraph of the Minister's statement where he says: The report identifies the problems which can arise when a body which is independent and outside ministerial control is given responsibility for determining the objectives, criteria and recipients of grants. That is utter nonsense. This Minister, as is demonstrated in the report by Mr O'Donovan, had the ultimate control over this committee and over his Secretary. He had the power of final approval or disapproval of the grants concerned. This is a blatant attempt simply to shift the burden of responsibility that lies clearly with him on to a bunch of public servants that he will pillory, if he can possibly do so, to save his miserable hide. Sections of Mr O'Donovan's report are far too lengthy to elaborate on here but there are some sections that I think I should read into the record of this House. Paragraph 5.9 on page 4 states: There is no evidence that Wyuna was asked for or supplied any additional information with respect to the ownership of, or the debts owing on, 24 Morant Circuit. Paragraph 5.13 on page 6 states: At all material times, all members of the CHEP Committee must have known that Bernadette Morosi- (a) was a member of the Wyuna Community; (b) became the Public Officer of the Wyuna Community . . . (c) was employed by the Commonwealth as a Community Tenancy Scheme Housing Worker from November 1984 to 31 May 1985; (d) attended almost all CHEP Committee meetings either as an observer or as a member from 25 October 1984 to 24 April 1985; and (e) worked in the same office as, and was well known to, the 2 CHEP Resource Workers. I believe that the tip of the iceberg has barely surfaced in this one. On page 8 of the report paragraph 5.18 states: Information obtained from the solicitors for Wyuna in the course of litigation after this Inquiry began shows that moneys paid to Wyuna under ACT CHEP was disbursed in part by paying off a loan to the Wyuna community from Dr J. F. Cairns ($11,648); by discharging loans from the Commonwealth Bank totalling $51,778 which are alleged to have been made to the Wyuna Community Inc. jointly with others who include variously Dr J. F. Cairns, J. Morosi. D. Ditchburn, M. Morosi and L. Morosi. There is evidence, which is fairly persuasive but not conclusive, that at least one of these loans by the Commonwealth Bank was secured by mortgage on No. 22 Morant Circuit. Paragraph 5.19 of the Report states: It is now clear that Wyuna was, at best, less than frank with the CHEP Committee and with the Department in this matter. Recent information from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs indicates that 9 members of the Wyuna community have non-resident status in Australia and that one of those is a prohibited non-citizen . . . Paragraph 5.20 of the report states: Although Dr Cairns has said that he has received no benefit from the CHEP allocation to Wyuna, the evidence is to the contrary-- And so the report goes on to its pathetic con-clusion. Paragraph 5.28 of the report states: On 23 May 1985, by which time the Minister was fully aware of the involvement of the Morosi family in this matter and also of the interest of Dr Cairns in it, the Acting Commissioner for Housing addressed a further submission to the Minister-- As a result, the Minister, after seeking further information, went against this recommendation in the submission. The report further states: The submission recommended to the Minister that in the circumstances he should advise whether he wished to make an initial grant of $105,000 and leave the $28,000 for subsequent consideration when it was clear that proposed extensions would not breach lease purpose clauses or whether he would agree to the payment of the full $133,000. In the event the Minister approved payment of the full $133,000, as I understand it, on the footing that the additional $28,000 was intended to produce a significance relative increase in the amount of accommodation-- And so it goes on. The report states further: On 28 May 1985- five days later- the sum of $133,000 was paid to Wyuna by two cheques, one for $105,000 and the other for $28,000. The report also states: Wyuna has failed to obtain a transfer of 24 Morant Circuit from the registered proprietors and it is not clear when, if at all, it will be able to procure a transfer of the legal title to the property, notwithstanding that the moneys supplied to Wyuna for that purpose have now been disbursed. Mr O'Donovan goes on in his report: My general conclusion in relation to the Wyuna CHEP grant is that, even on the information available at the time the CHEP Committee recommendation was made- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Everingham —Madam Deputy Speaker, this Minister should do the House a favour and resign- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is out of order. Debate (on motion by Mrs Kelly) adjourned. Mr Scholes —Madam Deputy Speaker, in his remarks the honourable gentleman said that the documents were not distributed in accordance with standard practice. That is not true. They were distributed at 12.30 p.m. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Minister. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.28) —I raise a matter of privilege following the indulgence that was given to me and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a little while ago relating to a matter of requests in a question without notice and the answer to it. I believe that the indulgence given to us both gave the Minister an opportunity to reply because I had advised him previously that I was going to raise this matter of indulgence and I had stated the basis on which I was going to raise it. It became obvious from the answers given that the Minister did not regard the omission as a mistake or an oversight but as premeditated. I suggest that the Minister could use this as a precedent for future occasions when a member of the Opposition asks a question on notice and the answer is not given to him. This could be used as a precedent. Could I give the background to the question of privilege as I see it. I listed a question on notice in connection with the categorisation of hospitals, which was the subject of a report, and some of the hospitals within my area were to be affected. This information was not something that I ran with myself-it was given to me. The question contained an element which required having to wait until the end of June for information for that year. The answer to the question was received by the Clerk of the House on 30 July 1985. Standing order 150 states: The reply to a question on notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. A copy thereof shall be supplied to the Member who has asked the question, and such question and reply shall be printed in Hansard. I repeat: There has not been an opportunity for the question to appear in Hansard, and I received notice of the answer subsequent to 30 July 1985. As I suggested previously, it is a breach of privilege, a disobedience of the rules and orders of the House. The fact is that the answer, until it was given to the Clerk, was the property of no one but this Parliament The House of Representatives Practice on page 501 refers to answers to questions on notice. While it does not deal specifically with this situation of another session of Parliament, it does state: An answer to a question on notice must be relevant to the question. An answer is given by delivering it to the Clerk who must supply a copy to the Member who asked the question and arrange for both question and reply to be printed in Hansard. That was done. In addition the Clerk arranges for copies to be supplied to the Press. I am suggesting that the Clerk, after 30 July, has the right to supply copies to the Press, but he certainly has not got that right beforehand because he does not know the facts of the answer. I am suggesting that 30 July is the operative time. The House of Representatives Practice continues: Answers are neither read nor tabled in the House. Answers delivered to the Clerk after the prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House cannot be accepted. In these circumstances the Minister concerned may supply the answer directly to the questioner and, if he wishes, to the Press. I suggest that that indicates that at no time was the answer to that question the property of anybody but this Parliament. It was not up to the Minister to give notice of the answer to the question to somebody else, as he did at least a week before. I am relying on a report from the Mackay Daily Mercury on 24 July, which refers to the question I asked and the answer that was given. The facts contained in that publication, a week before the answer was received by the Clerk, are identical to the answers to the question. I suggest that the Minister's response indicates that he intends this to be a precedent, and that is really an obstruction of the manner in which an appointed representative of this House goes about his duty. He has not been given the full courtesies and I believe it is a breach of privilege. Mr SPEAKER —I apologise to the honour- able member for Dawson because I was absent when he started to raise this matter of privilege. If the honourable member will supply me with the papers to which he referred, I will undertake to consider the matter and give him a considered response at the earliest opportunity. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Speaker, do you want these papers tabled? Mr SPEAKER —I think they should be submitted to me. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.35) —Mr Speaker, the Government has no opposition to you as the Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! When a matter of privilege is raised, the question of whether the Government has any attitude or not is not important. Mr YOUNG —I realise that, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the Leader of the House indulgence to make a statement. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who was involved, is not here. I do not think anybody considers that we should be discourteous to one another in implementing the procedures of the House, whether it be, as on this occasion, a question that has been put on notice and the answer that has been given, or any other matter. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has put before you the report of the answer to the question. I think the Minister for Health was making the point that after the honourable member had asked the question a lot of publicity was given to allegations the honourable member had made. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the House that this is really not relevant. Mr YOUNG —What is relevant is the work of a Minister. A Minister cannot say to the Press: `I cannot answer the questions you are asking me because someone has a question on notice'. These matters ought to be looked at as well. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House has made his point. It is not relevant to the matter of privilege. I have the papers in my possession. I will give a considered response later. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Taxation To the Honourable 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Beazley,Mr Burr,Mr Coleman,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Grace,Mr Holding,Mr Howard,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Rocher,Mr Saunderson,Mr Sinclair,Mr Scholes,Mr Spender,Dr Watson and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr John Brown,Mr Cohen,Mr Coleman,Mr Free,Mr Howard,Mr Kerin,Mr Lee,Mr Martin,Mr Millar,Mr Allan Morris,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Price,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp,Mr Simmons and Mr West. 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 wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Andrew,Mr Baldwin,Mr John Brown,Mr N. A. Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Cunningham,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Holding,Mr Howe,Mr Kerin and Mr Peter Morris. 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr John Brown,Mr Dobie,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Humphreys,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Dr Klugman,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Snow. 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 Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Duffy,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Mildren,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; 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 the Austrlaian people 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 Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritence 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. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Howard,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Sharp,Mr Simmons,Mr Snow and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen,Mr Dobie,Mr Martin,Mr Sharp,Mr Simmons,Mr Sinclair,Mr Spender and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``No cuts for kids'' We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverese proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Duncan,Mr Jacobi,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Scott and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Werriwa draws to the attention of the House the recently announced cuts to the funding of children's services in New South Wales. If the cuts become effective many parents will be unable to make use of the services available in our area owing to financial difficulties. Your petitioners therefore request that restoration of full Federal funding of all children's services be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi,Mr Kerin and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable R. J. Hawke, Prime Minister and the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the undersigned parents and members of the Marrickville Community, wish to protest against recently announced budget cuts to children's services in New South Wales. We see this as a reversal of A.L.P. Policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Fee rises as a result of these cuts, will cause great hardship to the majority of families using our kindergarten. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restore all federal functions to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth our concern at the drastic and untimely reduction of funding to early childhood services in our State. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed disastrous cuts to funding of early childhood services show total disregard for children's development in their formative years and for women's employment prospects. These proposals must be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed disastrous cuts to funding of early childhood services show total disregard for children's development in their formative years, and for women's employment prospects. These cuts must be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed disastrous cuts in funding of early childhood education and care services in the mini-budget disregards the developmental needs of young children in their formative years and adversely affects employment prospects for women. The cuts should be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfuly showeth: Our alarm and concern at the proposed cutback of funding for pre-school and child-care. The withdrawal of funding will adversely affect the operation of childhood centres, thereby affecting young families, women`s employment prospects and children`s development in their most formative years. We deplore the attitude, by the government, that young children and family life is regarded as having little significance within this society. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services and maintain present funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Re-presentatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett,Mrs Darling,Mr Gayler,Mr Keating,Mr Peter Morris and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. 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 Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Everingham and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Pet-ition of The South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the Undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens and residents of Australia and/or victims of the Hanoi Communist regime, shows that: (i) The current Hanoi Communist Government are the most repressive rulers in the history of Vietnam. Ten years after the so-called ``liberation'' of South Vietnam by force, the Hanoi ruling clique continues to violate basic Human Rights and imprison several hundred thousand innocent people without trials in their so-called ``re-education camps''. (ii) Hanoi is still following a policy of aggression with their troops in Kampuchea and Laos in defiance of World opinion. (iii) The Hanoi Communist Government is currently conducting the most sustained and aggressive dry season offensive since the initial invasion of Kampuchea. (iv) Aid of any kind, including the educational exchange program will be considered by the Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their aggressive policy against the peoples of Indo-China. (v) The supposedly insignificant act of the Australian Government in granting the 22 Communist cadres disguised as students to enter Australia on student visas, is: being seen by Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their policy; a provocative and insensitive act against the 80,000 Vietnam in Australia; who suffered at the hands of the repressive Vietnam Government; presenting inacceptable settlement problems to the Vietnam Community in Australia who want to live peacefully in their new homeland. Your petitioners therefore pray that Australia; (i) Ceases forthwith all forms of aid to the Hanoi Government including those educational ties and exchanges as the peace and freedom loving traditions of the Australian people should not be seen-through their government-as supporters of that cruel and repressive regime. (ii) Returns immediately their 22 disguised students back to their Socialist paradise. (iii) Joins the free world to condemn the Hanoi Government of their Human Rights violations in Viet nam and their invasion of Laos and Kampuchea and their incursion into Thai territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham,Mr Hand and Ms Mayer. 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 pose 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,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys,Mr Jacobi and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public inquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ``X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and the ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the city of Mackay and the shires of Pioneer, Mirani, Sarina and Broadsound and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the cane growing industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to canegrowers to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Conquest. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your Petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees be not reintroduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty of similar system of the ``user pays'' principal in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on interesting access to education by among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attidude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core porno-graphy and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of this inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core porno-graphy and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Millar. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth . . . The Richest 2,000 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% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to C.P.I. 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore . . . 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howe and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government, in Re-structuring the taxation system, upholds as fundamental the principle of an equitable distribution of wealth among the people of our nation, and 1. That the Government does not levy any form of broadly based indirect or consumption taxation, and 2. That the Government does levy gift and death duties, excluding the family home from the latter, and a substantial tax on realised capital gains and wealth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howe and Mr Reith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers, parents and students working in and for the interests of government schools and TAFE colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancillary positions in ACT government schools and 28 teaching positions in ACT TAFE colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts of public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing cuts in ACT government schools and TAFE colleges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly and Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We consider that Australian military aid to Indonesia is used to prolong the illegal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia and to prevent the people of East Timor from exercising their basic human right of self-determination. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government take immediate action to stop all military aid to Indonesia as long as Indonesia continues its illegal occupation of East Timor. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 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 O'Keefe and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the 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; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The proposed elimination of financial assistance to the State for pre-school education and child care will adversely affect young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their formative years. We urge the Government to reverse the proposal and reinstate full financial assistance to all States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: Urge you to reverse the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families and children's development in their most formative years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The parents and staff of the Parkholme-Ascot Park Kindergarten wish to lodge a protest over the propsed cut-back for pre-school and child care as advocated by Treasurer Paul Keating. One gains the impression that Federal politicians are ignorant of the fact that the period of most rapid growth occurs during the 0-5 year age span and by the time a child starts reception class, some of the most important learning has already occurred. Kindergarten is a significant educational stepping-stone. As children are apt to be playing (i.e. engaged in first-hand learning experiences) and not involved in formal study per se, the value of pre-school education is frequently under-estimated. Play is synonymous with learning and development; pre-school education DOES count. It is, therefore, important that we continue to maintain its high standard and oppose Federal cut-backs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we are concerned at the proposed withdrawal of Federal Funding from pre-school education. This is 20% of the pre-school budget. Thus it will be difficult to maintain existing programmes and impossible to provide pre-school education for those children not receiving it now. We urge the Commonwealth Government of Australia to maintain this funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the imposition of the fringe benefits taxation will have direct implications for the motor industry, which in the end will curtail employment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That the Federal Government reconsiders this step bearing in mind the effect this will have on Australia's Motor Industry. 2. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the employees of the Motor Industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornography video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, N.S.W., respectfully showeth. That we the undersigned having great concern because of the adoption of the Pro-Abortion Policy by the A.L.P. which represents an insult to the many Australians who are concerned at the slaughter of 60,000 unborn babies every year call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation. 1. To provide greater assistance to families and pregnant women in need. 2. To provide legislation to protect our most vulnerable of all citizens, the unborn child. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our unborn children and our pregnant women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respecfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the title on taxation forms be amended to include the title `Ms'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we the undersigned do hereby protest against the intended use of vacant land by the Army Department for housing. The land is bordered by Kelyndar Street, Alkeeba Street and Tufnell Road, in the suburb of Banyo, City of Brisbane. This land is presently used by citizens of the area as parkland and playing fields due to the lack of same in the area. We feel that the Army Department should resite its housing project because if the land is built upon it is lost to the citizens forever. Your petitioners therefore pray the Federal Government zone this land as general parkland for use by all citizens of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That Family Radio Ltd represents the largest single interest group in the community-i.e., Christians-who do not have a voice in public broadcasting commensurate with their representation. That prime time access to existing broadcasts by Christian groups is virtually non-existent, and access at other times is fast disappearing. That, by comparison with other capitals, Brisbane is entitled to at least one more category `S' FM broadcasting licence. That there appears to be no prospect of the release of further category `S' FM licences in the near future for Brisbane. That satisfactory fulfillment of the aims of Family Radio and its expansion can only be achieved by broadcasting in its own right under licence. That Family Radio has a responsibility to the large support groups which have contributed substantially to its development, to achieve the aims in broadcasting and community work for which it was established. That there is an urgent need for the kind of service and support that Family Radio can provide to other community groups through the particular type of integrated programming proposed by the company under a full-time licence. And that pruned Government resources are obviously insufficient to advance the development of public broadcasting as originally intended. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will support Family Radio's application for a broadcasting licence and will enable more category `S' FM licences to be made available in Brisbane: And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows that the proposed 12.5% consumption tax will disadvantage low income earners and pensioners. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government will not introduce such a tax following the Taxation Summit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of the City of Preston in the state of Victoria do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government allocate appropriate funds for the City of Preston to establish and operate a Family Day Care Programme. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That families living in the City of Preston are being disadvantaged by the rejection, by the Commonwealth Government, of the application for Family Day Care funding by the City of Preston. 2. That the City of Preston has clearly demonstrated a need for a Family Day Care programme within the City. 3. That all surrounding municipalities have Family Day Care programmes funded by the Commonwealth Government. 4. That Family Day Care is a most cost-effective method for the Commonwealth Government to achieve its target of 20,000 extra child care places. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents in the electorates of Canberra and Fraser respectfully showeth that: 1. We are concerned at the continued existence of oversized classes in ACT government schools and the effects on our children's learning. 2. We state our strong support for the recommendations of the Review of Primary Education in the ACT to reduce class sizes. 3. We call upon the Federal Government to develop a timetabled programme to reduce class sizes in ACT government schools. As a first step we ask that funds be provided to ensure that (i) no kindergarten class has more than 20 pupils. (ii) no Year 1 or 2 class has more than 25 pupils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition shows: That certain citizens of the State of Victoria are concerned by the Australian Government's failure to adequately fund the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The ABC, both in radio broadcasting and television, has in spite of a history of severe government cut-backs over the past years, given Australia wide broadcasting of excellence and balance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the present government take positive steps in the next budget to halt the destruction of ABC programing, without forcing the commission to introduce commercial advertising, as we believe this will certainly destroy the Australian Broadcasting Commission's quality and independence. by Mr Lamb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth grave concern that the A.L.P. Federal Government which claims to be committed to a program for national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstruction, through a spirit of cooperation and consensus with all sections of the community has: expedited legislation to give away title to Ayers Rock to a small sectional interest. disregarded its solemn commitment to build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway unilaterally terminated the electricity subsidy without considering the impact on the citizens of the Northern Territory Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Honour the memorandum of understanding on financial matters between the Northern Territory and the Federal Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Mulitjulu community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the Park are part of the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the Crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that the introduction of tertiary fees will: impose further unacceptable financial hardships on students, force countless thousands of students to terminate their courses before completion, deprive many more thousands of potential students of the opportunity to commence tertiary education, and furthermore result in a dramatic increase in unemployment. Western Australian tertiary students therefore call on the government to honour its election commitment not to introduce tertiary fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly submit that: (1) They are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. (2) They are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. (3) These increases add to farm costs and further reduce the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. Your petitioners also pray that the House of Representatives will consider transferring more taxation revenue collected from fuel directly into road construction. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of The House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely disatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c. per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c. per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c. per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises inthe cost of petrol. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels, motels, caravan parks, etc. will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism and business travel and will threaten the loss of jobs for employees in such establishments. Such a service tax will in fact be a bed tax and will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation Industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whale Protection Act 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale byproducts, and 2. the Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the international banning of whaling, 3. then consistent with (1) and (2), this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal byproducts, including the harp seal of Canada, and 4. through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that consistent with legislation on whaling, this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal byproducts and support an international ban on slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ``Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control, (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows- (1) That the zone rebate for income tax purposes gives residents of areas affected by factors such as isolation and high living costs relief from income tax. (2) That under this scheme, there are two zones: Zone A for worst affected areas; and Zone B for less affected areas. (3) With respect to the islands and territories that form part of the Commonwealth of Australia, Zone A includes Macquarie Island, Norfolk Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands as well as the Australian Antarctic Territory, and Zone B generally includes islands adjacent to the Australian continent, for example, Whitsunday Island. (4) Lord Howe Island, however, which is approximately 775 km by air from Sydney, and whose residents face living costs considerably above average by reason of this isolation, is not included in either Zone A or B. Your petitioners therefore pray that legislation be introduced providing equitable treatment for the residents of Lord Howe Island under the zone rebate scheme by defining Lord Howe Island in the area covered by Zone A. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: The quanitty of, and access to, the computer equipment available at the Queensland Institute of Technology is insufficient to adequately service the number of students requiring access, to the extent of having a detrimental effect on the ability of students to: 1. Obtain a level of achievement necessary to fulfil the expectations of the courses undertaken and, 2. To obtain a level of knowledge sufficient to satisfy the reasonable expectations of our future employers. We recognize these problems as being symptomatic of the lack of funds being made available for Tertiary Education in Australia, and the secondary funding status granted to our Institution under the current CTEC guidelines. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The Federal Government will fulfil its election promise to adequately fund Tertiary Education in Australia. 2. The Federal Government will recognize the role Central Institutes of Technology play in training quality graduates, and thus allocate these Institutions the equal funding status with Australia's Universities which they deserve. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lamb. 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 any introduction of the proposed dairy industry plan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is stong support for the establishment of Australia's first Arid Lands Botanic Garden on a site at Port Augusta. Such a garden will be the only facility of its type in Australia and one of only a few in the world. Australia is largely arid and South Australia is the driest state. The development of the Port Augusta Arid Lands Botanic Garden has been recommended in ``A Report on the Collection of Native Plants in Australian Botanic Gardens and Arboreta'' compiled by the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation in October 1984, a copy of which was forwarded to the Prime Minister. Benefits of the garden would include: 1. Centre for research and study of all aspects of arid land flora. 2. Provision of appropriate extension and advisory service to pastoralists, councils, settlements, mining companies and individuals in arid areas of Australia. 3. Display both native and exotic plant material. 4. Valuable educational resource at all levels. 5. Significant tourism potential. 6. Creation of employment. 7. Ideal site available at Port Augusta which is the centre for a vast area of arid Australia, and readily accessible. 8. Ideal centre for production of seed of arid land plants on a commercial basis for local and overseas markets. 9. Display of plants used by Aboriginal people in arid Australia. 10. Ideal development in which to display and demonstrate technology appropriate to arid Australia e.g. solar power, desalination, appropriate building design etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take all possible measures to ensure that Australia's first ``Arid Lands Botanic Garden'' is established at Port Augusta as an urgent priority. We ask that all possible avenues of funding be investigated as this project will be very important first for Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The quality of commercial television in the area' which is deplorable, has been further affected by the recent boosting of Victorian TV signals. Channels 9 and 10 have been almost obliterated by this boost. The impending introduction of Channel 8 to the area does not compensate, as its content is largely Victorian. South Australians wish to watch South Australian television: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the signal from Adelaide commercial television be boosted to cover a wider area and to regain channels lost by boosted signals from Channel 6 at Ballarat. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That television reception was lost completely on 10 June 1985, and we are now a disadvantaged community suffering hardship. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That the Government take all necessary steps to restore and improve television reception in the area of Mt Martha, Safety Beach and Dromana. 2. That the Government treat this problem as a matter of utmost urgency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: They strongly oppose the increase in the price of fuel, which is one of the main items causing the increases in the cost of living in Australia today and also the upward inflationary trend. Australia produces 60 per cent of the required amount of crude oil necessary to supply our nation's own requirements, and is boasted as being the cheapest produced in the world, therefore the Australian consumer of this commodity instead of being so heavily taxed should receive more benefits than those of the foreign oil consortiums. Extra taxes required to fill the coffers of the Government, to use as they see fit, should be collected from the foreign oil consortiums without recourse to the Australian citizens. The world parity pricing of Australian crude oil was introduced when the local crude oil production was in its infancy, and the imported overseas product was at a world record high. With the promise that the pricing would be reduced in keeping with the falling of the world market price of crude oil, this also has been the failing of Hawke Government's pre-election to office promise. In introducing the world parity pricing the Federal Government bent over under pressure from the foreign oil consortiums. The Petitioners hereto request that the Hawke Federal Government immediately introduce and put into action a fuel price reduction policy, even if it means that the Government builds its own refineries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Snow. The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens does respectfully showeth: The Community Tenancy Scheme currently houses approximately 4000 people in New South Wales through 59 schemes operating in local areas. The majority of these people are dependent on low incomes, benefits or pensions to exist. Most of these C.T.S. Schemes are funded only until the end of August, 1985, after which they would be forced to wind down their activities if funding is cut. Given the need for this type of service, we feel that the Scheme should receive favourable consideration in budgetary allocation of monies. Also, we feel that the C.T.S. Scheme should be at least maintained at its present level or the level of funding be increased. Your petitioners, in duty bound, humbly pray that this position be addressed immediately. by Mr West. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That they are disturbed that the proposed Muse-um of Australia for Canberra omits any reference to the British role in the nation's development. 2. That as three quarters of Australians are of British stock, this deletion does a great dis-service to the heritage of the majority. 3. That the proposed museum should give adequate mention, show appreciation and give floor space to the role that the British did give in the deve-lopment of this nation. 4. That the many institutions still prevailing in this country, such as Constitutional Monarchy, Common Law, the National Flag, the Church, the traditions of the military forces and semi-military forces, combined with the spoken language of Australia which is English give testimony of this great British influence. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the British presence and early influence in the development of Australia will be included in a justified and sufficient manner in the proposed Museum of Australia which will be erected at taxpayers expense in Canberra and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial System. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Commonwealth Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, New South Wales respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, being most satisfied with the staff, and service of the Oatley Post Office, call upon the Government to ensure the continuing operation of the Oatley Post Office under its current management and staffing arrangements. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Punch. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gayler and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fairfax, in Queensland respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift 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. the people of Australia are already being subjected to the oppressive tax policies of the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the Hawke Socialist Government. 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 Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: May Almighty God bless you. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the matters of abortion, birth control, genetic experimentation and test-tube fertilisation. Your petitioners therefore pray that you heed this stern and solemn warning of love, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Father, the creator God. The acts of abortion, birth control, genetic experimentation, and test-tube fertilisation that are currently being practised in Australia are an abomination unto the Lord and must be abolished from our society. All scientific method is founded on a cause and effect principle yet there is not one scientist who can tell me what is the cause of life itself. In his efforts to tamper with the fabrics of fertilisation and conception, man is leading this country down to the very pit of hell. Recently, we saw a doctor in America put a baboon's heart into a tiny human baby and that child died after 21 days. This sort of foolish experimentation must be abolished and outlawed from our society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Queensland respectfully shows public concern at the leniency of courts toward child abusers. (1) There is no place in our society for child abuse, particularly that of a sexual nature, and courts must not allow it to become condoned. (2) Too much consideration is being given to the offender and insufficient to the victim. (3) Severe, mandatory, minimum terms of imprisonment should be laid down for each proven case of sexual child abuse and the prison terms should not be served concurrently. (4) Repetitive offenders should be locked away for life. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government ensure that minimum penalties be made sufficiently severe so as to deter future child abusers, and put this deplorable act where it should be placed, as a most serious and heinous crime. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully request that your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to implement the provision of the Channel 0/28 multi-cultural television service to the Albury/Wodonga and surrounding districts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of the Division of Fraser respectfully showeth- Whereas 1985 has been declared the International Year of Youth by the United Nations and whereas we as the youth of Australia are concerned that even though we are not considered adults with the age of 18 years but from the age of 13 years onwards are forced to pay adult rates for the purpose of admission to public places, entertainment, travel and accommodation. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a law be enacted giving all youth up to the age of 18 years concessions for all admissions to public places, entertainment, travel and accommodation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins. The Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of residents of Nhulunbuy, Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, draw to the attention of the House our objection at being discriminated against by an abuse of the Commonwealth N.T. Aboriginal Land Rights Act and complementary N.T. legislation wherein the Northern Land Council on behalf of traditional owners has the right to restrict access in and out of Aboriginal land (Nhulunbuy). Residents of Nhulunbuy are currently being discriminated against by the Northern Land Council by an abuse of powers vested in them under the above legislation by restricting the issue of permits and placing unreasonable conditions on such permits which allow access in and out of Nhulunbuy. Residents of Nhulunbuy have always abided by the terms and conditions of the permit system and to the best knowledge available no resident of Nhulunbuy has been fined for violating these conditions. Your petitioners so pray that the House obtain an assurance from the Northern Land Council that residents be granted unrestricted access by permit, in and out of Gove upon the official opening and until the official closing of the track by the police each dry season, failing this we ask that the legislation be amended in order that we are not discriminated against in the future. by Mr Everingham. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Singleton respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Government has resolved that the Army School of Infantry currently located at Singleton, may be relocated to a site in the Bathurst-Orange district in conjunction with the Army School of Artillery. We hereby petition the Commonwealth Government to retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and to review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined School Army Complex. Should the School of Infantry be relocated from Singleton there will be a substantial social and economic loss to the Shire of Singleton and the Hunter Valley Region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined Army Schools Complex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fitzgibbon. 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 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 Representatives 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the rural Shire of Daylesford and Glenlyon in the State of Victoria showeth that there is a total lack of community based child care facilities in the said shire. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of Australia take immediate steps to enable the establishment and conduct pf adequate and appropriate childrens services to be administered in conjunction with the Daylesford Community Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Chistian 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-borne Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud sybolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian Community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Assembly, in Parliament assembled; The Humble Petition of the undersigned Electors of South Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Labor Government is to make funding cuts in pre-school education to the serious detriment of children during their formative years. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Express your strong opposition to the funding cuts, urge the reinstatement of these funds in the 1985 Federal Budget and in the event of no reinstatement, urge the State Government to make up the shortfall. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: National Health Amendment Bill 1985 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985 Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1985 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill 1985 Representation Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1985 Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1985 Broadcasting and Television (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985 Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985 States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985 Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Retention Lease Fees) Bill 1985 Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bill 1985 Assent to the following Bills reported: Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985 Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1985 National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1985 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 Customs Administration Bill 1985 Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 10) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10A) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10B) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10C) 1985 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1985 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1985 Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 National Health Amendment Bill 1985 Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985 Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1985 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill 1985 Representation Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1985 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1985 Broadcasting and Television (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985 Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86 Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985 States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985 Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Retention Lease Fees) Bill 1985 Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1985 Wool Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1985 Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and insisting upon amendments disagreed to by the House. Ordered that the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and insisting upon amendments disagreed to by the House. Ordered that the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate presses its request for an amendment to the Bill. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the House to the constitutional question that this message involves. The message purports to repeat the request for an amendment contained in Message No. 69, which the House rejected at its sitting of 23 May. The `right' of the Senate to repeat and thereby press or insist on a request for an amendment has never been accepted by the House of Representatives. On several previous occasions when a request was pressed on the House by repetition the House had regard to the claim that the public welfare required passage of the legislation which was the subject of the pressed request and gave the pressed request the House's consideration notwithstanding that the House resolved to refrain from determining its constitutional rights. The House so informed the Senate of the terms of its resolution in its message to the Senate in reply. It is not certain whether the Senate's `right' to press a request by repetition is justiciable in the courts. However it is a matter of constitutional propriety as between the Houses based on the provisions of sections 53 to 57 of the Constitution. Strong arguments that the Constitution does not give the Senate the right to press a request were advanced by Quick and Garran, who were intimately involved in the development of the Constitution. Their views may be found on pages 671-2 of their classic analysis of the Constitution. In 1943, some 40 years later, the question was examined by four eminent constitutional lawyers, Garran, Knowles, Bailey and Castieau, who, after considering other learned opinion, summed up the question in the following words: In our opinion, the Constitution in denying the right of amendment and conferring the right of request intended a substantial difference. In this we respectfully agree with the views expressed by Sir Harrison Moore, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and Sir John Latham. We think it clear that the Constitution did not intend to stultify itself by giving back in one clause what it had taken away in another. The essence of the difference between request and amendment is that in the case of a request the right of decision as to the form of the Bill rests solely with the House of Representatives. To press a request is to insist upon it-which is a contradiction in terms, and also in our opinion unconstitutional . . . . Other more recent legal opinion has been of a similar view, including the opinions of Professor J. E. Richardson, Professor Geoffrey Sawer and Professor Dennis Pearce. I respectfully have to agree with those opinions and I point out that this statement is consistent with the view taken by my predecessor, Speaker Snedden, on the last occasion when this question arose, which was on 21 October 1981. It rests with the House whether it will consider message No. 108 insofar as it purports to press the request that was contained in message No. 69. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: (1) That this House endorses the statement of Mr Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message No. 108 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985; (2) That this House declines to consider message No. 108 insofar as it purports to press the request that was contained in message No. 69 from the Senate; and (3) That the consideration of further action in relation to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985 be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's complicity in support of the illegal AMIEU picket line at Mudginberri abattoir. 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 SHACK(Tangney)(5.00) —This matter of public importance refers to an historic struggle which is being fought out in the Northern Territory, far from our southern cities and suburbs and miles from the workshops and factories of urban Australia. It is a struggle which may well become a turning point in the history of industrial relations in Australia and the history of our future economic development. Indeed, a victory for justice over intimidation in the Mudginberri abattoir dispute could well constitute a turning point in the history of the Australian nation. Mudginberri abattoir may be a small, far-flung outpost in the middle of northern Australia, but what is taking place there is no insignificant matter. If a just outcome is won in the Mudginberri abattoir dispute, there will be new hope for employees who wish to throw off the yoke of dictatorial unionism, there will be new hope for employers who wish to join their employees in a joint quest for greater mutual rewards and there will be new hope for Australia to embark on a new epoch of growth and prosperity. A just outcome must be won. Anyone who is familiar with the facts of the dispute could not fail to side with Jay Pendarvis, the owner of the Mudginberri abattoir, and his employees, the men who are fighting the oppressive stance of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union every bit as hard as their employer. Today the Opposition condemns the Hawke Government's collusion with the AMIEU in the Mudginberri dispute. We condemn the tacit support this Government is giving to a union which is down and, if it was not for the Government's support, would be out as well. We condemn the Government's complicity in the union's persecution of the Mudginberri abattoir and its employees. The AMIEU is wrong. This is not just the coalition's opinion; it is the opinion of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court of Australia as well; yet the Hawke Government is colluding with this union. The Government is supporting a union in defiance of the very judicial and industrial relations institutions which the Government is responsible for administering. The Government through its inaction is undermining the decisions of those institutions, instead of upholding their authority by urging compliance with them. Regrettably, this is what we have come to expect from this Government; a Government so keen to back the unions in their increasing and unceasing campaign to deny the rule of law, defy our industrial relations institutions and trample on individual's rights. Before detailing the Government's shabby and shameful support for this union, I wish to outline briefly the facts of the dispute, facts which have been subsumed generally in media reporting of the court dramas that have accompanied the dispute. Fact 1: The Arbitration Commission created an award covering the meat industry in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Meat Processing Award 1984. It is an Arbitration Commission award like any other. For the benefit of those who wish to avail themselves of it, it provides employers and employees with the option of making their own agreements resulting in above award wages in exchange for higher productivity. Under the terms of the award, no meat worker could earn less than the wage otherwise prescribed in it. No meat worker could earn less. Note and note well: The agreement between Jay Pendarvis and his employees was made under an Arbitration Commission award and is supported by subsequent Commission rulings. Mudginberri abattoir was set to operate like a rocket, ready to fulfil its export meat contracts at record speed, with meat workers there being paid double the wage otherwise prescribed in the award. Exploitation-one has to be kidding! I have been up there, in company with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and we have seen for ourselves. All of those Australians who watched 60 Minutes on Sunday can be assured that that program was accurate. Mudginberri abattoir is the very model of how employers and employees both can win by getting together and making their own voluntary agreements. What of the union, the AMIEU? It is in the superbly ironic position of trying to force down the wages of the Mudginberri meat workers. The union is trying to force down the workers' wages. These so-called heroes of the working class, the officials of the AMIEU, are trying to bully the Mudginberri meat workers into accepting wages 50 per cent below what Jay Pendarvis is willing to pay them. I went out to the picket line and I felt sorry for those men living there in the dust, because where were the heroes of the working class, the officials of this union? They were miles away. The Australian Council of Trade Unions should be cringing in shame that one of its member unions is oppressing workers in this fashion. It is not as if the Mudginberri meat workers are not willing to be union members. They were members of the union until they were kicked out in a fit of pique by the union bosses because they had the temerity to reach an agreement with their own employer. In fact, one of the conditions laid down by Mudginberri for settlement of this dispute is that its meat workers be readmitted to the union if they so wish. This is not union bashing; this is not an employer who is anti-union. Jay Pendarvis is an employer fighting for his right and his employees' right to work together happily under the terms and conditions of an Arbitration Commission award. He is happy for the Mudginberri meat workers to be members of the AMIEU, but he will not stand around and let the union screw him and his employees simply because the union was miffed because it was superfluous in the making of that agreement between the employer and his own employees. What of the Hawke Government's role in the AMIEU campaign? The Government has been too clever by half. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) can say that he has directed export meat inspectors to cross the picket line and fulfil their duties at Mudginberri. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can say that he offered to convene a meeting of interested parties to the dispute. Let us dig a little deeper and look at what the Government has and has not done with respect to the parties behaving lawfully in the Mudginberri dispute. Why has not the Minister for Primary Industry-he will get an opportunity to tell us in this debate-vested local Northern Territory meat inspectors with export meat inspection powers for the duration of the dispute? Where is the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins)? Does he care at all about the consequences of the union's belligerence towards Australia's meat export industry? Does he care about the hard won beef export quota we have with the European Economic Community? What about the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)? If he is such a dedicated supporter of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, why has he not taken steps to ensure that the AMIEU abides by the Commission's decisions? As for the Prime Minister, he has played a particularly pernicious role. Has the Prime Minister attempted to get the union to abide by the rulings of the Federal Court and the Arbitration Commission? No, he has not. Has the Prime Minister at any stage sought to use his special relationship with the trade union movement to make the union see the error of its ways? No, he has not. In fact, the Prime Minister has made a two-fold contribution in this dispute. He has breached the confidentiality of his communications with Jay Pendarvis-that is his first contribution. Who publicly released the confidential telex between Mudginberri and the Prime Minister? No prizes for guessing that it was the union. One must ask oneself the second question. Who gave it to the union? The Prime Minister's second great contribution was his suggestion to Ian McLachlan of the National Farmers Federation that the dispute could be brought back before the Commission. I ask why? Why should it be brought back to the Commission when Jay Pendarvis and his employees simply want to assert their right to work in compliance with the terms and conditions of an existing Arbitration Commission award, with the support of subsequent Arbitration Commission rulings? In any case, I have profound doubts that the union will be able to bring the matter back before the Commission as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations suggested today in Question Time. Justice Morling of the Federal Court found on 12 July that in a legal sense no dispute existed between the Mudginberri abattoir and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. Of course, if no dispute legally exists it is not possible for the matter to be brought back within the Arbitration Commission's jurisdiction. This fact may have escaped the notice of the Minister-either that or he has been engaging in some wishful thinking. Why do the Prime Minister and his Ministers for Primary Industry, Trade, and Employment and Industrial Relations continue to support through their inaction the efforts of a belligerent union to overturn the law and the Arbitration Commission's rulings? Why will they not support and make an effort to protect those who have right on their side in this dispute-Jay Pendarvis and his employees-against the party so clearly in the wrong, the AMIEU? I regret to say that the Government has also made an additional contribution to the prolongation of this dispute. This is a factor which, above all others, has made the dispute chronic because it has led the union and the ACTU to believe that defiance of the law is acceptable and will be rewarded. I refer to the Government's continued willingness, confirmed again in Question Time today, to contemplate the repeal of the remaining sanctuary-the only remaining sanctuary-for those who seek to bring about compliance with Arbitration Commission rulings. I refer to sections 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act. The Minister was given a clear opportunity today to say categorically and once and for all that he would turn his back on attempts to remove these sections of the Trade Practices Act from the statute book. He said that he would not give that assurance. Every farmer, every small business person, every business person generally and every employee who is concerned about productivity, effort and reward will hear of the Minister's answer and will understand that while he and his Government survive there will be no protection in the industrial relations environment for any party that wishes to comply with the law, seek compliance with the law and be accountable under the law. The ACTU and its member unions are