Thursday, 19 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 18 September. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 10, sub-clause 8 (3), line 9, leave out ``paragraphs 7 (1) (d) and (e)'', insert ``paragraph 7 (1) (d)''. No. 2-Page 10, clause 8, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(4) So far as the Barley Research Trust Fund or the Wheat Research Trust Fund is concerned, the amounts required to be paid into that Research Fund that are referred to in paragraph 7 (1) (e) shall be credited to the various separate accounts kept in accordance with sub-section (2) in the same proportions as funds have been contributed from those various separate accounts for the purposes of making the investments referred to in that paragraph.''. No 3-Page 21, sub-clause 22 (1), line 34, after ``form,'', insert ``in accordance with a determination in force under sub-section (6),''. No. 4-Page 22, sub-clause 22 (2), line 2, after ``form,'', insert ``in accordance with a determination in force under sub-section (6),''. No. 5-Page 22, clause 22, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clauses: ``(6) The Minister shall determine, in writing, the form of, and, subject to the other requirements of this section, the matters to be dealt with by, each research and development plan that is required to be prepared in accordance with sub-section (1) or (2) and may, from time to time, vary any determination so made. ``(7) The Minister- (a) shall not make a determination under sub-section (6) or vary any determination so made unless the Minister has consulted with the persons attending a co-ordination meeting convened under section 61 concerning the proposed determination or the proposed variation and has had regard to the views expressed at that meeting in relation to that determination or variation; and (b) shall notify, in writing, any determination or variation so made to the Chairperson of each Research Council or State Research Committee as soon as practicable after that determination or variation is made.''. No. 6-Page 38, sub-clause 44 (1), lines 25 to 27, leave out ``such number of further members, not being a number greater than 3, as the Minister determines, in writing, to be appropriate'', insert ``3 further members, or, if the organization, or each organization, that is a relevant industry organization in relation to goods of the kind or kinds in respect of which that Research Council is established requests that a lesser number of further members be appointed, such lesser number of further members as is requested by that organization or by all of those organizations.''. No. 7-Page 38, sub-clause 44 (2), lines 28 to 34, leave out the sub-clause. No. 8-Page 40, sub-clause 46 (2), lines 9 to 12, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ``(2) For the purpose of enabling it to nominate a person or persons for appointment to a Research Council, the Selection Committee- (a) shall invite the nomination of persons for consideration by the Selection Committee- (i) by advertisements placed in a newspaper that circulates throughout Australia; and (ii) by notice in writing given to the organization, or each organization, that is a relevant industry organization in relation to goods of the kind or kinds in respect of which that Research Council is established; and (b) may invite the nomination of persons for consideration by the Selection Committee in any other manner it considers appropriate.''. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the amendments be agreed to. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.02) —The Opposition supports the amendments. I must say that it is unfortunate that the legislation was introduced into the Parliament before there was adequate consultation with the various organisations. I know that I had quite a few of the various rural industry organisations hammering on my door to draw attention to the fact that there were problems with the initial Bill. The resubmission of this Bill to the Committee for consideration of these amendments would not have been necessary if the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had openly consulted with all those industry bodies affected by the legislation. Unfortunately, he or his Department-I do not know which-appears to have avoided proper industry consultation in an effort to get this legislation through the Parliament before its ramifications became clear. I am informed that the only communication to industry bodies reasonably in advance of the introduction of the Bill was a letter sent in December which indicated in a very preliminary fashion that some changes to rural research were being planned. The next advice to at least half a dozen of the affected industries was from my office in April indicating that the debate on the Bill was imminent. Not even the National Farmers Federation was given a chance to meet and formally discuss what are very significant changes before the Bill was debated in the House. The amendments now under consideration have the support of honourable members on this side of the chamber. They were the result of some rushed eleventh hour negotiations between the National Farmers Federation and the Minister while the Bill was awaiting debate in the other place. The Minister for Primary Industry did not help his own cause with subsequent claims that the Opposition had blocked the legislation. That was quite untrue. That was reported in a number of newspaper cuttings that came to my office. We did not block the legislation. In fact, it was held up in the Senate because it was decided, I presume by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or whoever is responsible for Government business, to drop this piece of legislation down the list of priority because of pressure of business upon the available time for debate. I want to make that very clear. We did not block this legislation in the Senate. It is unfortunate that some people made erroneous claims. Not only did the Minister report in this way but a number of Labor members made this false claim. Eventually, the Bill was ruled off the list by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Regrettably, the Minister saw fit to ignore this and on 9 August issued a public statement, one of a flurry of attacks on the Opposition at about Budget time, in which he said our parties had opposed the Bill. That is utter nonsense. The Minister would do well to check his facts a little more carefully before trying to excuse his own failings in this matter. The failures were basically that he did not have adequate consultations with the various organisations that would be affected by the legislation. On 7 May in this place I outlined in detail the response of the coalition parties to this Bill and sought on behalf of the Opposition a reasoned amendment drawing attention to the failure of the Government to consult adequately with a number of the affected industries. That criticism still stands. The National Farmers Federation considered the legislation in detail at a meeting on 14 May, one week after the Bill had passed its second reading stage in the House of Representatives. The amendments before the House resulted from that meeting and from subsequent discussions with the Minister for Primary Industry. The changes are as follows: First, the amendment to clause 8 (3) will ensure that interest on the trust fund investments accrues directly to the relevant State account; secondly, there will be an amendment to clause 22 which will strengthen the role of the co-ordinating committee in establishing uniform development plans between the Rural Industries Research Fund bodies; thirdly, the various research councils will have fewer than three members only upon agreement between the industry and the Minister, through two amendments to clause 44-in its original form the Bill gave the Minister direct power to appoint fewer than three industry members to the council, a liberty which was neither warranted nor fair-and, fourthly, clause 46 is amended to stipulate that the vacancies to be filled by the selection committee must be publicly advertised in advance. Each of these amendments is commonsense. It is only a pity that the Minister was unable to liaise adequately with the National Farmers Federation prior to the introduction of the Bill. The Federation is now satisfied with assurances given by the Minister on a further four matters of concern. As I have stated, the Bill was subsequently left on the table for the winter recess after the Senate's deadline had expired to consider the Bill and return it in amended form to this House. During the recess further concerns over the legislation have been raised with me. Clearly, there is wide scepticism over aspects of the legislation among many of the industry organisations. In fact, I believe that several industries would have withdrawn their acceptance of the Bill had it not been for the threat that the Federal component of their research funding could have ceased. Among those bodies to bring their concerns to my attention have been the tobacco, egg, chicken meat, cotton, dried fruits, pork and dairy producer organisations. I mention them all because they asked me to say so in this place. Their concerns range over most aspects of the legislation. A common reaction has been to ask why changes are necessary to existing research arrangements when in most cases the present system is proving completely adequate. A typical example of the response to this legislation is indicated by the final response to me of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association. The Chairman, Mr Richard Williams, has advised: Whilst we still feel that there is no need for the cotton industry to be included in this omnibus legislation, we see no point now in taking further action at this stage to delay the Bill. The Australian Dried Fruits Association has advised: Discussions with the Minister have resulted in satisfactory assurances in regard to the future conduct of dried fruits research. This security could not have been achieved without your assistance in the Parliament. I quote Mr Rigoni, President of the Tobacco Growers Council of Australia: The key to successful agricultural research reform will be the membership of the core committee. Those members will need to be of high quality and experience. If not, there is a real danger that the new bodies will be no more effectual than the ones they have replaced. The National Farmers Federation has subsequently met several industry bodies to review this legislation. Although there is a general acceptance of the Bill, the Minister has been placed on notice that his new arrangements must prove at least equally beneficial and effective as the existing research organisations. I am pleased that the suggestion of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association for all RIRF members to convene a joint meeting early next year has been accepted. This should be complemented by periodic meetings of the various RIRF chairmen, perhaps with a second or third representative from each body. Communications will be vital in determining the success or failure of the new research guidelines. I hope that they work well because I am sure that the research program is a very important one for agriculture. I know the Minister has placed a high priority on research. I am sure that he has the full support of most members of this Parliament. Rural research has already yielded tremendous benefits to those industries concerned with the community as a whole and I am sure this will continue in the future. Therefore, the Opposition accepts the Bill in its amended form and will not in any way obstruct its passage through Parliament. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.11) —I do not want to re-invigorate the debate, I think enough has been said on this legislation. I am a little disappointed that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) put a different complexion on it. We started the whole consulting process in about October 1983. I do not know whether he wants the details of the consultation in hours, days or weeks but there has been a heck of a lot of consultation. There was a problem with some of the smaller organisations and smaller industries. We tried to change the legislation for three reasons: Firstly, to try to get all the legislation tidied up into the omnibus Bills for the research funds; secondly, the Cabinet took a decision to open up the one for one research funding to any rural organisation or rural commodity group and, thirdly, we moved towards achieving 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product. In the last two Budgets we increased funding for research and these Bills give the opportunity for vastly increased research funding. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 18 September. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Pages 1 and 2, sub-clauses 2 (2), (3), (4) and (5), line 9 (page 1) to line 17 (page 2), leave out the sub-clauses, insert the following sub-clauses: ``(2) An amendment effected by section 11, being an amendment of- (a) an Act that imposes a levy; (b) an Act that would, upon the making of regulations referred to in section 5, be a relevant Act in relation to a levy; or (c) an Act that amends an Act that would, upon the making of such regulations, be a relevant Act in relation to a levy, shall not take effect until the day that is specified in those regulations to be the day with effect from which that levy is declared to be a prescribed levy or a class of levies in which that levy is included is declared to be a prescribed class of levies. ``(3) A repeal effected by section 12, being a repeal of- (a) an Act that would, upon the making of the regulations referred to in section 5, be a relevant Act in relation to a levy; or (b) an Act that amends an Act that would, upon the making of such regulations, be a relevant Act in relation to such a levy, shall not take effect until the day that is specified in those regulations to be the day with effect from which that levy is declared to be a prescribed levy or a class of levies in which that levy is included is declared to be a prescribed class of levies.'' No. 2-Page 15, Schedule 2, after the amendments of the Cotton Research Act 1982, insert the following amendments: ``Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 Sub-section 5 (1) (definition of `Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Council'' means the Dairy Research Council established by sub-section 11 (2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 13 (2)- Omit `Committee' (wherever occurring), insert `Council'.''