determined to get their way with sections 45D and E. They have not given up their campaign to break this part of the Act and the Government's passivity in the face of such flagrant breaches of an Act on its own statute book can be interpreted in only one way. The Minister has confirmed that again today. The Government has not given up its quest to remove that remaining protection from the statute book. If the Government succeeds in misrepresenting the Mudginberri dispute sufficiently well it will attempt to use it erroneously in support of another campaign to get rid of those parts of the Trade Practices Act. If that is not what the Government has on its mind, if that is not its ulterior motive in failing to protect the lawful against the lawless in this dispute, I do not know what is. The coalition will fight any such proposal tooth and nail. In my closing remarks I wish to reflect on the positive side of this Mudginberri dispute. There is a positive side and it deserves much wider attention. That is the side in which an employer and employee, because of their relationships one to another, are able to determine mutually beneficial and voluntary arrangements which will result in both parties to that industrial relationship winning, benefiting and profiting. There is a revival going on in industrial relations in Australia. It will become a revolution. It is something that the Government does not understand and it is something that the recalcitrant members of the trade union movement do not understand- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.16) —The anguished howls of the slavering hordes opposite are what we have come to expect whenever the term `trade union' is used in this place. They are all gathered here today to go through the usual performance. Let me say at the outset that in some ways I am sorry that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), did not finish his speech because it would have been interesting to hear about this great new revolution. Doubtless we will have to hear about it from someone else or in some other debate. We look forward to hearing about this great revolution which is going to sweep through the industrial relations arena, because in the seven and a quarter years that the Fraser Government was in office it achieved a notoriously poor record, not only in relation to its handling of the economy where it proved conclusively it consisted of economic cretins, but also in relation to industrial relations where equally that Government proved totally incapable of reducing the level of industrial disputation in this country. Opposition members stand up here with a holier-than-thou, high moral tone to tell us about who is right and who is wrong in industrial disputes and what terrible things trade unions are. Those sorts of stances do absolutely nothing to achieve better industrial relations. Mr Tuckey —And what would your credentials be? Mr WILLIS —Will you just shut up and listen for a little while? The Opposition achieved nothing in government in terms of better industrial relations. The people of this country want a lower level of industrial disputes and a more civilised procedure for resolving industrial conflicts. That, of course, is what has happened since this Government has been in office. The context in which this debate takes place today is one in which there is a record low level of industrial disputation in this country. That is extremely important and very embarrassing to honourable members opposite who do not like to hear that sort of thing being said. They do not like to hear these facts which are recognised by the Australian populace. Nevertheless, it is the case that that is the environment in which this dispute has taken place. Honourable members should not tell us about revolutions and talk to us as if we have not achieved anything. We have the lowest level of time lost through industrial disputes since 1968. The Opposition should not talk about its revolutions-it had its chances and proved comprehensively incapable of having a process for resolving industrial conflict in this country which did not lead to a higher level of industrial dispute. I was also interested in the part of the shadow Minister's contribution in which he said that he strongly supports our industrial institutions. I am very pleased to hear that because I thought he was really rather angry with our industrial institutions, that he thought their decisions were wrong on many occasions and that the whole system needed to be virtually thrown out and started again. But now he is saying that we should support those institutions and I am very pleased to hear that. I fully support the idea of supporting our industrial institutions. I look forward to the honourable member's support for future decisions that come from those industrial institutions rather than hearing the whinging screams that we have heard about the wages policy that has operated so successfully in this country over the past couple of years. In relation to the topic that is before us, the Government totally refutes the terms of this matter of public importance: The Government's complicity in support of the illegal AMIEU picket line at Mudginberri abattoir. That is, of course, absolute and arrant nonsense. There is no complicity and the whole discussion starts on that totally false base which is not unusual in those speeches which come from the honourable member for Tangney. The Government has in no way connived with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, let alone in this dispute. In relation to the operation of pickets, I will leave that exposition to my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Let me say very briefly that the meat inspectors were ordered to go through that picket and when they did not do so they were stood down. That led to a substantial amount of time being lost by them. This Government's actions were upheld in the Federal Court of Australia when the matter was taken before it, so we have nothing to apologise for in that respect. Let me move on to other aspects. There has been in this dispute a regrettable series of actions. Firstly, it is highly regrettable that the AMIEU has sought to take direct action against a decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is something we regret very much. We understand in some respects why it is concerned about it, and I will come to that in a moment, but I cannot condone in any way the taking of direct action against a Commission decision. Let me say also that I regard as highly regrettable the actions of Mr Pendarvis, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the National Farmers Federation in resorting to the use of section 45D in relation to this dispute-I will come to that also in a moment-because that action has proved totally futile. Despite an incredible array of actions before the Federal Court in relation to the use of section 45D, the picket line has not been taken away and therefore has not been successful in what it aimed to achieve and is not leading to a resolution of the dispute. I will come back to that point also. I also regret very much the actions of the National Farmers Federation, which is really an extremely marginal player in this dispute, and yet I believe it has taken a leading role in goading Mr Pendarvis into taking a much harder line than might otherwise have have been the case, and therefore in making this dispute infinitely more difficult to settle. I understand that the National Farmers Federation has guaranteed half of Mr Pendarvis's legal costs and is also providing other support to him. Mr Tuckey —What is wrong with that? Mr WILLIS —The honourable member can form his own judgment about that, but I believe it shows the involvement of the National Farmers Federation in an issue which, on the face of it, does not directly concern it. Without doubt it has tried to pursue its own objectives and to use Mr Pendarvis and this dispute for its own purposes, and I will come back in a moment to what its purposes are. It is also the case, and highly regrettable, that conservative political parties in this country have sought to use this dispute for their own political advantage. Yesterday the Premier of Queensland said that not only does he support Mr Pendarvis, which of course is his absolute right, but also he is going to ensure funding of Mr Pendarvis. I am not sure how he is going to do that, what funds he is providing, but it certainly indicated that he has direct interests in this which go beyond just those of an interested observer. The Federal Opposition is also seeking to use this dispute to try to improve its political fortunes. Therefore this dispute, which is a very small one involving a couple of dozen employees and one employer, has taken on far greater national importance, at least in part because of the actions of various groups who are seeking to use it for their own purposes. This dispute is really about the tally system and the objections that the National Farmers Federation have to that system, and its desire to destroy it and the union's desire to retain it. That is what the dispute is basically about. The tally system has applied in the industry for many decades and operates in all States of Australia. Mr Kerin —It is backed by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation. Mr WILLIS —It is supported also, as my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry reminds me, by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation, but it is bitterly opposed, for whatever reasons, by the National Farmers Federation. Its concerns have been known for some time and it has pursued its objections to the tally system in various places. For instance, it pursued them in the Industries Assistance Commission's inquiry into the abattoir and meat processing industry. The IAC, looking into that system and into aspects such as whether the tally system has resulted in reduced productivity compared to some other system, concluded in its report that the tally system as such does not impose a specific cost disability in these regards. I am not an expert on the tally system and I simply say that inquiries have been held which have indicated that it is not disadvantageous to productivity in the industry, and that has been supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the National Farmers Federation is seeking to destroy it, and Mudginberri is the perfect case to try to pursue that ambition. The Mudginberri dispute became the focus of the latest element of this struggle because of the decision of the Commission resulting from circumstances, which I think were accurately described by the shadow Minister, that led to the establishment of the award in April of this year to allow the contract system in the new award where it was agreed by a majority of employees or their nominated representative. The phrase `or their nominated representatives' meant that the union did not necessarily have to be involved. All employees at Mudginberri were non-union, either because they had never been members or because they had been expelled from the union. So they agreed with the employer. Mr Shack —Say that again, Ralph, we want to hear it again. Mr WILLIS —That is all right. The honourable member said it and I agree that that is what happened. They agreed with the employer on the contract system without the involvement of the union. The union concern in relation to that is twofold, and I think that should be on the table. Firstly, the application of the contract system in the award is, as they see it, the thin edge of the wedge in the destruction of the tally system. Secondly, it also has some implications for the role of trade unions in the future, and that brings in other wider trade union concerns, including those of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and probably explains why the ACTU is strongly in support of the AMIEU in this dispute; that is, if employees can perform the kinds of actions which they are able to under this award then the role of trade unions, as the representatives of employees under the system, is undermined. Of course, the system is built on the ability of trade unions to represent employees in that industry. It is seen that this could cause substantial damage to the role of the trade unions as representatives of their members who are employees. Those are legitimate concerns. One can argue about the rights and wrongs of them but one cannot argue about the right of trade unions to have legitimate concerns about both those matters-about the basic role of trade unions and also about the basic system of payment which applies in the industry, which is clearly under threat, and publicly so, from the National Farmers Federation and which they see as being at risk by this decision. None of that excuses the taking of direct action to try to change that award. The use of section 45D by the employers in seeking to resolve this dispute is, as I have said, totally counter-productive. Already fines of $44,000 have been applied, damages of some $2m are being sought, other costs have been taken from the union, and funds of over $2m have been frozen by sequestration orders. The fact remains that the use of section 45D has not resolved this dispute. It is absolutely pointless members opposite standing up here and saying `We have to defend the right of people to take action under the law', if that does not resolve the dispute. This Government has been trying to get the dispute into a situation where it can be resolved-that is the important point-and to get the pickets lifted so that the abattoir can operate normally and fulfil its export contracts. That is the kind of thing that needs to be done and it is not being achieved by using section 45D. That has led to national stoppages by members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and other maritime unions. If further action under section 45D is taken it is likely we will see further stoppages of that kind. If we want a national industrial conflagration we should continue to go down this path. That is obviously the desire of the Opposition, but it will not assist in a resolution of this dispute and it will not assist in achieving better industrial relations in this country. We have sought to get the parties to discuss these matters. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) called a conference. It was not attended by the employer parties, who said that the matters were subjudice. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever heard. Instead, it sent an extraordinary list of demands. The fact is that this matter will be resolved only before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in an industrial sphere. I am pleased to see that today the AMIEU has finally agreed to take an application back to the Arbitration Commission and to try to resolve this in the only forum where it can be resolved. Let me say this in conclusion: If this is an example of what deregulation of the industry is going to bring, it will be great when we have the Opposition supplying hundreds of Mudginberris and fomenting industrial chaos as a result! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.31) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has just told us to knuckle under to the unions when they do not like the law. That is his approach and their approach, but Jay Pendarvis and Joy, his wife, and their employees are in the vanguard of a new approach to industrial relations, one which is totally foreign to the Hawke Government. It involves a casting off of the old adversarial industrial relations of the past and the present. It is based on the belief that both employees and employers can benefit more by getting together and determining their own style of operation, their own work practices and their own wages and conditions directly than they can in any other way. The Government and the trade union movement, highly conservative and resistant to change, are very fond of predicting death, doom and disaster for employees who engage in direct negotiations with the employers on such matters. Let us look at the situation at Mudginberri. By bypassing the union, meat workers can earn up to double what they can earn under the union preferred tally system. What does the union movement offer the Mudginberri meat workers? It offers lower wages. There is a better way to conduct industrial relations, although the Hawke Government and the union movement refuse to acknowledge it. At Mudginberri abattoir they are fighting to protect a better way in industrial relations from the union reactionaries who see themselves becoming redundant as a result. The events at the Mudginberri abattoir are no less than a test of the right of indivuduals in Australia to work together without the interference of big unionism and big government. Jay and Joy Pendarvis, the abattoir operators, are not big business with enormous resources and financial backing to take on the pigheaded and illegal victimisation of out-of-control unionism; nor are their workers strike breakers or scabs taking work from others or assisting bosses to take the bread out of the mouths of their fellow men and women. Jay and Joy Pendarvis are a couple of battlers in a remote bush abattoir trying to make a living for themselves in a tough industry. Their workers are a bunch of ordinary men and women sick and tired of being told how they may work, where they may work and under what arrangements by a union which is out of step with their aspirations. The Pendarvises have gone through the proper processes to reach agreement with their workers for the best deal for employers and employees and they have run slap bang into a vested interest union movement running scared at the very prospect of that arrangement, of being left out in the cold and of being irrelevant, because this union survives, thrives even, on ensuring that no one reaches agreement without its seal of approval. Much is being said by ordinary men and women in Australia about uncontrolled union power today and apparent control of government by big unionism. At Mudginberri is the proof of the sad state of affairs we have reached-a situation in which small business people, just trying to make an honest buck, have their livelihood threatened and their hopes dashed by the irresponsible and illegal actions of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union determined to prevent at all costs harmony and accord between employer and employee. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when it suits him, makes much of harmony and accord and of, as he says, `bringing Australia together'. But the events at Mudginberri demonstrate that that is no more than empty talk: Harmony and accord, but only if it does not undermine the strength of the big militant unions in Australia; harmony and accord-as long as it does not offend the career unionists who dominate our news each day telling other Australians and the Australian Government which way they may go. Harmony and accord-but at what price? It is too high a price. It is at the cost of the individual Australian, the ordinary consumer, the small business proprietor who wants to act within the law, to run his own business and to mind his own business. This Government and its Minister are covertly supporting the illegal actions of the AMIEU by refusing to ensure that Commonwealth meat inspectors cross illegal picket lines and do their job. Under the feeble pretence of acting to prevent an escalation of the dispute the Minister and this Government refuse to direct the men to take the right and proper action, namely, to authorise experienced Northern Territory Government veterinary officers to do the job the Minister cannot or will not get his own meat inspectors to do. So this Government is effectively providing the union with its strongest weapon-the ability to prevent the Mudginberri meat works from fulfilling its export orders. This Government is clearly determined to send Jay and Joy Pendarvis broke. Small business people around Australia are drawing their own conclusions. Without the covert support-the conniving, to use the Minister's term-of this Government, the AMIEU's disruptive action would have absolutely no effect on the operation of the meat works. At the feet of this Government, therefore, must lie the main blame for the continuation and any nationwide escalation of this dispute. We can be quite sure of that. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) can say that he has ordered Commonwealth meat inspectors to cross the picket lines and that they have refused, but he knows full well that with the stroke of a pen he could authorise highly qualified and well-experienced Northern Territory Government veterinarians to inspect meat for export as well as for domestic sales, as they are already doing, and in a moment allow Mudginberri to fulfil its export orders, render the picket line ineffective and, to all intents and purposes, end the dispute. He knows that, but he dodges his responsibility; he allows illegal activity to prosper. If the people of Australia want evidence of this Government's underhand dealings with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the AMIEU they only have to look at the deliberate and extraordinary breach of faith by the Prime Minister in his dealings with the National Farmers Federation and Pendarvis. On Monday of last week the National Farmers Federation handed over, in confidence, a without-prejudice submission detailing its position. Last Friday, after a meeting with the ACTU the AMIEU released the same document publicly. There is only one way in which that document could have got into the hands of the AMIEU-through the hand of the Prime Minister of Australia. The complicity and duplicity of this Prime Minister, dominated as he is by the interests and officials of the ACTU, have been shown up again and again during this dispute. It seems that the Prime Minister is unable to remember that he is no longer ACTU President. Why else would he suggest to NFF President, Ian McLachlan, that the whole dispute should be taken out of the Federal Court of Australia, where it properly lies, and be referred back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? One might have thought that, as Prime Minister of this country, he had undertaken some responsibility to uphold the findings of national institutions such as the Commonwealth's own courts and the awards of the Arbitration Commission, but here we find him undermining their awards and findings and saying in effect that he did not have to attach any importance to their findings, a suggestion which one might expect from the President of the ACTU but not, one would hope, from the Prime Minister. Let us look at the record of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who last night appeared on national television, deliberately misleading the public by saying that the court had vindicated the Government's action in this dispute. What an untruth! The court decision, which is being appealed, upheld only the discretion of Government to send in its meat inspectors or not. In no way did it endorse the actions taken or, more importantly, not taken. By publicly stating in Brisbane that `the use of section 45D was entirely unhelpful', the Minister betrayed his prejudice and complicity with the unions in this dispute. Australians know full well today where this Government's loyalties lie-with collectivism disguised as consensus, with regimentation disguised as accord and with power of vested interests to subjugate, to frustrate and to impoverish the individuality of all independent Australian men and women. I am proud that this battle is being fought and will be won in the part of Australia that I represent in this House because these two Territorians and their employees will not knuckle under to rampant unionism. I say to Jay and Joy Pendarvis, from the vast majority of their fellow Australians: `For Australia's sake, for all our sakes, hang in there'. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.40) —We have heard a lot about this Government and the unions. It is pretty ironic that the very next Bill to be dealt with is a Bill which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is to bring into this House, aimed at getting a bit of sanity in the building industry. We are told that this Government did nothing about the Builders Labourers Federation in all those years. It is absolutely ironic that the next Bill will be about this very matter. We had from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) a lot of confusion and we had from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) a lot about policy and ideology. As I said in answers to questions today, this issue is being used by members of the Liberal Party and the National Party opposite for their own murky political ends, their own prejudices and their own ideology. It is nonsense that with a stroke of a pen I can somehow cure this strike. The matter has been to court. I table the affidavit from the Director of the Export Inspection Service, which is a court document. It is a public document. I also table the finding by Mr Justice Neaves on many of the stupid allegations being made by honourable members opposite. Honourable members opposite talk a lot about trade. We are the Government. We are concerned about trade, we are concerned about industrial peace in this country. We are concerned about industrial relations and the need to have wage fixation that has given us the progress that we have achieved over the last few years. The accord is holding. Why does the opposition want us to be saddled with the wage cost explosions we experienced under Mr Fraser? Why does the Opposition continue to ignore the fact that the accord has put a cap on wage costs? I will tell honourable members why. The reason is simple. Members of the Opposition will never be able to exercise their born right to rule and all the ideology that goes with that. They cannot handle the fact that we can run this economy twice as well as they can. That is the problem. They talk about trade. What a great record honourable members opposite had in trade when in government. In the last International Sugar Agreement bar one, in the late 1970s, they acted against the European Economic Community joining in the agreement. That is what caused most of the problems in the sugar industry. What happened when honourable members opposite went to Japan on the beef issue? They allowed the Americans to come in under quota on the diaphragm beef. What happened in relatin to wheat, with the big trade sanctions relating to Russia because of its actions in relation to Afghanistan? Honourable members opposite are beauties at trade! Australia's biggest trading partner is Japan. They never put an agricultural attache into Japan. What do they do with the EEC other than bully, bluster and abuse? They do nothing whatsoever. Now, of course, the fascists opposite are supporting the South African Government. What they do in trade is absolute nonsense and has been against this country's interests for a long time. Now the honourable member for Tangney has come in here with all his big words. The word `complicity' means partnership in an evil action. There has been no partnership whatsoever. I have talked to the unions twice on this matter. I have talked more to the National Farmers Federation than to the unions in all of this matter. Another word used by the honourable member was collusion. `Collusion' means fraudulent secret understanding. There has been no fraudulent secret understanding. It is absolute nonsense. We are governing and we are not taking sides. But the honourable member for Tangney says that this will open up new vistas, this will bring in the great revolution. Even Joh is funding this. That is how odd it is. That is what it is all about. No one is saying that the union is right. The courts are saying that the union is not right. The matter is before the courts. Blind Freddie knows that the union is in breach of the law. We are not taking the union's side. Then we heard all this nonsense about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) breaching confidentiality. Even the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) put out a Press statement saying that the Prime Minister should get all the parties together. That was about three weeks after the NFF said it. So what happened? Twice the NFF rejected the Government's invitation. It submitted as a condition on which it would come an absurd list of 18 demands that certainly tipped its hand. We convened the meeting hoping that representatives of the NFF would come along; but, no, they sent along this great list. Now if we wanted members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to enter into negotiations, of course they had to be apprised of what was in the list of demands. I cannot see how the heck a meeting can take place if one party will not come and the other party does not know why the other mob will not come. This dispute is all about the tally system. In terms of the prime task of a government, it is about resolving industrial disputes, not exacerbating them in the interests of a party or parties for their own political or policy interests. We are a government upholding the law. We have not been taking sides. As I said, Blind Freddie knows that the AMIEU is in breach of the law, and it is being prosecuted. Let us get down to what this dispute is all about. It is about an issue of at least three years standing in the Northern Territory-the tally system. There is a system operating in the Kimberleys, incidentally, but I will not go into that, concentrating on tallies. The meat industry has an interest in getting stock processed as cheaply as possible. This is its policy, and it is a perfectly legitimate aim. In other contexts, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia says that the tally system works very well. The big problem we have in this industry and the reason why the Government says that we should concentrate on the tally system is that the issue involves virtually three industries. There are the northern seasonal works, there are the part time works in the country that open two or three days a week and there are the year round works, more typically in the southern areas. We need to address that fact if we are to cut down costs in the meat processing sector. As my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said, the Industries Assistance Commission looked at this matter. Many of the members of MATFA, if we put the matter to the crunch, will back the tally system. Honourable members opposite know that full well. The trade union movement, while there is a trade union movement in this country-before honourable members opposite get their way-also has an interest in protecting its members. The issues of concern here are coverage and, latterly, section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The AMIEU has had sequestered $2.25m of its total funds. Opposition members-Good. Mr KERIN —Honourable members opposite interject: `Good'. They can say `good'; that is fair enough. The union has been fined $44,000. It is not budging an inch and the Australian Council of Trade Unions backed it from the word go, putting on an official picket. Now we see this issue being used. Queensland is moving for its own laws to go down this path. As I said, the approach of the honourable member for Tangney on this matter is well known. Let us get on to this court judgment. Let us get on to some of these issues. As I said, the court backed the Government's submission. This issue has been to the Cabinet on four occasions. It was not without consideration that we took the actions we did. We did so in the interests of preserving industrial peace, of containing and solving this dispute and not having it blown out of all proportion for political purposes. In terms of the question of the wider responsibilities of the Minister with regard to the effect on trade the judge said, as recorded at page 21 of his judgment: The Minister for Primary Industry and his department clearly have administrative responsibility for many aspects of Australia's overseas trade and in that sense must clearly be concerned with the effects upon that trade which action taken in a particular case may, or will be likely to, have. Let us look at the next substantive issue. Here the judge has said that it is unrealistic to confine attention only to Mudginberri and that the Minister must consider wider considerations. He said, as recorded at page 23 of his judgment: I do so only for the purpose of indicating that it is unrealistic, in considering the scope and object of the provisions here in question, to confine one's attention to the circumstances relevant to the particular establishment and treat as extraneous and irrelevant wider considerations concerning the industry generally. On another issue, in addressing the proposition that the industry and its welfare are not irrelevant, the judge said: But, I am unable to conclude, in point of law, that the considerations which Mr Langhorne admittedly took into account concerning the possible or likely effects on the overall welfare of the meat export industry, and the possible or likely industrial relations consequences for that industry, of acceding to the applicant's requests are irrelevant to any purpose falling within the scope and object of the discretion that was vested in him. Let us now look at this issue in terms of the Northern Territory and this submission by honourable members opposite that I can fix this problem by the stroke of a pen. I turn to the matters which, according to the applicant's submission, were relevant to the decision-making process but which Mr Langhorne failed to take into account. One of those matters was the availability within the Department of Primary Production in the Northern Territory of suitably qualified persons to be appointed and made available to carry out at Mudginberri Station the functions of authorised officers under the relevant legislation. Time does not permit me to continue reading these excerpts, but the judge found in favour of the Commonwealth Government and the actions we had taken with respect to everything raised substantively by honourable members opposite and by the applicants in this case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill currently before the House is an historic piece of legislation. It represents a major departure from the normal processes for dealing with industrial relations problems in this country. Its objective is to provide machinery for the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or to provide for the effective equivalent of such deregistration in parts of Australia. Such action cannot be taken lightly. However, we have come to a point where the actions of the BLF are, in our opinion-and, we would believe, in the opinion of the community as a whole-totally unacceptable. Despite being given many opportunities to do so, the BLF has shown, time and time again, that it is not willing to adhere to the established industrial relations processes. Indeed, it has treated those processes with absolute contempt. In so doing, the Government believes that the BLF has, on numerous occasions, breached undertakings to the Federal Court of Australia, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar, the Commonwealth Government, building industry employers, and even the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is now patently clear that the BLF leadership is utterly untrustworthy and that it regards undertakings and agreements as mere stratagems to achieve a momentary advantage which can then be disregarded at will. Furthermore, its unprincipled, indeed outrageous, mode of operation has created havoc in the building industry, thereby causing extraordinary delays in building programs and crippling increases in costs. Its use of tactics such as breaking concrete pours, reckless application of work bans, resort to walk-offs or `homers', and claims for payment for time on strike, has made industrial relation in the industry a nightmare. Its resort to industrial blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation has added a further ugly dimension to its activities. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and has resulted in the virtual alienation of the union from the rest of the trade union movement in some parts of the nation. The building and construction industry occupies a vital role in the Australian economy. The Government has deliberately encouraged the industry as a major force in renewed economic growth since 1983 and activity is expected to continue to grow strongly in 1985-86. The continuation of that expansion and its contribution to the nation's economic prosperity has, however, been put at risk by the industrial disruption caused by the BLF. The Federation has around 35,000 members in non-residential construction, with almost 70 per cent of them employed in the industry in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It has been the actions of the Federation in these areas which have been most disruptive and which have led to the legislation now before the House. The Federation's members are on site at the beginning and the end of projects and are involved in key activities in the course of a job, including steel fixing, concreting, scaffolding, crane driving, dogging and general trades assistance. This central position has been used ruthlessly by the BLF. Tactics such as bans on strategic equipment and parts of jobs, broken concrete pours, bans on truck deliveries and unloading and on overtime have been deployed with the objective of `the most harm to the boss, the least harm to ourselves'-to quote the New South Wales State Secretary of the Federation. The BLF has become expert at exploiting the vulnerability of the construction process to press its demands. It has fully exploited the fact that once a project is under way, very often the cheapest alternative for an employer is to succumb to a demand rather than risk losses far in excess of the cost of an industrial settlement. This is not to excuse employers, however, some of whom have been far too willing in the past to accommodate the BLF. BLF tactics have also extended to action against parties not directly involved in the industry and even against other unions. Federation members have occupied buildings of insurance companies, private organisations and the Office of the Industrial Registrar and, at least on one occasion, premises of another union. The Federation has also shown disdain for the processes of conciliation and arbitration. It has continuously refused to abide by orders of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and consistently pursued claims outside the guidelines of the Commission. Further, it has broken numerous undertakings as to its conduct given to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar and the Federal Court of Australia. These activities of the BLF are not a recent phenomenon-indeed, the Federation has been a major disruptive force in the industry throughout the past decade and a half. In 1974, the Federation was deregistered by the Industrial Court following four years of turmoil in the industry. In October 1976, the Federation was reregistered after giving specific undertakings to the Industrial Registrar to abide by decisions of the Commission and to participate fully in the prevention and settlement of disputes through conciliation and arbitration. Mr Gallagher, the Federal Secretary of the BLF, told the Commission in 1976: I can further submit that the Commission can properly and confidently assume that the policy of this Federation is to resort to conciliation and arbitration through the Commission rather than direct action in breach of the Act or in breach of Awards of the Commission. Mr Gallagher went on to say: . . . the Union gives assurances that the employers can expect that acts of destruction of property, interruptions to concrete pours, interrupting the unloading of vehicles and the use of selective bans on vertical transport machinery, such as cranes, passengers/material hoists, which would inhibit the work of builders' labourers and of tradesmen will be forgone. The record shows that from this time the union has had scant regard to these undertakings. It has, on a multitude of occasions, engaged in the kind of conduct it repudiated before the court, and its industrial record contains numerous examples of harmful demarcation disputes, broken concrete pours, violent conflicts with police and fellow unionists and disruptive campaigns over non-industrial issues. The activities of the union over the period were well summarised in the 1982 report of the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation: These tactics find no support or condonation in any industrial legislation in this country. The conduct not only exceeds the bounds of industrial propriety but, in many instances, plainly transgresses the Criminal Law . . . The result has been to place the BLF in a unique position-a position of being above the law. In March 1983 when this Government took office, we were confronted by major difficulties in the industry. Industrial relations were at an extremely low ebb with widespread disputation revolving around award renegotiations involving all unions and the ongoing proceedings for deregistration of the BLF initiated by the previous Government in 1981. It was clear that those deregistration proceedings-initiated by the current leader of the opposition (Mr Peacock)-had little chance of achieving a lasting improvement in the industry. They were strongly opposed by the whole union movement, which would have backed up the BLF if it had been eventually deregistered. Despite the fact that the proceedings had already been under way for two years, there was every chance they could have meandered on for a number of years. Moreover, the proceedings had been initiated with absolutely no consultation with industry employers who were reluctantly dragged into the case. The general feeling amongst employers at the time was that they had been put into a no win situation by the Government of the day. This Government adopted a strategy in 1983 and consistently through the next two years that the problems of the industry could best be solved through consultation and co-operation, leading to a negotiated settlement involving all parties, backed up by the Government. However, if this approach failed, the Government was prepared to take strong and effective action to achieve stability. In April 1983, the Government established the National Building and Construction Industry Conference under an independent Chairman to look at establishing the basis for a withdrawal of deregistration proceedings and so facilitate the establishment of an industry agreement. Building employers, unions, the Federal Government and the ACTU were represented at the Conference. In May 1983, agreement was reached, including a moratorium on further industrial action, as a basis for adjournment of the deregistration proceedings. As part of this agreement, the BLF reaffirmed, in detail, the undertakings it gave on reregistration in 1976. In the months that followed, negotiations between the parties continued, resulting in the building industry agreement. The agreement provided, in return for superannuation, the most comprehensive package ever agreed upon in the industry to address the major industrial problems which had bedevilled the industry over a long period. Specific procedures were laid down to handle disputes including a seven-day cooling-off period. Practices such as claims for payment for time on strike, cash in hand, pyramid subcontracting, contrived safety issues, no-ticket no-start and demarcation disputes were specifically addressed in the agreement. There was also an agreement on no extra claims. It was hoped that, with the support of employers and all unions, the agreement would lay the foundation for a long period of stable industrial relations. At the same time as the industry agreement was being developed, negotiations continued to seek a satisfactory basis for resolution of the deregistration proceedings, and in December 1983 the Government agreed to accept undertakings given by the BLF as the basis for withdrawing from the proceedings. Central to the Government's decision was the position taken by the ACTU, which supported the BLF's commitment and resolved to take all reasonable steps to ensure its observance by the union. The BLF undertook to recognise its responsibilities as a registered organisation to work within the provisions and spirit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the national wage principles, and to utilise the means provided by the Act for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. Earlier, in October 1983, the BLF had given a no extra claims commitment as required under the national wage principles. Again, only a few months passed before the BLF repudiated these commitments. During February 1984, the BLF embarked on a widespread and particularly disruptive campaign for a $9 pay claim rather than participating with other unions in negotiations for a superannuation scheme. Eventually, combined pressure from the Government, the ACTU and other unions convinced the BLF to drop its claim. During the first half of 1984, the employer applicants were still pursuing deregistration. However, many employers recognised the problems associated with that course, especially when the necessary circumstances for it to be effective did not exist. In June 1984, the employers withdrew from the proceedings on the basis of a commitment by the Government to take effective action against the BLF if it failed to adhere to the industry agreement. No sooner had the deregistration been terminated, however, than the BLF launched a widespread campaign seeking superannuation outside the building industry agreement. Although other unions had signed the agreement the BLF, which had been fully involved in negotiations leading to the agreement, broke away, refused to sign the agreement, and sought superannuation through an extremely disruptive industrial campaign. Further industrial action was taken in relation to charges against Mr Gallagher arising out of the Winneke Royal Commission. Matters came to a head in September 1984 with vast sections of the industry in all States affected by the campaign. Again the BLF practised its typical style of brinkmanship and, when confronted with a preparedness by the Government to take strong action, the BLF sought a last minute tactical retreat and finally signed the agreement. However, the BLF's intentions of adhering to the terms of the agreement were soon in question. At the same time as it was signing the agreement, the BLF continued industrial actions over claims for strike pay and continued employment for its members at the Sydney Police Centre as well as in pursuit of shorter hours on shopping centre sites. On 12 October 1984, building unions in Sydney met at a large combined meeting and condemned BLF's conduct at the Police Centre and alleged that 14 BLF members at the site had been involved in violence, threats and intimidation against fellow workers and their families. Calls by the ACTU executive and the Commission for an end to all BLF action over the site were ignored. Over 2,000 workers were stood down in New South Wales alone, with major sites all over the rest of the country also being affected. This action led to the decision by the New South Wales Government to deregister the BLF from the State's industrial jurisdiction. It was only at the end of February that bans were eventually lifted with a commitment by the BLF not to pursue claims for lost time-a commitment that was later ignored as other sites were banned in pursuit of such payment. Meanwhile the BLF pursued its national campaign for a 36-hour week on shopping centres with a large number of projects in most States being forced to the point of closure. These claims were in clear breach of both the national wage principles and the building industry agreement. Furthermore, numerous bans and stoppages were imposed in all States in protest at the conviction and gaoling of Mr Gallagher. The union's industrial action was only dropped in July when the resolve of Federal and State governments to act became obvious. The Victorian Government decided at this stage to legislate to deregister the BLF from its industrial jurisdiction. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is abundantly clear in these circumstances that there is absolutely no course open to the Government than to introduce this legislation now before the House. The time has passed for yet another `last chance'. Since March 1983, the Government has explored every constructive option for achieving a resolution through the normal industrial processes to the problems posed for the industry by the BLF's behaviour. And yet these opportunities have invariably not been accepted by the BLF. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for two steps. First, a hearing is to take place before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission so that it can be independently determined whether the Federation has engaged in certain forms of serious industrial misconduct. Secondly, where the Commission so finds, the Minister will be able to take action against the Federation to exclude it from the Federal conciliation and arbitration system altogether, or limit its capacity to operate within the system. I should stress that the measures proposed by the Government against the Federation are being introduced because the Government believes that the Federation's conduct amounts to repudiation of the federal system for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and of its responsibilities as a federally registered organisation of employees, as well as being utterly disruptive to industrial peace. In the Government's view, the action which is contemplated in this legislation is so serious that it is essential that there be impartial consideration by an independent tribunal of the Federation's conduct. This will occur against specific criteria which are appropriate tests of whether the Federation has behaved responsibly as an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in a way which is consistent with the objectives of our industrial relations system. Clause 4 therefore provides that where, on an application by the Minister, a Full Bench of the Commission is satisfied that the Federation has engaged in certain actions, the Commission is to declare in writing that it is so satisfied. The first of the criteria in clause 4 concerns the Federation's record of compliance with its undertakings and agreements. The Commission will be able to consider whether the Federation has, by engaging in industrial action or by making claims supported by industrial action, contravened or acted inconsistently with the intent of agreements and undertakings to which it is a party. These include the building industry agreement which I referred to earlier, as well as the Federation's various undertakings to the Commission, the Registrar or the Federal Court of Australia. Undertakings given by the Federation to a party to a proceeding in which the Federation was involved before any of these tribunals are also included. And that, of course, includes its undertakings to the Government and to the employers given before the Federal Court in 1983 and 1984. The agreements which the Federation has entered into and the undertakings it has given are all fundamental to its participation in the conciliation and arbitration system. As I have said, the Government, employers and many unions see those agreements and undertakings as meaning little to the Federation and the Commission will have the opportunity to determine whether that is so. Provision is also made in clause 4 for an examination of whether the Federation has engaged in conduct which has seriously hindered or prevented the achievement of an object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, or whether the conduct of the Federation has been inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. The Federation will be given the opportunity of presenting argument on its conduct. This is provided for in clause 6. For the purposes of clause 4, the Federation is made responsible for any industrial action or conduct by its members if it instigated or encouraged such conduct or action, or the Federation does not prove that it took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Once the Commission has made a declaration, the Bill provides for alternative courses of action against the Federation. Clause 5 provides for the Minister to order the cancellation of the Federation's registration. This would mean that any award applying to the Federation or to its members would cease to have any force or effect in relation to them. After its deregistration, the Federation would, under clause 7, be denied the capacity to be a party to any proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commission would not be able to deal with any industrial disputes to the extent that they involved members of the Federation. Before the Federation could be reregistered, the Minister may, under clause 5, specify conditions with which the Federation must comply. There are alternatives to ordering the cancellation of the Federation's registration. The Minister may under clause 5 terminate or suspend the Federation's rights, privileges or capacities, or those of its members, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or under the rules of the Federation. Under clause 8, the Minister may make orders so that the Federation ceases, while it remains registered, to be able to have coverage of employees engaged in work coming within the Federation's rules in parts of Australia specified by the Minister. Clause 8 also provides that, upon the making of such an order, the Federation is no longer able, for the purposes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to make any claims for or on behalf of any persons or to represent any members in the area specified in the order. The making of such an order will mean that the Federation cannot seek new awards or recruit members in relation to work in the relevant area. As to existing awards, clause 8 provides that any award applying to the Federation or its members ceases to have effect in relation to them unless, within 28 days of the making of the Minister's order, the Commission varies the awards so that they do not apply to the Federation or its members in the area specified in the order. Clause 8 therefore permits a selective approach to be used in relation to the Federation. It will permit the Government to take action against the most disruptive sections of the BLF while allowing the more acceptable section to remain within the federal system. At this stage, this is the approach which the Government proposes to adopt. The action to be taken under this approach will, together with appropriate supplementary action under clause 5 in relation to the rights, privileges and capacities of the Federation, mean that consequences similar to those resulting from deregistration can apply, if necessary, to the recalcitrant elements of the union. Whether the Federation has its registration cancelled or selective action is taken in relation to its representative rights, the Minister is able, by virtue of clause 9, to allocate by way of a declaration to any other federally registered unions coverage of work in an industry in respect of which the Federaton is or has been registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The relevant union would be required to consent to the Minister taking this action. Such action may be taken in relation to a particular part of Australia and may involve different kinds of work and different unions. This will enable the continued effective representation for the purposes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of persons who would otherwise have been eligible for membership of the Federation where it is deregistered or has its representative rights removed. The Bill also permits the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to allocate Federation work coverage to other federally registered unions. The Commission may consider such allocation of work coverage where an application is made by a federally registered union or by the Minister. The Commission will have to be satisfied that it is desirable for the union concerned to have that work coverage allocated to it so that the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are achieved and the employees concerned will be effectively represented for the purposes of the Act. The Act will cease to be in force by virtue of clause 15 on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. This Bill represents positive action by the Government towards securing improved industrial relations in the industry. The Government expects support from the industry to ensure the success of measures taken under it. In conjunction with the measures in the Bill, employers will be expected to adopt a code of industrial behaviour to rid the industry of the improper practices being fostered by the BLF. Although such a code will require no more than stringent adherence to awards, agreements and normal industrial practices, its implementation would be a major step towards improved industrial relations in the industry. The Government is also giving consideration to non-legislative measures designed to ensure that contractors on government projects adhere to government industrial relations policies. We will be approaching State and local governments to adopt similar measures. It is essential that this legislation be enacted with the utmost expedition. The Government will be looking to the co-operation of all parties to ensure its rapid progress through the Parliament. As soon as the legislation is passed, I will be applying to the Commission for the declaration which is required under the Bill before any action can be taken against the BLF. The Bill provides for an expeditious hearing before the Commission and the Government will take every feasible step to ensure that this is the case. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.14 to 8 p.m. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) (8.00) I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I present the Budget for 1985-86. The Hawke Government stands before the people of Australia tonight proud of its record of economic success and confident that Labor's social priorities are being met. The evidence of our achievement is indisputable. We have turned the economy around from deep recession to a rate of growth which is one of the fastest in the Western World. We have generated 410,000 new jobs and are well on the way to meeting-or even surpassing-our target of creating half a million jobs in our first three years of office. We have reduced the unemployment rate from a peak of 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent. We have arrested and turned around the blow-out that we inherited in the Commonwealth's deficit. We have reduced inflation to levels not seen for a decade. At the same time we have implemented the social priorities of the Australian Labor Party with vigour and with vision. We have introduced Medicare, we have substantially lifted social security payments, we have increased spending on education, public housing and home purchase assistance, and we have funded the community employment program. In our first two and a half years we have achieved a great deal. But our task is far from complete. It will take many more years of consistently high growth and economic discipline to unwind the legacy of our predecessors. The recession in this country was so deep and the economic deterioration so widespread that we need sustained and strong economic growth for the rest of this decade to restore full employment. The achievement of that goal continues as the greatest challenge of our Administration, of the Labor movement, and of the nation. 1985-86 Budget Mr Speaker, Australia is able to tackle the challenges of the coming year from a position of renewed economic strength and against the background of a successfully implemented strategy. In the coming year we anticipate a further fall in unemployment and increased private sector activity. The Budget accordingly incorporates a very large cut in government sector demands onfinancial markets. It includes no new or increased sales taxes or excises, and no increases in income tax rates. Mr Speaker, this Government has from the beginning of its term of office sought the establishment of a sustainable private sector economic recovery. That private sector recovery is now well underway. Our historic trilogy of budgetary commitments will ensure it continues. The trilogy requires the Government not to increase the percentage of tax revenue above the 1984-85 share of taxation in the total economy. The trilogy also commits us to reducing Commonwealth Government expenditure as a proportion of the total economy. And it requires a reduction in the size of the deficit. These are historic commitments unmatched by any previous Australian Government. The discipline these commitments impose has not been met in any of the past sixteen years. Our trilogy of budgetary commitments will be more than met in 1985-86. Tax revenues will be contained within the trilogy commitment while outlays will fall significantly as a proportion of gross domestic product. The deficit has been cut sharply, both as a proportion of the economy and in money terms. The increase in total outlays in 1985-86 has been reduced to 8.4 per cent-or 1.3 per cent in real terms, the lowest increase for six years. Commonwealth outlays will fall from 30.8 per cent of gross domestic product to 29.8 per cent. This outcome has enabled us to bring the Budget deficit down from $6746 million in 1984-85 to $4919 million in 1985-86. I repeat, this Budget cuts the deficit by $1.8 billion to $4.9 billion. This deficit represents 2.1 per cent of GDP compared with 3.3 per cent in 1984-85, 4.3 per cent in 1983-84 and the 5 per cent in prospect that we inherited from the coalition Government. In other words, in three Budgets we have more than halved the deficit as a share of the total economy. This year's large cut in the deficit, combined with the reduction in borrowings agreed to at the May Premiers' Conference, will greatly reduce overall new borrowings by the public sector. The Budget Priorities Mr Speaker, the Government has secured this achievement in reducing the deficit while still making room for expenditure on those people in special need. Our youth were among the chief victims of the economic crisis presided over by the previous Government. The Labor Government is determined that they should share fully the benefits of economic recovery and growth. Clearly, the most substantial way they can be assisted is through the creation of lasting jobs in the private sector. The whole thrust of our economic policies is directed to that end. But Government also has a direct role to play. The strategy we have developed, following the review which I foreshadowed in last year's Budget Speech, covers three main areas-job training, financial support and education. First, job training. Presently, about 100,000 of our young people leave school each year and receive no further systematic vocational training. It is this group which finds it most difficult to get jobs. Accordingly the Government has decided to support the creation and rapid development of a new system of traineeships. This scheme will provide young people with a combination of training and work lasting for a minimum of one year. For example, under the scheme a 16-year old school leaver could become a trainee in the hotel industry or in the retailing industry, receiving at least 13 weeks outside instruction during the course of the year. Trainee wages will be negotiated between employers and unions taking into account time spent at the workplace, and will involve payment of at least $90 per week. Commonwealth assistance for the training part of this scheme will be up to $4,000 per person, payable partly to the employer and partly to the training institution. We intend that 10,000 such places will be created in 1985-86, expanding rapidly to a total of 75,000 places by 1988. Further, the Government proposes to combine a range of existing labour market programs for disadvantaged young people into a single community-based training program. The Government also recognises the need to explore ways of reducing the costs to employers of engaging young people. To this end the Government will negotiate with the States to achieve remission in 1986 of payroll tax and workers compensation premiums for employees under 21. Another major initiative in the employment field will be the introduction of a new, integrated wage subsidy program from the beginning of 1986. This new program will absorb several existing schemes, including the special youth employment training program, the adult wage subsidy scheme, and other programs which assist disadvantaged job seekers. We intend that at least 85,000 people will benefit from this program in 1985-86. The second major area of our strategy is financial support for young people. In a nutshell, we have developed a comprehensive four year plan designed to encourage young people to remain in education rather than opt out and pick up unemployment benefits. As a first step, in 1986 there will be increases of around 20 per cent in the effective rates of secondary education allowances, plus increases in tertiary education allowances. Unemployment benefits for single people under 18 will be standardised at $50 a week, an increase of $5 a week for those on unemployment benefits for less than 6 months. It will be held at this rate until the end of 1987 while the equivalent student allowances are brought into line; it will then be increased and indexed annually thereafter. Another important feature of this new plan is the establishment of an intermediate rate of unemployment benefit for the single unemployed aged 18-20. As of November 1985 this rate will be set at $88.20 a week-an increase of $3 a week on the current level. Education allowances for the 18-20 age group will increase at a faster rate than the new intermediate unemployment benefit