. No. 3-Page 15, Schedule 2, after the amendments of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1976 insert the following amendments: ``Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971 Sub-section 4 (1) (definition of `the Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``the Council'' means the Dried Fruits Research Council established by sub-section 11 (1) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 6 (3)- Omit `Committee', insert `Council'. Honey Export Charge Act 1973 Section 4 (definition of `Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Council'' means the Honey Research Council established by sub-section11 (2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 7 (3)- Omit `Committee', insert `Council'. Honey Levy Act ( No. 1) 1962 Section 3A (definition of `Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Council'' means the Honey Research Council established by sub-section11 (2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 5 (3)- Omit `Committee', insert `Council'. Honey Levy Act ( No. 2) 1962 Section 3A (definition of `Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Council'' means the Honey Research Council established by sub-section11 (2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 5 (3)- Omit `Committee', insert `Council'. Meat Chicken Levy Act 1969 Section 4 (definition of the `Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Council'' means the Chicken Meat Research Council established by sub-section11 (1) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 7 (2) Omit `Committee' (wherever occurring), insert `Council'.''. No. 4-Page 16, Schedule 2, at the end of the Schedule, add the following amendments: ``Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 Section 4 (definition of `Research Committee')- Omit the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``Research Council'' means the Pig Research Council established by sub-section 11 (1) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985;'. Sub-section 6 (2)- Omit `Committee' (wherever occurring), insert `Council'.''. No. 5-Page 16, Schedule 3, leave out ``Meat Chicken Research Act 1969'', insert ``Chicken Meat Research Act 1969''. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is it the wish of the House to debate the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill concurrently with the Grain Legumes Levy Bill and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.15) —The Opposition supports the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1985, the Grain Legumes Levy Bill 1985 and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill 1985. Under the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, the rate of wheat tax, which is levied to fund industry research, will increase from the current operative and maximum rate of 30c per tonne to a new maximum-I stress the word `maximum'-of $1.10. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) did not state clearly in his second reading speech whether the operative rate will increase and, if so, to what level the industry, through the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, has sought an initial rise from 30c to 35c. This would represent only 40 per cent of the Government's stated objective that research funding be set at around 0.5 per cent of the gross value of the industry's production. Whilst the Minister appears to support the proposed operative rate of 35c per tonne for the current season, it would be of assistance to wheat growers if he gave a firm commitment as soon as possible, thereby confirming the procedure that the operative rate is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Wheatgrowers Federation. An early confirmation of the new rate will also ensure that it is applied to most of the new season's wheat, deliveries of which are already underway, particularly in parts of Queensland. The new rate and the provisions of the complementary Rural Industries Research Fund Bill should begin to influence the Government contribution by 1986-87. In the meantime, a prompt increase in the grower tax will help to rebuild the Wheat Industry Research Council's reserves, which were severely depleted by the four-year drought. These reserve funds are needed to give adequate flexibility should research programs need to be altered at short notice. Prior to the drought the Research Council held about $800,000 in reserve, but by 1982-83 this had been exhausted and a decision was taken that no new projects could be funded that year. Around the same time the Victorian committee was forced to borrow some $200,000 from the State Government, and today Victoria still has only minimal reserve funds. The Western Australian committee operates on a nil reserve policy. Although South Australia has struck an additional voluntary levy on growers which is contributing to some increase in reserves, New South Wales has no State levy and the 15c levy in Queensland is under review. In these circumstances, it is important that the Wheat Research Council develop an adequate reserve of perhaps $2m to $3m to ensure the $10m to $12m research effort is fully flexible. The decision to set a maximum rate of $1.10 per tonne will not be achieved for some years, so the Bill provides adequate scope for increases by regulation from time to time. At present the 30c tax raises some $12m annually, and so at the top rate industry research will be running at more than $40m. It is proper that the view of Federal Parliament should once again be formally sought if the industry does attain this level of research. The National and Liberal parties have consistently maintained that rural industry research warrants encouragement from the Federal Government. Indeed, it has been receiving it over the years. The Australian wheat research program has been enormously successful. I want to take the opportunity of paying tribute to all those people involved in wheat research in Australia, for instance, those in my electorate at Narribri. I have visited the University of Sydney research institute there on many occasions. I have a very high regard for the very valuable work being done there in new varieties and strains of wheat. Such work has played a very significant part in increasing our productivity and efficiency as a wheat producing nation. Without research, Australia would have been a second rate wheat producing country. Full credit must be given to the researchers and full credit must be given to governments over the years and the departments that have been responsible. The Department of Primary Industry has worked very closely with them. The benefits that have accrued, not only to the industry and their regional committees, are multiplied through the economy to the benefit of all Australians. Wheat is a very appropriate example and a very important export industry. This year more than 90 per cent of the crop will be exported, drawing on Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates about $2.8 billion of valuable overseas income. There are very few other industries that will produce that sort of export income. I know that the Department of Trade is pursuing and embarking on a policy of trying to make sure that sufficient attention is given to developing our manufacturing sector, our new tech sunrise industries and so on. I think it is a good idea that the Department try, but it should not be at the expense of some of these very important agricultural industries which will for the foreseeable future be the main contributors to Australia's export income. As much as we would like to see the development of these other industries, we must at no time overlook the necessity for maintaining an efficient, competitive agricultural sector capable of not only maintaining existing markets but also increasing market opportunities as they become available overseas. Unlike large manufacturing export industries which may have only a few multinational companies, wheat production is spread over 60 000 growers. The Industries Assistance Commission found in its wheat industry report of September 1983: There would be under-investment in rural research without some form of Government intervention. The Commission has judged that rural producers are able to appropriate a substantial proportion of the benefit of research. Growers benefit substantially from their research and this in turn flows through the economy many times over. It is significant that growers are willing to pay an increased research tax despite current pressures on their farm returns, and they deserve encouragement. The sharp economic recovery of 1983-84 was due in part to a 78 per cent leap in the gross farm product. Wheat was among the industries leading that change. The 1982-83 production was more than doubled in 1983-84 to an all time record of $3.6 billion. With the seasonal recovery, Australia had a high efficiency and high quality industry able to make the most of its export opportunities. This was due in part to the on-going research program identifying and treating the problems of soil deficiency, disease, rodent or insect damage; breeding those new varieties I mentioned earlier; uncovering new plant breeding techniques and evaluating cultivation, storage and handling techniques. On a relatively highly elastic world market, the benefits of this research have a marked impact. At the same time, there is no gain if other factors undermine this market competitiveness. I agree that part of the difficulty stems from price undercutting by the European Economic Community and Argentina. Even the tumble in the value of the Australian dollar has only partially offset the decline in world prices. At the same time, Australian growers are being handicapped on the intense export market by a range of input cost hikes. Prices received have risen by over 2 per cent in five years and prices paid are up by 17 per cent. This rapid deterioration in the grower's terms of trade has in no way been compensated by productivity increases of about 2.5 per cent. Closer analysis shows that there are a range of measures open to the Government to assist the industry through its current difficulties. Not surprisingly, many of these actions would be simply undoing the damage of Labor governments at both State and Federal level. The Minister for Primary Industry often responds to questioning on specific policies with the stock answer that it is his aim to set the right macro economic conditions for primary industries. Of course, he is right. That is part of his Cabinet responsibility. What the farmers generally and the wheat growers in particular want to know is when his Government will adopt monetary and fiscal policies which will reduce record high interest rates. Interest rates are now one of the biggest problems confronting the debt-ridden farmers of Australia. The overall debt of the farm sector in Australia has now reached about $6 billion. That in itself is a very serious level of indebtedness. Of course, the interest repayable on that debt is very high. The policies being pursued by the Government are helping to stabilise the Australian dollar, but at a high cost in interest rates and at a high cost to farmers producing for the export markets. There is not the slightest doubt that the policy that the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia are following in order to stabilise the Australian dollar at 67c or 68c when compared with the United States dollar is forcing up and holding up interest rates at record highs. Many of the farmers in my area are paying between 18 1/2 per cent and 20 per cent on their borrowed capital. What the industries want to know is why the Minister told this Parliament a fortnight ago that interest rates will soon come down-a statement followed closely by yet another prime lending rate increase. I hope that the Minister is correct but he does not seem to be supported in those forecasts by his ministerial colleagues. While he is on the job, the Minister might also explain how the wheat industry will benefit from the devalued dollar and record and high interest rates. There is little potential income benefit with advance payments to growers now being funded by borrowing in US dollars. The devaluation has increased the cost of imported machinery, fuel and chemicals. Further rises are no doubt likely to occur. Wheat growers are paying a high price for the Budget deficits and monetary policies of the Hawke Labor Government. On the one hand, they are saddled with a crippling debt-to use another figure, an average of $148,000 along the wheat belt of Western Australia. I was there the other day. Farmers are in desperate straits in many parts of the Western Australian wheat belt and, as I said earlier, they are suffering the burden of record real interest rates. On the other hand, they face a very bleak cash flow outlook of static returns and accelerating costs. The cost pressure drove hundreds of growers in my electorate of Gwydir and other areas to call a series of protest meetings late last year. Sadly, their claim for fair treatment remains virtually unanswered. Closure of the fuel excise rebate gap used on farms in this Budget was an essential move; nevertheless, this action has not compensated primary producers for the $55m cost they have borne since the rebate was frozen by the present Government. Abolition of the petroleum products freight subsidy indexation of fuel excise and fuel price increases when world petroleum prices are in reverse have combined to thrust up the price of fuel by more than 25 per cent under the Hawke Labor Government. The abolition of the petroleum products freight subsidy equalisation scheme has affected the whole of the wheat belt in New South Wales. Removal of the 15 per cent tariff on imported headers was a welcome, if belated, move to correct an anomaly costing growers $14m a year. However, the devaluation will ensure that these headers will not be any cheaper. The bounty to replace this tariff should cost only a fraction of the $14m. It will correctly be paid by the wider Australian community, achieving the same degree of protection for about 260 people employed in farm machinery manufacturing near Melbourne. Regrettably, the announcement of the decision has been messy to say the least. Six days after the Budget, the Government announced that the date of 1 January was the target for the announcement of the conditions of the bounty, but that it would now apply retrospectively to 21 August. This action failed to overcome the basic problem that growers will naturally wait until pre-Budget stocks are exhausted before making their purchase. As a result, these stocks are likely to attract sluggish demand and the benefit of the new arrangements will be delayed even further. In the meantime, at least one major Australian manufacturer has announced the retrenchment of 53 casual employees, with the remaining 250 staff under threat of complete factory closure. The company, Horwood Bagshaw Ltd, has sought specific assurances over the level and conditions of the bounty. There would be two clear benefits in applying the abolition of the tariff to all sales from the post-Budget day, 21 August. First, growers would have the benefit of the new arrangements early in this season-and I believe the Government intends to do that-and, secondly, the unexpected cost burden on importers who have paid the tariff on new stocks will be minimised. To prolong the existing unsatisfactory arrangements will only add to the severity of the market distortion. Although this tariff has finally been removed, there is of course no compensation for the loss of some $14m a year incurred by the growers since 1983. Turning to the other cost slugs, the imposition of dumping duties on imported fertiliser in late July is adding an estimated $80 per tonne to the cost of DAP fertiliser. Early last year the price ex-works stood at around $180 a tonne. Beyond these specific cost burdens are a range of additional imposts from both