rate so that by 1988 full time students living away from home and the single unemployed will be receiving the same basic benefits. I am also pleased to announce that from 1989 the real value of this rate will be maintained by annual indexation-a reform of enduring significance. Education allowances will, as at present, be income tested. Finally, rental assistance of up to $10 a week will be available from May next year for those aged 18 and over who are living independently and who have been receiving the unemployment benefit for more than six months. Those people will therefore be eligible for a maximum benefit of $98.20 a week-an increase of $13 a week on the existing rate. The third element of our strategy will be to ensure that sufficient education places are available for those young people who wish to go on to higher education. There will be a substantial increase in direct spending on education, which in the period 1985 to 1987 will provide an additional 20,500 places in higher education. The net cost of the three arms of this strategy is estimated at $70 million in this financial year, rising to about $190 million in 1986-87. A statement by the Prime Minister, to be tabled at the conclusion of this speech, will expand on the details of the strategy. Mr Speaker, in our first two Budgets the Hawke Government directed to those most in need some $1.2 billion of new and increased social security benefits over and above the established indexation arrangements. We did this despite the enormous budgetary stress that we inherited. We did it because the Labor movement is irrevocably committed to justice and compassion for those in genuine need. This Budget provides $110 million in 1985-86 and $245 million in a full year for increased levels of social security payments over and above the existing indexation arrangements. This includes from November an increase of $3 a week in the single adult rate of unemployment benefit for those aged 21 and over. That rise will be in addition to the November indexation increase of $3.25 a week, which together will increase the single adult unemployment benefit by $6.25 to $91.45 a week. From May 1986 there will also be a $10 increase in the income test free area for unemployment and sickness beneficiaries, increasing the amount they can earn without losing part of their benefit by 50 per cent to $30 a week. To assist pensioners and lower income families with children, there will be a $2 a week increase in the additional benefit for each child and a $2 increase in the rate of the family income supplement from November. Taken together with the increases announced in each of the last two Budgets, this represents an increase of 60 per cent in these benefit rates since the Government took office. The mother's and guardian's allowance, payable to single parent pensioners or beneficiaries with children, will increase by $2 a week from May 1986. New initiatives in the veterans affairs portfolio, particularly in the area of health care, will cost over $15 million in 1985-86. Provision has been made for increased purchases of specialised hospital equipment and a redevelopment program for repatriation hospitals. A new home and community care program for the aged and the disabled is being negotiated with the States involving Commonwealth expenditure of $117.5 million, of which $35 million represents additional expenditure for new and expanded services. This program will enable the elderly and disabled to receive care and assistance at home from community groups rather than being forced to seek inappropriate and expensive institutional care. A further $5 million is being provided for the first phase of the new community disability services program, in addition to $144.8 million required for ongoing programs. This program is designed to enhance community involvement with the disabled and improve rehabilitation services. The Government is providing $22.1 million for national campaigns to combat drug abuse, an increase of $18.9 million over 1984-85. Some $8.4 million has been allocated to combat the spread of AIDS. Mr Speaker, the Government is concerned about the economic difficulties faced by many of our primary producers, particularly in view of the extremely poor international commodity prices flowing from subsidised overproduction by our major competitors. We are therefore introducing a number of important initiatives to assist the rural sector. From 1 November 1985, currently eligible primary producers will receive a full rebate of the excise on diesel fuel. Their diesel will therefore be excise free, reducing the price of diesel used by farmers, fishermen and other primary producers by 2.4 cents a litre. From 1 January 1986, the tariff on grain harvesters will be replaced by a subsidy on local production, thus reducing the cost to farmers of this equipment. These measures will reduce primary industry costs by some $25 million in 1985-86 and some $46 million in a full year. The Government is also disposed to replace tariffs on agricultural chemicals with a bounty and will consider this matter further in light of the Industries Assistance Commission report due in February 1986. The Government is allocating $16.8 million for the rural adjustment scheme and in addition is providing special assistance for the dried vine fruits and wine grape industries and the Northern Prawn Fishery at an extra cost of $6 million. A further $7 million has been allocated over the next 4 years for marketing assistance for the meat and livestock industry. Budget Overview Mr Speaker, the Budget strategy I have outlined tonight will underpin a third year of strong economic growth. We expect activity in the non-farm sector of the economy to again increase rapidly, at about the same 5 per cent rate as last year. Total economic growth will again be about 4 1/2 per cent. As a result, during three years of the Hawke Government, the Australian economy will have grown by more than it did over the previous 8 years. As well the pattern of growth will have changed and improved markedly. Whereas last year over a third of Australia's economic growth came from the public sector, this year we expect less than a sixth to come from that source. Once again in 1985-86 Australia is poised to record one of the fastest growth rates in the developed world. The OECD has forecast that growth in the industrialised countries as a whole will slow and that in many Western countries unemployment will rise. We will be one of the few countries to run counter to that trend. In this we will be assisted by the beneficial effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar on our international trading accounts, which will contribute around a quarter of the overall growth this year. But also as a result of the dollar's depreciation, the consumer price index is expected to rise by about 8 per cent between June 1985 and June 1986, compared with 6.7 per cent in the previous year. While this rate compares favourably with the 11 1/2 per cent inflation rate we inherited from our predecessors, it will exceed that recorded by many of our trading partners. We must ensure that this one-off increase does not get built into the underlying rate of inflation-inflation must be made to slow again during 1986. That is why the main challenge that now confronts us is that flowing from the decline in the value of our dollar. Mr Speaker, for years the previous Government overvalued the dollar because it had no alternative policy. It had no accord for dealing with inflation. That crude approach to fixing the exchange rate gradually ruined our industries' ability to compete on local and overseas markets. Imports devastated local suppliers while export growth was constrained. Australian jobs were lost in the tens of thousands. The capacity of the Government to fix the exchange rate was swept away when we decided to float the Australian dollar in December 1983. The recent decline in the value of our dollar on currency markets has restored our competitive edge-it has made our goods cheaper on world markets and it has made it easier for our industries at home to compete with imports. In short, Australia is back in business. But in the face of a slowing world economy we must increase our share of markets to pay our way as a nation. This means we must stay competitive. And if we are to do that, we cannot afford to allow our production costs to rise above those of our competitors. If the initial and full price effects of the depreciation were to be transmitted to wages via indexation decisions, our cost increases would noticeably exceed those of our major competitors for years to come. Our competitive edge would be lost. Our chances of improving our share of local and world markets would be diminished. We would be throwing away any prospect of sustaining the growth rates required to get unemployment down. That is why, temporarily, we must modify our normal support for full wage indexation. In principal the Government remains committed to the maintenance of real living standards and the Government does not intend to abrogate that commitment under the accord. Our aim is not to permanently reduce real wages. That is neither appropriate nor necessary. However, in the next two wage indexation cases the Government will argue before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the price effects of depreciation be taken into account. We seek a small reduction in the size of wage rises to allow the economy to digest the adverse consequences of the depreciation so Australia can reap the enormous opportunities that the depreciation offers. Before the case begins, the Commonwealth will meet with unions and with employers to discuss the Government's approach. Within the framework of the accord, we will explore with the ACTU means by which any temporary loss of real income can over time be fully restored without doing damage to the economy. This additional measure of restraint is the necessary link in the chain of continued healthy expansion of jobs, without which there can be no real security for ordinary Australians. We believe that trade unionists will share our deep conviction that the benefits of growth offered by the devaluation should be enjoyed not only by those in employment but by providing the maximum number of new jobs for their fellow Australians. Mr Speaker, the potential to achieve a truly durable economic recovery can be realised from the shared commitment by all Australians which this Government has sought to foster. We now have economic growth in this country unprecedented in the last decade. We now have a remarkable opportunity to keep this growth going. The Government's policies will continue to play their fundamental part. In creating growth. In creating jobs. In creating prosperity and sharing it among all sectors and all walks of life, among all Australians. This Budget makes a significant contribution to that vital endeavour. Outlays Mr Speaker, I will now deal in more detail with aspects of the expenditure side of the Budget. Budget outlays in 1985-86 are estimated to total just under $69,100 million which, as I stated earlier, is an increase in real terms of only 1.3 per cent. By any measure, such expenditure growth is modest. It is about $23,000 million lower than the ceiling implied by the Government's trilogy commitment on outlays growth. This outcome reflects the determined approach which the Government has adopted to expenditure control, both in the May statement and in the preparation of this Budget. Rationalisation of existing spending programs has enabled the Government to direct funding to its own priorities and at the same time to achieve a substantial cut in the deficit. As I stated earlier, the Government will seek adjustments in the two indexation cases in 1985-86 to take into account the impact of the dollar's depreciation. Given that outcomes in this area are subject to future decisions of the Arbitration Commission, the Budget estimates for receipts and outlays make no specific allowance for such a modification of indexation adjustments. However, we note that full discounting in both cases would imply, on present estimates, a reduction of about one percentage point in the Budget estimate of average weekly earnings growth for 1985-86. The overall impact of such a change would be to add about $350 million to the Budget deficit for 1985-86. Mr Speaker, I outlined earlier some of the new spending initiatives, notably for our young people, for social security and for assistance to farmers. I will now discuss other important initiatives. Details of individual programs are contained in Statement No. 3 and other Budget papers; more detailed information will be provided, as appropriate, by the relevant Ministers. EDUCATION Consistent with the Governments continuing commitment to education, and because of the importance of this area to youth in particular, the 1985-86 Budget provides $4,944 million in direct spending on education, an increase of 9.4 per cent on 1984-85. Building on the substantial increases announced last year, additional funding will be provided in 1986 and 1987 to create some extra 5,500 places in higher education. By 1987, 28,000 extra places-a 10 per cent increase-will have been created since this Government came into office. To match enrolment growth, further increases in higher education capital and equipment grants amounting to $11 million over 1986 and 1987 also will be provided. LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT In addition to the new traineeships and other measures targeted on young people, the Government is lifting expenditure on adult training programs by 36 per cent or $6.5 millioin. Also, $1.5 million is to be paid to the industry training committee network to fund innovative training courses. CHILD CARE In 1985-86 $4.9 million is being provided to create 1,000 new child care places. In the following two years further new places will be provided to meet the Government's election commitment for 20,000 additional places over three years. The Government will ensure that low-income families are not disadvantaged by the implementation of the child care savings announced in the May statement. HOUSING Total outlays from the Budget on housing for this year are estimated at $1,397 million, an increase of 5.2 per cent on 1984-85 and an increase of over 100 per cent on funding provided in the final year of the previous Government. In 1985-86 the States and the Northern Territory will be able to nominate up to $492 million of their Loan Council borrowing program for public housing purposes at the highly concessional interest rate of 4.5 per cent per annum over 53 years. The increase in Federal funds provided for this priority area will allow us to continue our attack on housing-related poverty in Australia. Since the introduction of the Government's highly successful first home owners scheme in October 1983, 144,000 approvals have been granted. Funding sufficient for a further 82,500 approvals will be provided this year. CAPITAL SPENDING AND WORKS Total Budget outlays for capital purposes in Australia, including capital grants and advances, are estimated to be $5051 million which, in keeping with our expectation of greater private sector activity, is a slight decrease on 1984-85. Expenditure on capital works funded directly from the Budget is estimated at $840 million, an increase of over $155 million on 1984-85, comprising $604 million for civil works and $236 million for defence works. $139 million is provided for major airport development works, including Brisbane, Perth, Townsville, Sydney and Canberra. Provision has also been made for planning work to begin on the Parramatta Law Courts complex, which is estimated to cost $15.5 million. New defence projects include the East Sale RAAF Base development, the HMAS Stirling submarine escape training facility in Western Australia and the next phase of the Williamstown Dockyard development. TRANSPORT Road grants to the States and Northern Terr- itory under the Australian bicentennial road development program and the new five-year Australian land transport program total $1,245 million in 1985-86. The new land transport program will be funded by a dedicated share of the excise on fuel, which is indexed to the CPI. INDUSTRY, ASSISTANCE AND DEVELOPMENT The Government is pursuing policies directed at rationalising and restructing Australian manu- facturing industry. The Government's decision to provide a 150 per cent tax concession for corporate research and development expenditure was announced on 29 May 1985. In addition, expenditure of $35 million is likely this year under the motor vehicle and components development grants scheme. A further $65 million is to be provided in 1985-86 under the industrial research and development incentives scheme. In addition, $6 million has been provided to facilitate rationalisation of the heavy engineering sector and to improve advisory and extension services for industry. EXPORT AND TRADE PROMOTION The Government attaches great importance to the development of Australia's export markets. As announced earlier this year, the Australian Trade Commission is to be established from 1 January 1986 to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of Australia's export marketing efforts. Additionally, $5 million has been allocated in 1985-86 for the funding of a new tourism overseas promotion scheme to replace the tourism incentive formerly provided under the export markets development grants scheme. DEFENCE In February 1985 the Minister for Defence announced that a major review of Australia's defence capabilities would be undertaken. That review is now well underway and the Government will be considering it before the next Budget is brought down. Meanwhile, the Government has made signifi- cant decisions to acquire major new defence capabilities. In particular, contracts have been signed for Seahawk helicopters for the Navy's guided missile frigates and for project definition studies for six new submarines proposed to be built in Australia. Overall, this Budget provides for an underlying real increase of 3.1 per cent in defence spending-in actual terms it provides $6,535 million for defence, an increase of 10 per cent on 1984-85 outlays. This reflects the Government's continuing commitment to major expenditures on defence. COMMONWEALTH STAFFING The growth in staffing approved for 1985-86 is 1 1/4 per cent, compared with 2 per cent last year and 4 1/2 per cent in 1983-84. These significant reductions in staff growth reflect the transition from public sector economic stimulus to a broadening private sector recovery. Half of the growth this year is for the Australian Taxation Office, the National Crime Authority and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Taxation Mr Speaker, following the July tax summit, work is proceeding on a package of taxation reform measures. I anticipate that a full statement on these will be made in September. The measures announced at that time will not have significant net revenue implications for 1985-86, and so will not affect the Budget figures announced tonight. The tax measures in this Budget are not related to the tax reform package but are important in their own right. Following the years of scandalous neglect by the former Government, we have again strengthened the Tax Office with an additional staff allocation of 869. This follows the increase of 727 last year. The bulk of this year's increase will be allocated to compliance work, and a special program to collect outstanding tax from avoidance scheme participants. The Government has also approved the implementation of a system of self-assessment by taxpayers to be introduced from 1 July 1986. This will greatly increase the capacity of the Tax Office to concentrate its efforts on the main areas of avoidance and evasion and increase efficiency in processing tax returns. RETIREMENT INCOMES Two taxation changes relate to superannuation. First, there is to be an increase of $300 in the maximum tax deduction allowed for superannuation contributions by self-employed people and others not covered by an employer-sponsored superannuation scheme. That will increase the allowable deduction to $1,500 and will assist small business and other self-employed people to obtain superannuation benefits more in line with those available to employees. Secondly, the Government had decided to increase by $5,000 to $55,000 that part of a lump sum retirement payment which is taxed at the concessional 15 per cent rate. This concessional rate applies to the fully taxable component of lump sums paid to persons aged 55 or over. BENEFICIARY REBATES In last year's Budget the Government introduced tax rebates for people receiving unemployment, sickness or special benefits. These ensured that people wholly or mainly dependent on such social security benefits were not liable to tax. The maximum amount of rebate was $50 a year for single and $75 for married beneficiaries-these will be increased to $170 and $220 a year respectively. MEDICARE LEVY Two changes will be made to the Medicare Levy arrangements. First, the threshold level is to be raised, extending the range in which low income earners do not pay the levy. For single people it will rise from $7,110 to $7,526 and for couples from $11,803 to $12,504; the additional allowance for each dependent child or student will rise from $1,330 to $1,530. Secondly, from 1 July 1985 the ceiling on the amount of levy, at present $750, will not apply. The rate of levy will remain at one per cent. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS As a measure of further support for the local government sector, a tax deduction of up to $1,000 is to be introduced for the expenses incurred by candidates contesting local government elections. Candidates for the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly elections will also be eligible for this deduction. THE RACING INDUSTRY Three measures are to be adopted to assist the horse racing industry. First, the income tax exemption currently applying to some sporting clubs, such as football and athletic clubs, is to be extended to horse and greyhound racing clubs. Secondly, a more generous livestock valuation option will be available to horse breeders for the purpose of the trading stock provisions of the income tax laws. Thirdly, to assist in improving Australia's thoroughbred bloodstock, all horses imported after tonight are to be exempt from sales tax. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXES The Government has considered the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which found that the financial contribution to revenue from residents of the Australian Capital Territory was low relative to the standard of works and services provided. In order to align the Territory's contribution more closely with that applying in the States, it is proposed to introduce a number of new taxes and increase others. These include a tobacco franchise tax, a levy on bookmakers turnover, an extension and increase in stamp duties and, in lieu of the States' financial institution duties, a higher bank account debits tax restricted to the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Territories will release a full statement detailing these measures later tonight. Monetary Policy The overall aim of monetary policy in the year ahead will remain unchanged. That is to help restrain inflation while allowing sufficient room for strong but sustainable growth. The interpretation of monetary conditions was made very difficult in 1984-85 as the effects of institutional changes and innovation were reflected in the monetary aggregates. Deregulation of the financial system is producing the benefits we expected of it. Financial institutions are becoming more competitive and more innovative. They are providing better service to Australian businesses and families. A side effect of this process is a change in the relationship between financial aggregates and the real economy. As banks and other institutions lend and borrow in areas previously closed to them, this new business is swelling the measured monetary aggregates. These developments have had to be taken into account in assessing monetary conditions and managing monetary policy. In January, I announced the suspension of the M3 money supply projection because movements in it were no longer a reliable guide to monetary conditions. The monetary aggregates will again be heavily affected by similar factors in 1985-86. In addition, most of the new banks will begin trading over the next few months. For all these reasons M3 will continue to be artificially swollen, but it is not possible to say by how much. In these circumstances it would not be sensible to resume M3 projections. Some commentators have suggested we project some other aggregate-either narrower or broader. This suggestion misses the point that all the aggregates are being affected by the changing financial structure. Mr Moore —I would not bother calling for aggregates. Mr KEATING —The honourable member could not spell monetary policy, much less comment on it. It is impossible to say confidently how much of the growth in lending by financial institutions represents growth in final demand for credit and how much is merely a shift in the provision of finance from one channel to another. The aggregates are again likely to increase strongly in 1985-86 but this will not reflect easy conditions. Monetary conditions will be kept firm in the year ahead. None of our objectives would be assisted by a different monetary policy. As I have noted, we have sharply reduced the Budget deficit this year. The overall deficit is down by $1.8 billion while the domestic deficit has been cut more sharply, by $2.3 billion to only $1.4 billion. The domestic deficit is now considerably lower than in 1982-83. The only thing lower is the faces of our opponents. The borrowing programs of the rest of the public sector have also been reduced. This financial year the gross public sector borrowing requirement will amount to 5.6 per cent of GDP, a fall of over 1 1/2 percentage points. Together these outcomes should significantly reduce pressures on domestic capital markets in 1985-86. Treasury Bond tenders in 1985-86 are expected to total around $5 billion, of which some $3 billion represents rollover of maturing debt. In other words that implies a new program of $2 billion, compared with that massive inheritance with which we were left by our predecessors; it is a stunning achievement. The gross program compares with $7.6 billion in 1984-85, and $9.7 billion in 1983-84. The bond selling program will involve a more even spread of tendering during 1985-86 than has been the case in recent years. The Treasury is announcing tonight details of the next bond tender for an amount of $800 million. I intend to provide a review of monetary developments and policy from time to time throughout the year. Conclusion Mr Speaker, tonight I have outlined the Government's strategy for the new financial year. It is a strategy that builds upon our very significant successes to date and puts further behind us the despair and economic failure of the former Government. This Budget lays the foundations for another year of strong growth. With that in mind we have significantly reduced the Commonwealth's deficit. We have fulfilled our historic trilogy of budgetary commitments. We have clearly stated that we will maintain a firm non-inflationary monetary policy. We have spelt out our determination to seek a modification of the current wage fixing arrangements so that the whole nation can benefit from the recent change in the value of the Australian dollar. And, while implementing this strategy, we have been able to further assist those in greatest need. We have introduced a major new policy package for youth. We have improved the levels of financial support for low income families and the unemployed. We have provided a significant support package for Australia's primary producers. In summary, tonight's Budget builds upon Labor's first two Budgets. We have again pursued our two great goals of economic growth and a fairer society. Mr Speaker, this is a budget for growth. It is a budget for a fairer Australia. I commend the Budget to the House. (The Budget Statements for 1985-86 are included as an appendix at the end of this day's proceedings.) Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1985-86 totalling $4,135,269,000. Of this amount, $1,752,467,500 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1985-86. The balance of $2,382,801,500 will be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites in buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation had not been approved previously. Provision is made also for a grant to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. As previously announced, negotiations are continuing with the States and Territories for the establishment of a new home and community care program on a cost-share basis. Pending finalisation of agreements with the States and Territories and the passage of associated legislation, existing legislation will be utilised to the extent necessary to provide advances so that recipient organisations are not disadvantaged. Clause 7 of this Bill deems payments made in respect of existing legislation to be payable from Appropriation Bill (No. 2). An amount of $117,451,000 is included for this purpose under division 841 of this Bill. An amount of $130m is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the same amount as was provided in Supply Act (No. 2) 1985-86, which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1986. The total amount sought is $45.333m. Of this amount $19.535m was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1984-85, the balance of $25.798m, being sought in this Bill. Details of proposed expenditures are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following papers for the information of honourable members in connection with the Budget of 1985-86: Budget Statements 1985-86 Estimates of Expenditure and Receipts of the Commonwealth Public Accounts 1985-86 Portfolio Program Estimates 1985-86 Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1985-86 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1985 Australia's Overseas Development Assistance Program 1985-86 National Income and Expenditure 1984-85 Income Tax Statistics Civil Works Program 1985-86 Youth Policies in the 1985-86 Budget Ordered that the papers be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document entitled `The Commonwealth Government's Strategy for Young People'. The document sets out in detail the Government's policy package for the youth of Australia. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document entitled `Women's Budget Program-an Assessment of the Impact on Women of the 1985-86 Budget'. The document presents an analysis of the impact of the Budget on women and incorporates assessments of the programs and activities of all departments and many other Commonwealth agencies. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.56) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1985) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1985). Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1985) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1985) which I have just tabled introduce certain tariff changes foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. These proposals are operative from 8 o'clock this evening-and I take it that means Eastern Standard Time. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1985) increase the rate of the excise duty on manufactured tobacco for the purposes of the Excise Tariff Act by an amount of $5 per kilogram. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1985) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of duties applying to imported manufactured tobacco. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. House adjourned at 8.58 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to foreign state immunity. Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States in Connection with expenditure of a capital nature, to make loans to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing and to authorise the borrowing of certain money by the Commonwealth. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Act 1982, and for related purposes. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Limited. Mr Andrew to ask Mr Speaker: With respect to the sitting of the House of Representatives on Friday, 31 May 1985, (a) how many extra staff were required for duty in or about the Parliament on (i) 30 May, (ii) 31 May and (iii) 1 June 1985, by each of the Parliamentary Departments under his sole or joint control and (b) what was the cost of those extra staff. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 August 1985: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 91, 115, 116, 170. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 130. Airports (Surface Traffic) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 129 Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 78, 132, 133, 134, 135. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1985-No. 4-Survey of consultancy services, 1984-85. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 82 Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1985- M23/85-Amendment to Order M19/84-Corporation Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. MQ13/85-Amendment to Order MQ10/84-High quality beef to EEC-1985-Control Scheme. Bounty (Books) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 101. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 102, 154. Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 103. Bounty (Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 153, 155. Census and Statistics Act-Determination-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 191. Christmas Island Act- Ordinances-1985- No. 2-Christmas Island Services Corporation Provident Fund. No. 3-Services Corporation (Amendment). No. 4-Christmas Island Assembly. Regulations-1985-No. 1 (Christmas Island Assembly Ordinance). Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 175. Crimes Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 179. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 96, 104, 105, 126, 138, 139, 160. Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 152. Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 150. Dairy Produce Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 150. Defence Act- Defence Force Regulations-Declaration of defence practice areas, dated 5 July 1985. Determinations-1985- No. 35-Charge for Rations and Quarters. No. 36-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 37-Outfit Allowance. No. 38-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 39-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 40-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 41-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 42-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 43-Defence Force Extra Risk Insurance Expenses Allowance and other allowances. No. 44-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 45-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 46-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 47-Salary of Permanent Force Members and other allowances. No. 48-Detention Allowance. No. 49-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 50-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 51-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 88, 90, 92, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 156. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 114. Defence Force Discipline Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 125. Rules-Defence Force Discipline (Consequences of Punishment), dated 9 May 1985. Rules-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 128. Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 161. Defence (Visiting Forces) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 159. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 143. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 110. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 127, 137, 141, 142. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1985-No. 8-Prescribed Goods (General) Amendment. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 83. Export Inspection Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 144. Export Inspection Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 145. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 183. Federal Court of Australia Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 178. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 97, 168. Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos. 142, 143, 144, 145, 147A, 147B. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 182. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 106, 113. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 81. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 169. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 95, 149. Housing Loans Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 111, 112. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 148. Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 189. Insurance Contracts Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 162. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (7) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 172. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 171. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 181. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1985-No. 1-Meat Inspection (General) (Amendment). Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 176. National Health Act- Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles-Amendment, dated 9 July 1985. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 86, 136, 184, 186, 187. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 89, 93, 94, 122, 123, 124. Navigation Act-Report by the Minister cases in which the power of the Governor-General has been exercised under section 422A during 1984. Norfolk Island Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 173. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 87. Ombudsman Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 98. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 85. Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 185. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 174. Postal Services Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 107. Poultry Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 79. Primary Industry Bank Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 109. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Act 1984-Sections 5, 6 and 11-1 July 1985. Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 1985-Sub-section 4 (2), sections 9 to 12 (inclusive), sub-section 13 (2), section 14 and sub-section 15 (2)-24 June 1985. Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985-Provisions not yet in force-1 July 1985. Australian Sports Commission Act 1981-July 1985. Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967-Amendment made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-1 August 1985. Customs Administration Act 1985-10 June 1985. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982-Provisions not yet in force-3 July 1985. Defence Force Re-organization Act 1975- Section 38-1 July 1985. Section 53-3 July 1985. Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Act 1985-1 July 1985. Distillation Act 1901-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1984-17 July 1985. Export Inspection Charge Act 1985-Provisions not yet in force-1 July 1985. Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Act 1985-1 July 1985. Health Legislation Amendment Act 1984-Sections 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 26-1 July 1985. Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Act 1985-15 June 1985. Insurance Amendment Act 1983-Section 24-1 October 1985. Life Insurance Amendment Act 1983-1 July 1985. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984-Section 32-1 July 1985. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984- Section 6 and Divisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Part II-1 July 1985. Subdivisions A, B and G of Division 2 of Part II-21 July 1985. National Welfare Fund Repeal Act 1985-Provisions not yet in force-1 July 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1984-Provisions not yet in force-22 July 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1985-Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 to 32 (inclusive) and 34 to 37 (inclusive)-22 July 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Act 1985-Section 3-22 July 1985. Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980-Sub-section 45 (4)-1 July 1985. Public Service Reform Act 1984- Sub-sections 130 (3), 151 (5) and 152 (2), (3), (4) and (5)-1 July 1985. Sections 22 and 42, sub-section 43 (2), section 45 and sub-sections 109 (5) and 159 (1)-21 July 1985. Radiocommunications Act 1983- The Act, other than paragraphs 11 (1) (a) and (c), sections 23 and 37 and sub-sections 65 (15), (16), (17) and (18)-20 August 1985. Paragraphs 11 (1) (a) and (c), sections 23 and 37 and sub-sections 65 (15), (16), (17) and (18)-27 August 1985. Spirits Act 1906-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1984-17 June 1985. Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-19 August 1985. Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Act 1983-Sections 7 and 9-12 June 1985. Public Service Act- Appointments-Department- Aboriginal Affairs- Copley, V. G. Dixon, C. S. Education and Youth Affairs- Williams, L. Wilson, D. Employment and Industrial Relations- Berto, M. G. Coe, A. Griffiths, T. Kennedy, W. Ralph, S. Stewart, D. J. Walker, D. Social Security-Gooda, M. L. Determinations-1985-Nos. 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1985-No. 3. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 108, 177. Remuneration Tribunals Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 147, 188. Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations- 1985/5-Members of Parliament and holders of public offices. 1985/16-Official Secretary to the Governor-General and full-time and part-time holders of public offices. Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos. 1. to 10)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 100. Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 99. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees for purposes of- Credit Ordinance, dated 28 June 1985. Electricity Ordinance, dated 26 June 1985. Health Services Ordinance, dated 6 June 1985. Surveyors Ordinance, dated 9 July 1985. Ordinances-1985- No. 21-Small Claims (Amendment). No. 22-Registration of Deeds (Amendment). No. 23-House of Assembly (Amendment). No. 24-Interpretation (Amendment). No. 25-New South Wales Acts Application. No. 26-Meat (Amendment). No. 27-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). No. 28-Schools Authority (Amendment). No. 29-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). No. 30-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 31-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 32-Fire Brigade (Promotion of Officer). Regulations-1985- No. 11 (Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 12 (Health Services Ordinance). No. 13 (Public Health Ordinance). No. 14 (Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance). No. 15 (Meat Ordinance). No. 16 (Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) (Ordinance). No. 17-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Spirits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 140. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the states, dated- 8 July 1985. 30 July 1985. Stevedoring Industry Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 84. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 190. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment Nos. 57, 58. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 40. Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 42. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 146, 180.