State and Federal governments. The industry in my electorate of Gwydir has been racked by industrial problems within the New South Wales Grain Handling Authority and right along the transportation chain to the point where Japan has now demanded that its Australian standard wheat orders be shipped through Brisbane. This decision is a sad indictment of the union turmoil in New South Wales. Mr Hawker —It is a disgrace. Mr HUNT —It is a total disgrace. It is a shameful disgrace in fact. I know that the New South Wales Government has initiated an inquiry into the activities of the Grain Handling Authority, but it ought to initiate an inquiry also into the behaviour of the unions on the waterfront and the unions on the railways which have been responsible for this shocking state of affairs. Let it be understood that most of the employees associated with the Grain Handling Authority are earning between $55,000 and $60,000 a year. I have no objection to their earning that as long as they are prepared to do their job and to do it efficiently and properly. There is no justification for these characters to be earning that sort of money while messing up shipments within Australia, damaging our reputation, holding up shipments and making Australia appear to be totally unreliable on world markets. I do not think any reasonable person, whether he voted for the Australian Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party or the Australian Democrats, or whoever, would have sympathy with that sort of behaviour on the waterfront and at our grain handling terminals in New South Wales. It is about time these people pulled up their socks, got on with the job and justified earning such large salaries. Nobody should be allowed to behave in this way without challenge and without rebuke. Mr Cohen —I'll tell the waterside workers in your electorate not to vote for you. Mr HUNT —Heavens above! I have no port in my electorate! To its credit, the National Party Government in Queensland has had action under way for some time to meet increased demand for transport and handling facilities in that State. The Fisherman Islands terminal will have the capacity to handle shipments through northern New South Wales, and the Queensland Government is complementing its port facilities with upgrading works on the Goondiwindi- Warwick rail line to A grade classification. As Minister for Transport in the former Government I actively promoted the standardisation of rail links to all our major Australian ports. Construction of a standard gauge line from Boggabilla to Brisbane now has greater justification than at any previous time. Based on pure cost benefit analyses, the construction of standard gauge links to all ports may not be easy to justify. But in the longer term interests of most industries, such a project would be welcome and could spark a long-awaited revival of rail transport in Australia. However, any such project would take many years to complete, and the need for improved access to Brisbane for the northern New South Wales wheat belt is urgent. This applies not only in respect of wheat but also in respect of cotton and coarse grains. The whole of that northern and north-western part of New South Wales has undergone an enormous change. The diversification of production today is quite staggering. For instance, the Moree Plains shire area produces by far and away the greatest amount of revenue from agriculture of any shire district in Australia. I think the amount is in the order of $250m a year. Yet we still have the same road and rail systems. Governments have not kept up with the infrastructure that is necessary to cope with the ever-increasing production and diversification that have occurred as a result of water conservation measures such as the Copeton Dam, the Keepit Dam and some of the dams that have been built in that area in the last 30 years. I well remember that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics recommended against the construction of the Copeton Dam; it thought the dam would not be an economic proposition. How wrong it was; how wrong the economists were at that time. The Copeton Dam has proved undoubtedly to be one of best cost benefit projects ever undertaken in New South Wales. This is an enormously successful irrigation area and we need adequate transport facilities for the products that come out of it. The New South Wales standard gauge line presently reaches to Boggabilla, just a few kilometres short of the Queensland terminus at Goondiwindi. Options for linking these rail systems have been analysed in detail by the excellent Bureau of Transport Economics in a study released last year. I believe Japan's firm request to Australian wheat suppliers has come as the catalyst for the New South Wales Government to enter into discussions with Queensland to assess the options for linking the New South Wales system into Goondiwindi. Options such as the construction of a third rail on the track from Goondiwindi to Moree, or alternatively modern transhipment facilities at either Boggabilla or Goondiwindi, may well prove to be cost effective. A linking of the two rail systems is a logical step and deserves thorough consideration, free of any State jealousies. In approving this legislation the Parliament must be mindful of the severe cost-price squeeze which is draining the badly needed cash flow of the industry. To be fully effective the research effort must be complemented with a new effort to get government off the backs of the wheat growers. No industry can continue indefinitely on hard-fought markets if it is crippled by huge debts and record interest rates. The problems are only being aggravated by a wide range of government imposts, Federal and State. There will be no credit to this Government for helping to boost the industry's research effort if growers are being driven out of the industry by an adverse economic environment. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.39) —The House is debating the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, the Grain Legumes Levy Bill and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill cognately. I will confine most of my remarks to the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill. However, it is important for the House to understand that the Australian production of lupins, which is just one form of grain legumes, has increased from 379,000 tonnes in 1983-84 to an estimated 630,000 tonnes in 1984-85. If the full potential of grain legumes is realised as a rotational and alternative crop there needs to be an increased research effort into production, processing, storage, transport and marketing of these crops. Before I go too far, I would like to comment on some of the wide-ranging issues which were raised by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in his speech on these Bills. It is always a great amusement to me to hear members of the National Party of Australia come in here and talk about the dreadful fuel prices and the terrible effects of devaluation. During their term as a partner in the previous coalition they introduced world parity pricing. Their previous leader, Doug Anthony, quite clearly still supports that policy. Also, they underestimate the effects of the devaluation, which has made the Australian wheat crop very competitive on world markets. Because of the devaluation and because contracts were written in United States dollars, the Australian wheat crop can remain competitive in a very much diminished market. I was also interested to note the comments that the honourable member made about the Queensland National Party State Government plans to bring the rail from Goondiwindi through Warwick to Brisbane ports. As the member who represents the Warwick district in this Federal Parliament, I would be very pleased to see that happen. It would be a great reversal of the Queensland Government's attitude to Warwick, bearing in mind that it closed the railway workshops in 1961 and has continually put that town on the back burner by transferring all government infrastructures to Toowoomba. A tax on wheat, which has been part of the Australian rural industry research since 1967, has enabled wheat growers to contribute to research on wheat diseases and various varieties of wheat. The funds raised are held in trust for research projects and are matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth Government. I have remarked previously that the Government has announced $11m for rural research in 1985-86 of which $5,777m has been allocated to the wheat industry for 58 new research projects. Also, 113 continuing projects will be funded. Research in the wheat industry in on-farm production and off-farm handling and processing is very important. It results in increased efficiency and the international competitiveness of Australian agriculture. It should not be forgotten that the rural industry as a whole provides Australia with self-sufficiency in food supply. It contributes greatly to the national income and accounts for about 40 per cent of the nation's export trade. Wheat, on its own, brings in 9 per cent of Australia's export income. The industry is facing a crisis over the medium term. Huge production harvests overseas are going to make life difficult for our wheat producers for the next two to three years. I do not think there is a member in this House who does not condemn the zealous protectionist policies of the European Economic Community which they have created market distortions which will impact severely on our local industries. Our only hope of withstanding this distortion is to keep our technology to the forefront. This can be achieved only by adhering to policies which will encourage research. This legislation will establish a maximum rate of contribution to wheat industry research at about 0.6 per cent of the industry's gross value of production. The proposed operative tax rate for this measure will be 35c per tonne. The industry's contribution in 1985-86 is estimated to be $5.2m. The new tax rate would be applicable only to about 95 per cent of 1985-86 season's wheat crop because deliveries made from about mid-August until the new rate comes into effect are taxed at the current rate. The Commonwealth's matching commitment in respect of the increased tax will not arise until 1986-87 and later years. I cannot help wondering what the new dry faction leading the Liberal Party thinks of the Commonwealth contributing money to the wheat industry. I deliberately mention the Liberal Party because it is abundantly clear that in a future coalition government the National Party would have very little influence. I wonder whether in its exuberance to privatise everything the coalition believes that rural research should be privatised. I want to state quite clearly that I fully support government involvement in rural research. On behalf of my constituents, I want to know what those opposite think of the Government providing funds for rural research. They need to state quite clearly their attitude in this area. In spite of what the economic dries opposite may think, I believe there is a compelling case for government involvement in research for the rural sector. The structure of rural industry makes it unlikely that the industry could conduct its own research. The industry is characterised by a very large number of independent operators. In 1982, there were 176,000 commercial holdings with 80,000 sub-commercial or unproductive holdings. Not only do businesses lack the resources to conduct meaningful and effective research programs, but also agricultural research tends to be unattractive to the corporate private sector because it is high risk activity. Even when such research is successful, it is unlikely to yield any worthwhile return to the investor. Private firms and individuals are expected in the first instance to bear the cost of research and then to share the benefits of their efforts with other groups in the community. Consequently, there is a compelling reason for the Federal Government to provide higher levels of research expenditure to make up for deficiencies in private expenditure. In my electorate I have recently visited members of the local graingrowers' association, looking at the ways in which they are using initiative in undertaking research into various crop planting techniques to stop erosion in the Warwick district. The rural community needs to continue research in such areas to make itself efficient and productive so that it can compete on an increasingly competitive world market. This Government has shown a willingness to invest in research and to ensure that the rural sector benefits from it. Earlier this year the rural Industries Research Bill was introduced. The Senate amendments to the Bill have been considered by the Committee of the Whole. This legislation was the first major revision of rural research in 30 years. This upgrading was arrived at after several public reports and discussions on the direction and organisation of rural research. The wheat industry, too has benefitted from the recent Budget. The rural industry research fund finances research into the wheat industry from funds collected by way of industry levy and a matching Commonwealth contribution. In the Budget this year there was an 18.5 per cent increase in this program. This Bill and the measures taken in the Budget demonstrate again the commitment of the Hawke Government to the rural sector. Continued growth in rural research is assured by these measures. As I have stated previously, it is very important that the Australian agricultural industry conducts research into making itself efficient and productive, because in the coming years Australian agriculture will truly face its greatest test. If Australia is to continue to be an exporter of agricultural products, every government in this country-both State and Commonwealth-should be keen to encourage agricultural research. As a nation we have an excellent record for providing efficient and cost-productive agricultural endeavours that are the envy of many countries. Perhaps if the industry in other countries of the world was as cost-efficient and productive as ours, there would not be the need for of the highly protective policies of such bodies as the European Economic Community, which is trying to distort the world markets. I certainly support the Bills that are before the House. I think they indicate to us the commitment of the Government to the rural sector. This sort of legislation, rather than trying continually to divide rural communities from urban communities, will bring to the minds of the urban dweller the importance of rural industries. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —by leave-Since we are having a cognate debate on three pieces of legislation, which include, of course, the Grain Legumes Levy Bill 1985 and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill 1985, I would like to make it clear that the Opposition supports the Grain Legumes Levy Bill and also the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill. These pieces of legislation are very important to a small but rapidly growing agricultural industry. The purpose of the Bills is to impose a research levy on grain legume production. At present there is no national research levy on grain legume production. There is, however, a State statutory levy in Western Australia at present for funding of lupin research in that State. The new arrangements under these Bills will take over from the Western Australian levy. Field pea production is concentrated in South Australia. Growers of field peas in South Australia pay a voluntary research levy to support the development of this industry. The levy to be established under these Bills will apply initially only to lupins and field peas. There is provision for other grain legume crops to be brought into the scheme by the Minister for Primary Industry by regulation at a later date. The levy will apply at the initial rate of 75c a tonne of grain legumes processed or delivered. Further increases in the levy can be made by regulation by the Minister up to $2.60 per tonne. This gives the capacity for the industry to increase its own contribution to research funding. The actual amount of the levy will be determined by the Research Council which will be established under the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985. The Opposition supports those two pieces of legislation and wishes them a speedy passage. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.50) —I support the comments that have already been made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I think he has summed up many of the important points, but I would like to add just a few more. Firstly, I want to remind the House of the importance of the wheat industry. It is, in fact, Australia's largest primary production export earner. The value of the wheat industry last year was a record $3.6 billion. But as the honourable member for Gwydir has already pointed out, some significant problems face the industry. In particular, the prices received by the industry have risen by only 2 per cent over the last five years; yet the prices paid-that is, the costs-by farmers in the wheat industry have risen by over 17 per cent. Over that period the increases in productivity of the wheat industry have been only about 2.5 per cent. Anyone doing some simple calculations can work out very quickly that the industry is in fact going backwards financially. Of course we welcome the Government's moves to increase research in the wheat industry. But I hasten to point out that research is only one aspect of the industry. The Government should have a co-ordinated approach to dealing with the problems of the industry. Improving research really will not make up for some of the other problems that are facing the wheat industry in particular at the moment. The most important problem is that much greater efforts must be made to increase our international competitiveness. At the moment all export industries are facing serious problems. This is due by and large to the problems being faced in our international competitiveness. Obviously, the increase in research funds cannot offset these problems. It cannot offset the massive increases in fuel costs which have had to be faced and which, of course, are one of the biggest inputs of a wheat farmer. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has already mentioned, since this Government came into power fuel prices have increased by over 25 per cent. That is a massive increase. Although we welcome the extension of the rebate for off-road users of diesel fuel, I hasten to add that that does not make up for the fact that the Government has already collected an additional $55m by not fully indexing this rebate over the last two years. It is interesting to look at what the level of assistance to the wheat industry really is. I want to quote very briefly from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication `Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy' of February last year. It talked about the level of assistance to the wheat industry and stated: According to the Industry Assistance Commission's annual report for 1980-81, the wheat industry has had low or negative effective rates of assistance since 1972-73. Furthermore, it has been estimated that assistance provided to the manufacturing industry cost the average wheat grower $134.62 a week. . . I repeat that $134.62 a week has been the cost of the level of assistance to the manufacturing industry borne by every wheat grower in Australia. That was during 1981-82, so it is probably greater now. The BAE journal went on to state: That is, Australia's wheat industry has been growing and performing well internationally without significant assistance and, indeed, against a significant penalty. For these reasons, it can be argued that there is no economic case for reducing the current level of assistance. Obviously, in this case there is a small but welcome increase of significance because of the Government's commitment on the dollar for dollar matching of the funds for research. Over the years several papers have been produced which show quite clearly that there is an economic justification for the Government to support research in the wheat industry. One to which I can refer is the October 1982 report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources which said quite a lot about the economic justification for government involvement in agricultural research and, obviously, particularly in the wheat industry. Furthermore, the Industries Assistance Commission report of 1976 entitled `Financing Rural Research' states: Economic analyses in a number of countries point to agricultural research being highly profitable and having a significant effect on the rate of productivity increase. On this point I want to quote very briefly from the report of the working group on agricultural policy which, under Sir James Balderstone, produced its report in September 1982. The report states: Overall, the Group believes that agricultural research funding should be increased and that increased expenditure should be concentrated on applied research. The benefits producers derive from research justify an increase in their proportionate contribution to research funding. The Commonwealth should also significantly increase its overall funding of agricultural research. The Group considers that research is an appropriate area for providing assistance to raise farmer incomes on the grounds discussed in Chapter 4. I think there is no doubt that government involvement in rural research is very much justified and, in particular, in the wheat industry. Obviously, as I have mentioned already, the industry is facing a lot of problems. Naturally enough, we welcome the Government's decision to remove the tariff on headers and replace it with a bounty. But let us face it, this will save the industry only some $14m. It will not be the great panacea. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has already stated, the industry is facing some massive problems. I think the one to which he alluded should be highlighted again and again, and that is the massive problem faced by growers in trying to export their wheat. In particular, we can look at New South Wales and some of the headlines appearing in the newspapers over the last few months which highlight this very clearly. One article appearing in the Australian this year was headed: `Strikes cost $270m in wheat exports'. Honourable members should note the amount of $270m when we are looking at some of the assistance the Government has given the wheat industry. If we look at this matter a bit further we find in the Sydney Morning Herald of August this year a quick analysis about the problems of the Grain Handling Authority in New South Wales and about the massive costs it is bringing on to the wheat industry in particular but, more importantly, Australia. Bearing in mind the problems we have with our balance of payments at the moment, anything that is inhibiting exports should be very quickly stopped. I think the Government should make a far greater effort in tackling this problem. If we look at some of the main points about this dispute which has been going on in the New South Wales Grain Handling Authority we find that there was nearly a loss of a market worth $160m in the wheat trade to Japan. I understand that Japan is now saying that it will not take wheat exported from the Grain Handling Authority in New South Wales. Let us look at the record of the Grain Handling Authority. It has, in fact, the worst industrial record of any authority in Australia. New South Wales has the greatest number of shipping days lost of any State in Australia. Last year there was a carry over of four million tonnes. When one thinks about it, four million tonnes out of a total crop of some 19 million is a fairly significant amount. It has been estimated that the cost of that carry over will penalise growers $60m in interest payments alone. Because shippers cannot get their grain out of New South Wales in time, it is putting additional pressures on other States-in particular, Queensland and Victoria. So serious is the problem that the Premier of New South Wales has even gone on the record describing the behaviour of the Grain Handling Authority workers as a disgrace to the union movement. He has even threatened to dismantle the whole organisation. It is interesting to mention some of the salaries these people are getting. Standard conditions for workers include a 32 1/2-hour week, although effective working hours are just over 25 hours a week. The workers receive 30 days paid sick leave, double time for all overtime, a 50 per cent penalty loading on afternoon shift and 100 per cent loading on night shift. By utilising the `system' most workers can earn double their base salary. In fact, the highest wage last year in the Grain Handling Authority was $70,000 to a Sydney foreman whose base wage was $23,000. Other stupid things go on. For example, Grain Handling Authority employees, who work in air-conditioned offices, demand a wheat dust allowance. It is a massive problem, indeed one of the major problems facing the wheat industry right now, and the Government cannot turn a blind eye. It should be prepared to intervene and support the views of the Premier of New South Wales. It is coming at a time when the industry and Australia can ill afford it. New South Wales is not on its own with some of the problems of grain handling. In Victoria the State Government has decided that the Victorian Grain Elevators Board is a great way of milking the system. In fact, it has now imposed a dividend tax-I am not sure how one works out why it is a dividend-of something like $6m a year. This tax has been placed on the Victorian Grain Handling Authority despite the fact that most of its capital has been supplied by the grain growers over the years, not by the Government. The Government may have guaranteed the loans, but it has all been paid for by the wheat growers in dues for the use of the Victorian Grain Hand- ling Authority. On the subject of wheat research, I think it is time the Minister for Primary Industry also looked at a matter that very much involves wheat, and I refer to plant variety rights. The Minister indicated prior to the 1983 election that he supported plant variety rights. Mr McGauran —He supports everything in the bush but never delivers. Mr HAWKER —That is probably true. He did support such rights but since becoming Minister we have seen nothing and there is no excuse for this lack of action. Mr McGauran —It is the left wing that doesn't want it. Mr HAWKER —The Left should be told to keep out of it. We have seen no action. The Minister is probably well aware that the wheat industry may be a little hesitant about the introduction of plant variety rights, but he has had the matter put to him on a number of occasions. Indeed, in another place one of our senators has introduced a private member's Bill to try to get plant variety rights for the horticultural industry; yet apparently the Government will not even face up to this one. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to respond and explain when the Government plans to take the first step in introducing plant variety rights in Australia. There is overwhelming evidence, and the Minister knows it, to support plant variety rights at least in one section of the agricultural industry to help Australia become more competitive on world markets. I would also like briefly to touch on the grain legume industry, in particular peas and lupins. The value of the grain legume industry nowadays is over $100m. In particular with lupins we have seen an increase in production of over 65 per cent in the past year. As the Minister will know, the importance of the grain legume industry is becoming increasingly recognised as part of the rotational cycle of farming. Legumes have the added value of putting back into the soil between 40 and 100 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare, an essential element in growing all crops and all grasses. The other value of the grain legumes in the rotation is that it gives the farmer the chance to break the disease cycle; it also has the added value that grain legumes are very high in protein and have good value as stock feed. In fact, lupins are 23 per cent higher in protein than wheat. The other aspect about grain legumes is that there is considerable potential for export, particularly to Asia, especially Japan and Taiwan. If these industries can benefit through research, no doubt there is considerable scope for increasing production and productivity. I have touched on some of the problems facing the wheat industry. I suggest to all honourable members that these problems are most serious. I give one small example. Recently I was talking to a bank manager in my electorate and, although he was not prepared to divulge too much information, he mentioned that unless the crop is very good this year in his area and the price is fairly good, it is likely he will have to approach 17 of his clients and suggest that the time has come to move off. That is a serious matter, and I am talking of one of the premier wheat growing areas of Australia. It is a serious situation when just one bank manager in a small town may have to go to 17 of his clients and say: `Your overdraft has got too high, and we might have to suggest that you sell up'. In Victoria we have been more fortunate than others. If somebody from Western Australia were to outline the facts, I am sure that honourable members would find them even more frightening. I understand that the level of debt on wheat farms in Western Australia these days is horrendous and the interest payments, which this Government knows or should know only too well, are going up and up every day. This is causing great hardship to some of these people who have been working extremely hard to try to make their wheat crop bigger, but the harder they work it seems the faster they are going down. I have also mentioned the problem of industrial disputes. It is ludicrous for this country to put up with selfish unionists moving in for their own selfish ends and crippling an industry. The whole nation will suffer because as our exports suffer, so are we seeing the reflection in the value of the Australian dollar. The cost-price squeeze is continuing to hurt and, although this legislation may in the long run help in some way to increase productivity in the wheat industry and also in the grain legume industry, there is little doubt that the benefits will be more than outweighed by some of the problems I have already touched upon. In conclusion, the Opposition supports these three Bills, but we would put the Minister on notice that, while we support his efforts in this area, we believe massive problems face rural Australia right now. We have told the Minister time and time again of these problems, and if he wishes to prove that the Government is serious about trying to help agriculture, he should be addressing those problems-in particular high costs and industrial disputes. If he is serious about his job, I hope that he will look closely at these matters and show that the Government is fair dinkum when it says that it is interested in the problems facing rural Australia. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.08) —In supporting the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, the Grain Legumes Levy Bill and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill, I would observe that most of the nitty-gritty of this legislation has been spelt out by previous speakers, particularly in a very good exposition by the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall). I wish to address a few opening remarks on the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill and to say that I am continually appalled in this House at the Opposition's attitude. Opposition speakers today have done nothing but regurgitate the effects in the industry without looking at the causes. In fact, many confuse effects with causes. They lament the problems but do not look for solutions. It is depressing to see the Opposition carrying on in this way because it is certainly not in the interests of the rural community. Western Australia is the premier lupin producing State, and there is no doubt there will be an increase in lupin production. It is a valuable asset to the mixed farming regime. It will help to break dependence on one crop which has developed in some areas. It is of course also a fertiliser supplement, a point that is often overlooked as it feeds valuable nitrogen back into the soil. With the advent of lupins for human consumption, we shall see some more stability in that industry. One crop that obviously has a great future in the eyes of the Opposition is mushrooms. It was depressing to hear the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), treating farmers as mushrooms. In this place he lamented the high cost of money and interest rates. This came from a member of the Opposition which today purports to be a free market party. He lamented the high cost of interest rates, he supported devaluation and he opposed devaluation; he was all over the place. Delivered in measured and quiet tones he may think that he can get away with it but I can assure him that farmers know the realities of the situation. They know that they must have stable, good, macro economic conditions in order to survive. Interest rates are high; there is no doubt about that. However, the solution put forward by the Deputy Leader of the National Party really stretched the credibility of just about anyone who listened to him. He wants to reduce the value of the dollar still further. This would have enormous inflationary and cost repercussions for farmers. There was no consistency at all in what he had to say. In attacking this problem this Government has done what the Opposition never had the nerve to do; that is, we legislated to allow foreign banks into this country. I am sure that when those foreign banks become established we will see a downward pressure on interest rates brought about by the competitive mechanism. There is no doubt that the commercial banks of this country have a very bad record in this regard. I include, of course, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. An enormous amount of bad advice has been given to farmers. Many farmers in my electorate, and in Western Australia generally, have a very high level of farm debt and they are in that situation because of the bad economic advice which were given. Some of the people who gave that advice have now walked away from it and are giving contrary advice, still garbed as experts. One thing this Government has done is legislate for the entry of foreign banks and I am sure this will result in more expertise in this area and a downward pressure on interest rates. The devaluation which this Government brought about by floating the dollar was also an initiative about which the Opposition talked but something which never had the nerve to do. It has been enormously beneficial in terms of prices but it has been somewhat undermined by the Common Market. This has been mentioned but people tend to forget the United States action in this regard. The United States offered 20 per cent free wheat for every 100,000 tonnes sold. This really amounted to a 20 per cent cut in price. The people who are supposed to be masters of the free enterprise system thought that they would increase their sales. What happened, of course-anyone could have predicted it- was that buyers simply went out on the market and said: `This is now the bottom line price'. This has had a tendency to drive down prices everywhere so we have to contend with not only the actions of the Common Market but also the stupidity, and perhaps cupidity, of the United States. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) mentioned the old hoary fuel price issue. The fact is that the most significant price rises occurred under a Liberal-National Government. We opposed the world parity pricing system when it was brought in. It was sold to the public of Australia-no doubt the Press helped to sell it to the public of Australia-as a fuel conserving measure. It never was. At that time we correctly identified it as a revenue raising measure. But the problem was- Mr McGauran —What have you done about it? You are a hypocrite. Mr CAMPBELL —I will tell the honourable member what I have done about it. I may be a lot of things but I do not think hypocrite is one of them. If he would just listen he might learn. When we came to power, although we recognised what world parity pricing was and clearly identified it, we were locked into the revenue. The previous Government had spent the revenue which it had gained. One simply cannot write off $4 billion which has been spent. If honourable members opposite had ever had any experience in business, instead of being silver spoon fed sons of lucky parents, they would know a little about business and would realise that fact. We were locked into parity pricing but we said that we would index the price so that it would never rise by more than the increase in the consumer price index or the increase in the price for Saudi light crude, whichever was the lesser. That measure was applauded by the farming community, the business community and the Press in this country. At the time honourable members opposite also agreed with it. Unfortunately, events overtook us and with the rapid drop in the value of the Australian dollar the price rose because it was written in Australian dollars. But it must be remembered that the price- Mr McGauran —It was American dollars. Mr CAMPBELL —The prices of oil contracts are written in American dollars. Proportionally the price of wheat rose far more than the price of fuel. That fact must be remembered. Therefore, obviously farmers were the net gainers. Mr McGauran —It is only seasonally a net gain. Mr CAMPBELL —Overall there was of enormous benefit to farmers and that fact cannot be argued. Let us look at protection. Protection was built up by honourable members opposite. They were the architects of the protection in this country. Black Jack McEwen was the man who brought it in and it is now a fact of life in the Australian community. I want to point this out to the people of Australia. Let us look at the abolition of the duty on headers. I certainly support that; we should never have had that duty. I remember a while ago this was the crisis. The Opposition was trumpeting it as one of the great imposts on farmers. Now it is saying: `It is only $14m; it is really not all that significant'. The truth is that the duty should never have been imposed but in the overall context it was never all that significant to farmers. This shows the Opposition's inability to see the real issues. The Opposition talks about abolishing this dreadful protection. It bandies around figures, most of which cannot be sustained, but it overlooks one simple fact. Honourable members should remember that there was a government which legislated for a 25 per cent across-the-board tariff reduction and that was a Labor Government. With a few honourable exceptions that Government was hounded and abused by the Liberal and National parties. Honourable members opposite were the people who abused the Labor Government. The effect that reduction had was to impact 50,000 on the unemployment figure. I accept that in the long term protection or free trade is fairly neutral in terms of employment but in the short term there is no doubt that free trade would impact on unemployment. Those who were earning money would save by not paying protection but they would pay out more for the additional social security payments required to fund the people out of jobs. What has to be done in this country, and what farmers must realise has to be done, is to ensure a viable manufacturing industry based on manufacturing products that we can export. We have the ability to do that. I think research is the key to new industries which will make this country viable. It is also the key to viability in the farming sector. The honourable member for Gwydir praised the level of research in the Australian wheat industry. If the honourable member for Gwydir and honourable members opposite are satisfied with the level of research in the wheat industry, they are very badly mistaken. The record, certainly in the last decade or two, has been fairly appalling. We have not seen the increases in productivity through research into wheat that have been experienced in other countries, notably the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that the first 10 tonne per hectare crop, which we grew in Tasmania, was grown entirely with British technology. No Australian technology at all was used. If we are to have research it must be nationally based to get over the propensity we, as a country, have had to keep reinventing the wheel. This has been brought about by State rivalries and parochial attitudes generally. There must be a measure of government involvement in research because its benefits do not all flow directly to farmers; they flow to the entire community. It is only fair that the general community should make a contribution to the cost of research because obviously everyone benefits. I am a very strong supporter of government involvement in research in this area. The answer is in high technology, which is not just about silicon chips, arsenide and those sorts of things; it is about high technology in plant breeding research. Perhaps one day we will see the ultimate genetic engineering breakthrough when we can marry the properties of legumes with the grasses to get the benefit of the symbiotic relationship with the rhizobia that live in the root systems of all legumes and which extract free nitrogen from the atmosphere and fix it in a usable form. If they could be grafted onto grasses, which are great users of nitrogen, there would be an exponential increase in production. Australia has been quite advanced in high technology areas. Some time ago I noticed with regret that a soya bean developed in Australia has gone to the United States. It has the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen at a far higher rate than do soya beans generally. It is not often known that, although soya beans are a legume, they are not good fixers of nitrogen and generally the rhizobia tend not to work until the level of nitrogen in the soil has been depleted. So soya beans are net users of nitrogen in most cases. But a strain was developed which had a much higher nitrogen fixing ability-an enormous breakthrough, funded at a relatively modest cost of just a few million dollars. That research went to the United States holus-bolus. It was lost to Australia. However, I think that through the efforts of the Parry Corporation Ltd in Western Australia this may be redeemed in some measure. But it has happened so often before that Australia has done the basic research and failed to capitalise on it. Another thing we must do is incorporate overseas experience. It would be very foolhardy for Australia to invest research funds in information that is readily available from overseas. We have to overcome the level of parochialism that has often kept us from that. In this regard, we must look at plant variety rights. There is no doubt that my Party will have to reassess its position. Mr McGauran —When? Mr CAMPBELL —It will happen in the fullness of time. Mr McGauran —You have been in government for 2 1/2 years. Mr CAMPBELL —I point out to the honourable member who interjected that his party had the government bench in this House for many years. It did nothing. Mr McGauran —We did not have the report until late 1982. Mr CAMPBELL —Those opposite had every opportunity to introduce plant variety rights and put the legislation into effect. They did nothing. So the honourable member should not sit in opposition with his holier than thou attitudes because they will not fool anyone. There is no doubt that plant variety rights will have to be looked at. The Australian Labor Party will have to reassess its position. Plant variety rights have a potential to increase productivity. Without them, we will lock ourselves out of a lot of that very valuable overseas research. We have neither the time nor the economic resources in Australia to undertake that research. There is also research in other areas. I digress to deal with some other plants. My electorate has a weed, calotropis. It grows with reckless abandon. It is quite a problem. In the wet season it grows as much as two feet in a month. This plant is interesting because it has the ability to synthesise directly to a hydrocarbon. The sap from it, as with that from a rubber tree, can be readily cracked by the same sort of process that we use now for crude oil. We have identified these plants in the wild as having between 3 and 12 per cent oil content. This genetic pool could be used to obtain a very rapid expansion of that amount. With very limited research we could probably get the oil level up to 15 to 20 per cent. But even at that rate of 12 per cent we are looking at 20 to 30 barrels of oil per hectare, or 2.5 to 4 tonnes of oil per hectare. At that rate, 8 million hectares of country which is presently unused could supply our entire fuel needs. I am not suggesting that we go that way because at this time I do not think that it would be economic. But we should continue research in this area and feed some into our present supply because we ought to have an economic assessment of it. It may well be that we can afford to abolish government taxes on oil produced in this manner and gain by pay as you earn taxation levied on those who would work in the industry. I do not have the facilities or the ability to work that out, but some of our agricultural economists should look very closely at it. Eight million hectares is not a lot of land considering that about 12 million hectares is used for wheat production. Perhaps calotropis as a fuel supplement could be economically used to replace some of the sugar which is so inefficiently grown in Queensland. It might be cheaper to look at doing this and phasing down some of the production in Queensland. We could move it to the Ord River where the sugar would grow much better, with greater productivity and more cheaply. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.26) —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) in a debate. I say that in no way cynically but with a measure of genuine commendation because snippets of what the honourable member has had to say are endorsed by members on this side of the House. Mr McGauran —But not by his own party. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) interjected, it is fair to observe that there is a shade of schizophrenia about the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in that his entrepreneurial skills, individuality, flair and colour clearly tempt him from time to time to join us, but he is caught by ingrained prejudices and finds himself still sitting on the other side of the House. While the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has ranged wider than the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill and cognate Bills would allow, I endorse his earlier remarks in that much of what needs to be said about wheat research has been said by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker)-and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. All the orders of the day that have been dealt with by the House this morning have focused on rural research, particularly as it applies to grain crops and the expanding grain legume industry. The Bills before the House allow a maximum rate of $1.10 per tonne to be set for rural research. They have the support of the industry and, as the honourable member for Gwydir said, they have the support of the Opposition. It is valid for the House to bear in mind, particularly this week with the Budget debate having been rather cruelly curtailed before some honourable members had an opportunity to speak, that all that has been said in the Budget debate about economic recovery-all the plaudits with which the Government has showered on itself about the economic recovery-have failed totally to recognise that much of the economic recovery came from the grain industry. In fact, it was the 78 per cent increase in gross farm product in 1983-84 that did more to fuel economic recovery than did any other single occurrence. The Government cannot run around this nation claiming to have engineered an economic recovery that has largely resulted from a benevolent mother nature. Much of that economic recovery, I am proud to say, came out of the electorate of Wakefield and, I am prepared to concede, the electorate of Gippsland. There can be no denying, when we look at the Bills before the House, that the same drought that depleted the Australian economy also depleted the research reserves of the grain industry. This legislation is about building those reserves once again. This legislation focuses, as has the debate this morning, on the importance of research in agriculture. It is appropriate, as the member for Wakefield, that I acknowledge much of what happens in my electorate to facilitate agricultural research. For example, my electorate has the premium agricultural college in Australia-Roseworthy Agricultural College. Much of the best work that has been done on varietal research in wheat has been done at Roseworthy College and on farms in South Australia. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the honourable member for Wannon have already alluded to the importance of plant varietal rights and its implications for plant breeding. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has been very anxious to sidestep the question of why it has taken so long for this Government to take some action on plant varietal rights. He conveniently used the political excuse: What did the Opposition do for seven years? As the honourable member for Gippsland pointed out, the report was not available to the former Government until 1982. We have been from 1982 to almost the end of 1985 with no action at all. It is in this area that a great deal could be done to assist not only the wheat industry but also the workers in wheat research at Roseworthy College and on other farms across Australia. It is only through rural research, and the development of new grains that are fungus-disease resistant and even more nematode resistant than those that are already available, that there is the opportunity for farmers to increase their production. The delay in plant varietal rights cannot be separated from this legislation and cannot be excused in the light of the inaction by this Government. Mr McGauran —Senator Hill from South Australia has a great Bill. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Gippsland has pointed out, Senator Hill from South Australia has a private member's Bill that deserves the support of members of both Houses of Parliament. Historically, the grain industry in Australia has always started off on a high. Prior to the nitrogen being leached from virgin soils, grain production is always good. However, as history has taught us, continuing to farm without being aware of what we are doing to the soil structure breeds disaster. So it is that the farmers of Australia have been prepared to fund research to enable them not only to build but also to continue to increase their wheat production. Movements into areas such as minimum tillage and modern chemical farming techniques have enabled farming production to be further increased. I draw the attention of the House to page 53 of the Australian Wheat Board report where it is indicated that in my own State of South Australia from the year 1974-75 to 1983-84-in that ten season period-the area sown to wheat in South Australia went from 1,220,000 hectares to 1,527,000 hectares, an increase of 26 per cent. In the same ten season period the quantity of wheat grown in my State went from 1,486,000 tonnes to 2,839,000 tonnes, an increase of almost 100 per cent on a land increase of 26 per cent. That is a classic illustration of what farmers are prepared to do in order to increase their productivity and obviously the wealth of the nation. This productivity increase, the funding of which this legislation is all about, has been achieved by innovative farmers. It has been achieved in research institutions such as Roseworthy College and even more significantly it has been achieved by farmers on their farms. As the honourable members for Wannon and Gippsland know, because they join me, on farm field days farmers see what other farmers are doing to increase their production. It is this willingness of farmers in the rural industry to share production increasing techniques that is so significant and characteristic of the rural industry. Farmers making their own advances in farm research and in grain growing techniques make them available to fellow farmers. The Bills before the House bring into rural research a new measure of predictability because as a result of these Bills it will be easier for research organisations to predict the level of funds available to them. It will be easier for them to lay down research projects that will be ongoing and which will cover a number of seasons, so important in rural research as researchers are enabled to take the crop of one season and evaluate it against the crop of another and minimise the seasonal variations that may otherwise occur in short term evaluation. This legislation is all about predictability for research funds, but it is also about predictability for the funds that farmers will be required to make available for research. The maximum sum has been set in the Bills so that it will not be necessary for research organisations to come back to the House frequently seeking further amendments in order to raise the sum. What farmers ask of the Minister and of the Government but have not received as yet is some indication of what the requirement for research will be this year. Farmers have already indicated, in spite of rising farm costs, a willingness to take it from 30c to 35c, but there is no indication from the Minister of precisely what will be expected of them. The legislation before the House represents a plea for self-sufficiency. The honourable member for Wannon has already indicated that while there has been some criticism of these Bills by the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), in fact, as Senate committees indicate, rural research is an investment by the nation in ongoing rural productivity. The industry has already contributed $5.2m to research and these Bills encourage growers to continue to be self-sufficient. The honourable member for Rankin used this debate to make some cheap political propaganda out of these Bills, and that was quite inappropriate. The honourable member for Rankin chose to say that the Opposition is floating the concept of privatisation. He asked what that has to do with rural research and where the Opposition stood on the question of government funding. I could think of a few actions lower than that when in fact privatisation has nothing to do with the Bills before the House. The Opposition has no problem in encouraging the Government to match on a dollar for dollar term the concept of rural research because, as the honourable member for Wannon has said and as the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources has already indicated, what is spent on rural research is nothing more than an investment by Australians in the future productivity of Australia. The honourable member for Rankin, if he has a skerrick of honesty in his bones, must concede that point and that the remainder of his debate was nothing more than cheap political point scoring on what is in fact important legislation for Australia's rural industry. The significant thing is that these Bills allow farmers to continue to contribute to rural research in the face of falling farm incomes. No one has denied that farm incomes have fallen. Farmers across Australia have been marching because they have had to face cruelly rising farm costs. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has quite wrongly accused the Opposition of making political capital out of allegations that the Government created farm poverty. The Government has never been accused of that by anyone on this side of the House. It is rather more accused of exacerbating the problem that farmers face instead of taking some action to solve them. Those problems are focused in the area of interest rates, rising farm costs because of rising wages and salaries, problems in the fuel area, which we debated this morning, problems in the area of rising fertiliser costs and problems in the area of tariffs on grain headers. All of these rising costs are faced by farmers and in spite of those rising costs and in spite of the consequent fall in farm profits, farmers have indicated a willingness to continue to fund rural research. The Bills before the House indicate the willingness of Australia's farmers to continue to become more productive in order to survive. They have been accused, in fact, of being productive simply to be profitable. The truth is that unless they increase their production they cannot survive. It must be sobering for many honour- able members on the other side of the House who would have productivity claims used to justify wage increases, to consider now the uncomfortable truth that farmers have productivity simply to enable them to survive at a very low standard of living. It is in the interests of farm survival that these Bills come before the House and it is in the interests of farm survival that the Opposition supports them. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.41) —Grain, wool and meat together have determined the overall success of Australia's rural industries and our primary industries, occupying nearly half our exports, largely determine the overall success of our economy. I recall being told by a businessman some 35 years ago that our dependence on rural industries would be next to nothing before long. He predicted that manufacturing exports would take their place. That has not happened. Fortunately, a succession of Australian Governments during and following World War II have-without a lot of mollycoddling-made sure that primary industries are not leaned on simply because of the large capital investments involved. Heavy taxing of farmers in Argentina certainly inhibited primary production there. We did not make the same mistake in Australia. Of the successful trio-wool, meat and wheat-wheat showed its economic significance in the June quarter of 1985 when the forecast real net value of rural production fell by 22 per cent, largely because there was a drop in the value of the wheat crop. There is a downward trend in wheat prices. High world production-probably four million tonnes higher than in 1984, which was itself a record-puts a restraint on prices. In Australia there will be a carryover in wheat stocks of over five million tonnes. In the United States of America the Commodity Credit Corporation may have 18 million tonnes in stock in 1985-86. One Kansas farmer said: `I don't know how many bags we have, but we stacked all we could outside and then stored the rest of the crop in the barn'. Even the most cursory examination of rural history in Australia will show the fallacy of accepting things as they are. We are proven as a primary product supplier to the world and there can be no doubt that our efficiency and capacity will again return a dividend in higher sales. To that end we must develop our marketing and we must research. The wheat tax dealt with in the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1985 is used to finance research in the wheat industry. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) have already discussed wheat research. The amounts collected as tax for wheat research are spent in the State of collection on projects approved by a State wheat research committee and the Commonwealth matching contribution is used to fund research projects approved by the Wheat Industry Research Council. These projects must have a national rather than a local significance. Recognising the need to improve research, the Australian Wheat Growers Federation has requested an increase in the operative rate of tax from 30c a tonne to 35c a tonne. To do that it is necessary to amend the ceiling rate set in the Wheat Tax Act. I ought not finish without pointing out that there is some optimism in the industry. Reporting to the National Agricultural Conference in Canberra in January-February of this year, the Australian Wheat Board Chairman, Sir Leslie Price, told the conference that despite problems faced by wheat exporters the Australian Wheat Board was confident that it would be able to sell the current crop without resorting to extraordinary measures such as those currently being used by Argentina, where wheat has been offered at fire sale prices and where in some cases wheat prices have been lower than corn prices in order to clear the handling system prior to the coarse grain harvest. In talking about future marketing prospects, Sir Leslie said that world exportable supplies were outstripping growth in demand, that there was no indication of an end to this trend in the near future and that increasing competition and downward pressure on prices were likely to be the rule for some years. He said: Fundamental changes to this situation seem unlikely to come from the demand side in the next few years. There has been a major shift in importing patterns in recent years, with India and China moving towards self sufficiency in grains. Growth in import demand had occurred in the Middle East and the USSR. However, major new markets seem unlekely to emerge in the current world economic environment. On the supply side, the future is much more difficult to predict as it will be determined largely by political developments in the US and EEC. There are signs that the cost of supporting agriculture is becoming unacceptable in both countries.The new US Farm Bill currently under consideration represents a fundamental change in US agricultural policy and one that will have a major impact on the world wheat marketing environment in the next decade. Proposals include the elimination of current measures which hold grain off the market to support prices and a significant reduction in support levels. If implemented, these proposals can be expected to have a major impact on world prices and some observers are already predicting prices will fall by up to 25 per cent by 1986. The historic national partnership between the Federal Government and the wheat industry is well and truly continuing. The full rebate of the diesel fuel excise for fuel use in primary production will substantially help the industry, as will the replacement of tariffs on imported harvesters with a bounty. Work by the Government and proposals announced in the recent mini-budget and the Budget include national soil conservation, rural research, the appointment of an agricultural attache to Tokyo, agricultural health and quarantine measures, special adjustment assistance measures and marketing and promotion activities, which have all been welcomed by farmers, including wheat farmers. Far less costly but of enduring importance will be the Government financing of a major report on agriculure to the year 2000. The Wheat Growers Federation and the National Farmers Federation are to be congratulated on their responsible attitudes to marketing and research. The Wheat Growers Federation is to be congratulated particularly on its request for the action that has been taken in this House today. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.48) —It is my pleasure on behalf of the constituents of Maranoa who are involved in the grain industry to support the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, the Grain Legume Levy Bill and the Grain Legume Levy Collection Bill. We all know how important it is to continue our research into all facets of endeavour in Australia if we are to remain competitive on world markets. We consume only about 20 per cent of our wheat production and we export about 80 per cent. The importance of the wheat industry and the grain legumes industry throughout Australia has been mentioned in the speeches made here today. The wheat industry is very much the bigger export earner, and we have heard quite a deal on the problems that it is facing today. Thank goodness, at long last people are starting to tell not just Federal Governments but State and local governments in Australia about the precarious financial position we are in. It is only industries such as the grain industry that will get us out of the rut that we seem to have fallen into, if we are not going to go totally bankrupt. Unfortunately, farmers throughout the world have mechanised since the last war in particular, and we are facing enormous production although in many parts of the world, as highlighted by the concert held for Ethiopia, a great number of people are still starving. In my electorate of Maranoa we see many stockpiles of wheat stored under the cover of huge plastic tarpaulins, waiting to be shipped-that is, when the unions allow the ships to move. Of course, I have previously highlighted in the House the problem that the Japanese will not take any grain from New South Wales, a Labor State, but are prepared to take grain from Queensland ports. The shadow Minister mentioned that the Queensland State Wheat Board is taking a lot of New South Wales grain through the rail head at Boggabilla. Of course, there is no rail connection between Boggabilla and Goondiwindi. One of the quirks of our early colonial days was that someone somewhere decided that most States would have separate rail gauges. Because of the parochialism of States, many railways head towards State borders and then stop. In the case of Boggabilla, it stops within 10 miles of Goondiwindi and, therefore, all the grain from northern New South Wales has to go towards Newcastle or Sydney. But of course the wharfies there, who live in the lap of luxury these days, have decided not to ship grain and the railways are having go slow strikes, et cetera. So, a lot of northern New South Wales grain is being shipped through Boggabilla. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) mentioned that he felt that the price of wheat had risen. I inform the House that, unfortunately for people who grow wheat, the real price of grain is far from good. In fact, the real price of grain is probably as low as it has ever been. The highest real price for grain we ever had was in 1972 and it has never been as high since. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has announced an increase in the guaranteed minimum price-GMP-of $130, which is better than a decrease in that amount, but it certainly will not make up for the ever-increasing fuel costs, government charges, capital gains taxes and every other damn sort of tax you like to mention which is going to be brought down in this House this afternoon. But we battle on. Although the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says that he is the friend of the farmers, there was not a farmer in the 50,000 outside this place who believed him. But he seems to think he still is their friend. I would like to assure him that he is not. The farming community is now united behind the National Farmers Federation. We had members of the NFF here yesterday briefing Opposition rural committee members. Mr Chynoweth —Telling you what to do. Mr IAN CAMERON —No, briefing us on the good work that they have been doing in getting people back to work and getting some exports under way from Mudginberri and places like that. It is high time they did so. Fortunately for us, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, that great Premier of Queensland, has led the fight in this direction and continues to do so. It is important, of course, that research be carried out, because the price for prime hard wheat is roughly $150 a tonne gross. Of course, the net payment to farmers is nothing near that; it is roughly $100. Then all ploughing costs, fuel costs and everything else has to come out of that and one is lucky today, after paying 20 per cent interest rates, to be netting anything out of producing wheat. The difference in price between feed wheat and prime hard wheat on today's market is roughly $60 a tonne. I think this really highlights the fact that we need to produce quality wheat, and of course the research undertaken by the industry helps us to do this. At this stage I would like to congratulate Clinton Condon, a grower from just outside Dalby in the electorate of Maranoa, who has been nominated by the Minister for Primary Industry to serve as the new Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. We of the Dalby district feel very proud of the fact that Clinton has been nominated. Of course, Sir Leslie Price is retiring. He is an ex-Dalby grain grower also out of that great electorate of Maranoa. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir Leslie and his good wife. Because it is a full time job these people unfortunately have to move to Melbourne to live, and in that sense it is a little like being in Parliament. Clinton and his wife, Lorraine, still have a young family. I have talked to him since his appointment. I was fortunate to spend quite a long time with him as a youth and I more or less grew up with him in one sense. I can assure the Minister that he has made a very wise selection and that he will not be disappointed in Clinton as Chairman of the new Wheat Board. Rod McLeud farms wheat only about 30 miles from my property in the Goondiwindi-Tara-The Gums area. He is now the Chairman of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. My brother, Brian Cameron, who farms next door to me at The Gums, is a member of the Queensland State Wheat Board. I have been farming for 20 years and presently have a reasonable wheat crop growing. So in one sense I like to think that, as member for the area of Maranoa, which grows approximately 80 per cent of the wheat grown in Queensland, I have a pretty close association with the industry. I spend a lot of time on tractors and running trucks and working my guts out sometimes to earn a bob, apart from being in this place. I must say that I enjoy the work; it is good fun. I am very privileged to own a farm. I really enjoy getting back out of this place and going home to do some physical work. It does me the world of good. The assistance we are debating is the only government assistance given to the grain industry. I tell those in the industry that I can never understand why they want to be as much in the clutches of government as we are. It is incredible that it took nine months of fighting and disagreement for the Minister at long last to bring in a Bill to keep control of the industry in the growers' hands. Previously he was not going to let them have that. I would say that the GMP of the grain industry in Australia is about 20 per cent to 25 per cent of total production in Australia, yet the Government gives it very little and wants total control of it-wants to socialise it. I am pleased that the Bill is to go through the House and that the growers have had a win. Queensland being a semi-tropical environment, the research carried out there is somewhat different from that carried out in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. In Queensland the Wheat Institute is headed by Dr Allan Clarke. Paul Brennan is the plant breeder. Rowan Dahl concentrates on soil fertility, Bob Rees on disease and Bob Henry on quality evaluatiion and weathering. Of course, weathering is a very important facet of wheat growing in Queensland because usually, just as we are about to harvest the crop, we get downpours of rain. The Industry Committee appointed by the growers consists of John Bell from Jandowae, the Chairman; John Obst, the Secretary; Ian McCrow from Moura, and Noel Nelson from Drillham. They are small townships in the electorate of Maranoa. Maranoa runs from Goondiwindi in the south to and beyond Emerald in the north. The Emerald-central Queensland area has enormous potential for farming and is where the bulk of the increase in farm development in Australia today is taking place. It covers more than half the potential farm area in Australia, which is quite incredible when one thinks about it. Last year about $250,000 was spent in Queensland on research into grain, et cetera. It looked at things like zinc defficiency, fallow practices, soil management, evaporation, nitrogen fixing with chick peas, publishing books on weeds, communicating with growers and weathering resistance. Researchers also work with the University of Queensland in looking at the degradation of soil structure under continuous cropping conditions. There is a research property at a small place called Wellcamp just outside Toowoomba. The biggest problem with this year's crop-and we are looking at an 18 million or 19 million bushel crop following pretty good rains throughout Australia-is that it is not going to be easy to sell. There is always some disease in crops, but this year we have yellow spot due to the build-up of stubble. Minimum tillage and stubble retention have been the swing on grain growing farms in the last few years to try to conserve our soils. With the build-up of stubble, fungi and such things are carried over from one year to the next. The stubble sits on top of the ground to try to stop the water run off and yellow spot has developed. This is a fungus disease which attacks the crops in its very early stages and rapidly reduces the yield. Driving around the grain growing areas in my electorate of Maranoa, one sees many crops suffering from this disease. No doubt in the next few years researchers will spend a lot of time looking at yellow spot. The only way to get rid of yellow spot is to burn stubble, so people will see an awful lot of black smoke throughout Australia after Christmas, which is a great pity. I see that the Minister for science (Mr Barry Jones) has entered the chamber. I know that he is very interested in these matters. I think that he does an excellent job in his portfolio promoting research and development in Australia. He will be disappointed to know that the only way to get rid of yellow spot is to burn stubble and to burn the host, so to speak. That is very sad for the soil conservationists. We will have to come up with something a little better in that area. The tariff which was applied on headers has been removed, but it is incredible how the Government has replaced that tariff with a subsidy to which we, as taxpayers, contribute. I do not know that we have gone any further down the line on this problem. Industry is still over protected in many respects. When the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on chemicals comes down, as I mentioned, we will be looking at the question of minimal tillage. That is one of the areas in which we used to try to save and conserve our costs in farming. I hope that when the report comes down common sense will prevail and the tariffs and costs imposed by government will be reduced or taken away so that the price of chemicals will be reduced. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) referred to the reduction in fuel excise. The Labor Government, of course, runs pretty strong on this. It was the farmers' right to receive a fuel rebate and it should never have been taken away from them. The Hawke Government gave it back to them in the last Budget. However, farmers are still worse off than they were last year. In terms of the fuel tax alone they are $60 billion worse off now than they were at the same time last year, a few weeks after last year's Budget. This hoop-la publicity is a nonsense. The gurus of the Press claim that the farmers are being spoon fed by the Hawke Labor Government by way of the Minister's supposed great package. If one does a bit of figuring one finds that the farm sector in Australia is paying $60 billion more by way of fuel tax than it did last year. There are 170,000 farm households in Australia which are paying $3,500 each in tax. Those people are three times worse off than the average taxpayer. I think it is important for people such as the Minister to remember that when Ministers are caucusing around this place every second hour of the day on their tax packages. I invite them to consider the fact that the farming community is very much disadvantaged in this area. This year farmers are paying $600m in fuel tax as against $539m last year. Although the rebate for diesel fuel was taken off, because the excise on petrol and other fuels and oils, et cetera, is indexed and the price continues to rise because of inflation-it is going up rapidly-and because we estimate that the farm sector has about a 10 per cent share of the sale of those products, the farmers continue to pay a higher proportion of tax in that area. As the amount applicable under the fuel freight subsidy scheme has been increased to 5.2c, any person taking part in that scheme does not receive a fuel freight subsidy at all. This year, that will cost the farmer $20m. When one adds up all these things one finds that proportionately farmers continue to pay much higher taxes than any other taxpayer. They continue to be disadvantaged by our fuel price arrangements. In the last few days I have seen articles in the Press about Saudi Arabia reducing the price of oil. Hopefully, it will start to undercut the price of oil. It looks as though the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries might be about to collapse. I hope it does. Considering the way the share market is running at the moment in expectation of the wonderful tax package which we will receive this afternoon and the fact that the value of the dollar will drop out of sight, one wonders whether there will be any gain at all for farmers regarding the price of fuel, even though the Arabian price might come down by $3 or $4 a barrel. A sales tax has been imposed on greases and oils. That represents another impost on the farming community since the Labor Government came to office. I mentioned the capital gains tax. Such a tax will have a very depressing effect on farm land prices. The introduction of this tax occurs right at the time when the Government is running interest rates of 18 to 20 per cent and when farmers need some equity and value in their land more than ever. We see these characters on the Labor side of politics bringing in a brand new lot of taxation measures. Who needs taxes? We need them like a hole in the head. Nobody wants a new tax. Farming small buisiness cannot continue under this regime of new taxes such as capital gains tax. We understand that the family home will be exempt from a capital gains tax. Straightaway there is a gross distortion in the system by the Prime Minister. What will be the value of his home in the middle of Melbourne as against the value of my home out on a farm? Straightaway there is a discrimination by the Prime Minister. Firstly, he exempts the family home and, secondly, becuase the value of the farm home cannot be anywhere near the value of a home in the middle of Melbourne, such as the Prime Minister's, there is a discrimination. The National Party of Australia is totally opposed to a capital gains tax of any description. Such a tax can do nothing but depress the economy right at the stage when it is the last thing we need. One has only to look at this morning's newspaper reports of the share market. They should give members of Cabinet some idea of what the people of Australia think of the moves the Government intends to announce this afternoon. I turn to soil and water conservation. The Minister for Science encourages people to take part in these programs; yet his colleagues drop the tax incentive whereby in the year that the money was expended there was a 100 per cent write-off. That has now been cut back to a 20 per cent write-off over five years. That must be another disincentive to people who want to help in conserving our soil and water. The Labor Government is spending nothing on water conservation. A measley amount of $30m or $40m is being provided, some of which is being spent in town. Nowhere near enough is being spent. I direct the Minister's attention to the fact that we cannot earn money off-farm now. I highlight the fact that during the depression of the beef industry the grain growers-now it is the sugar growers-were able to go out to work and earn some other income. They ought to be allowed to do that and write it off against their farm income. Only six months ago this Government introduced legislation to allow Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to do exactly that-to write off some of its earnings from its oil producing area into its other areas and to move its income. Yet this Government does not allow the farming industry to do that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourble member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.08) —in reply-I thank most of the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I will comment on some of the wild charges made by the Opposition, particularly those by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), in a moment. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), in putting the Opposition's view on the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, the Grain Legumes Levy Bill and the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill, of course, agreed to them-they are simply, non-contentious Bills-and I thank him for his comments. He asked a few questions. He stated that it was not clear whether the operative rate would be increased as requested by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. The simple answer to that is that the process of amending regulations on passage of the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill is under way and this will increase the operative rate from 30c to 35c, as requested by the Wheatgrowers Federation. This will be effective, possibly, from 1 November-if the legislation is not held up in the Senate. The honourable member for Gywdir also queried the benefit to the wheat industry and the grain growing industry of devaluation. We only ever work with estimates, not on the basis of knowledge, but at one point in time the value of the devaluation to the wheat industry was estimated at $260m for this year. Later on an estimate came out from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that the value was about $500m. Against that, one has to take into account the fact that the Australian Wheat Board is involved in currency hedging and that the wheat pools pay out over quite a considerable time. So even if those figures are correct the full benefit will not come through straight away. It is an easy jibe to make but the basic economics are sound if the exchange rate goes down, particularly against the United States dollar-and wheat sales are made in United States dollars. Of course, we have gained very substantially with respect to our export industries from the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I say it is a very easy point to make because on the one hand the farmer only sees the Bills and on the other hand when he gets the cheque for his sales he does not know to what extent devaluation has helped in terms of the gross sum that he receives. So, I guess the Opposition will continue to make these points. However, I must simply reiterate that the fundamental economics are that, given the relative exchange rates between Australia and particularly the United States of America, we have a very distinct advantage. The honourable member for Gwydir also mentioned the fact that now tariffs have been pulled off headers and we have moved to subsidies, some 250 people have been put off by Horwood Bagshaw Ltd. I am not sure whether he was bleating about that or not because in the next breath he said how bad it was that the anti-dumping action had been taken and that that was going to put up the price of DAP fertilisers. I think he understands that that decision by the Customs Service is not yet final, that the findings are only preliminary. The honourable member has to realise, of course, that one cannot have it both ways. One of the big problems is that generally the farm sector argues for free trade when it suits it to do so. It is very logical, consistent and sensible for our broadly based grazing and crop industries to advocate a free trade approach and I can understand fully the reasons why they do so. However, on the other hand they cannot say that if one kilogram of lamb crosses the Tasman or if some additional cheese comes in there should be an instant cut-off. One cannot run both arguments at once. Similarly, one cannot run both arguments with respect to dumping and the whole question of tariffs. Only economists believe that there are not any short term effects if protection and industry assistance arrangements are changed. Many people have been dismissed in the fertiliser industry as a result of the fact that subsidies are now paid on imports. Announcements have already been made in respect of Christmas Island. We are in a far different situation now with the whole question of fertilisers. Perhaps the farm sector would like to put itself in the hands of overseas exporters and see us importing forever. However, I point out that it is not certain that we will forever and a day get cheap fertilisers from Florida. We might be prepared to pay subsidies on imports, and wipe out Christmas Island and our other usual sources of supply and put ourselves in the hands of countries like Morocco, Algeria and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, we will do so at our cost because we cannot predict what is going to happen in those countries. I think, and I hope that the Opposition will endorse this view, we should now be concentrating on the future of Australian fertiliser supplies. If there is to be more investment in Australian phosphate deposits, if there is to be the massive investment that will be needed in respect of nitrogenous fertilisers, possibly using North West Shelf gas as the feedstock, we need to devise policies that take into account very loing term investment decisions. If we are going to encourage those investment decisions in this country we cannot at the same time also encourage imports. The Government is addressing these important questions. Members of the Opposition made quite a bit of play about the pretty dreadful industrial situation with respect to the New South Wales grain handling system. Again, one cannot have it both ways by accusing people of being socialists and centralists and propping up States rights. The rail gauge situation is a classic example of States rights gone mad. This week's Bulletin contains an article which lists the worst mistakes that have ever been made in Australia. Quite apart from the siting of Canberra and what we have done to our soils, the whole rail gauge system certainly came up for comment by very wise people in our community. The situation in New South Wales is not new. I am rather amazed that nothing has come out of all the work that has gone on over the years. However, there was a dreadful situation in respect of the farmer dominated grain elevators boards. The structure of the New South Wales grain handling is still basically flawed because of the parish pump approach that the old Grain Elevators Board took many years ago. The New South Wales Government acted. It had to fight the farm organisations which did not want change. However, we got a better grain handling authority. The farmers have now been mounting enormous pressure. Mr Dobbin has gone as head of the New South Wales Grain Handling Authority. Again, the New South Wales Government is trying to get a better situation there. I think we are all dismayed that the industrial relations set-up does not seem to get any better. This is to be deplored. Fuel prices came in for quite a bit of comment. I simply point out that index of fuel prices paid rose this year by about 8 per cent. There was a counterbalance due to the exchange rate variation. The wheat and grains industry is certainly more than well compensated by the exchange rate movement-fuel vis-a-vis price received. Of course, under the previous Government fuel prices actually went up by about 40 per cent in about 1979-80 and 1980-81. This was the time of the so-called second oil shock. The import parity pricing policy has not caused this problem this year so much as has devaluation. In the long haul the thing that really counts for our competitive industries is that very word `competitiveness'. While ever we are paying about the same or less for our fuel, by and large in the long haul we remain competitive. Comment was made on the subject of plant variety rights. It was alleged that I had done nothing. The Australian Labor Party passed a motion at its last conference that we should have an inquiry into Australia's plant breeding needs and alternatives to PVR. This whole question was broadened out into a sensible approach to our plant breeding needs. Quite frankly, because of the size of the local market, we will never be able to get into the breeding of some plant species which are planted and used by farmers. Of course, we have a very big plant breeding effort at present with the broader crop species. I have appointed Professor Alex Lazenby to report to the Government on Australia's plant breeding needs and alternatives to PVR. However, I point out to honourable members opposite that the previous Minister for Primary Industry could not get agreement with the States. This is on the public record; it can be found in the minutes and the reports of Australian Agricultural Council meetings. However, we are making some progress. As far as the Bills before the Parliament are concerned, our plant breeding effort in respect of cereals is one of my real concerns in terms of plant variety rights. I would not like to see ideologues of the character of the Premier of Queensland come along with the theory that just because plant breeding can be private it is therefore better for it to be private. I think it is terribly important to realise with respect to cereals that we have to take into account environmental conditions and differences in conditions in the various States and the fact that a lot of the research that is going on in relation to plant breeding at present, particularly for cereals and the broadacre crops, is concentrating on matters other than productive species. Work is being done on cloning, hail shattering, frost resistance and salt resistance. All of these sorts of things may not necessarily be carried out by private plant breeders. They try to sell a product quickly, possibly without all the research back-up and the large public investment that is going on at present. In other words, I do not think that criticism about lack of plant variety rights really applies on cereals. I have been at pains to make the distinction between plant breeding and plant buying. As I said earlier, we will never get into the business of plant breeding in respect of some species. I can see no reason why Australia's farmers should be denied access to those species. This matter particularly falls into the area of horticulture. I would like to make some final comments on what the honourable member for Maranoa had to say. I certainly endorse his comments about the coming retirement of Sir Leslie Price. He will choose the time to go but he has been reappointed. So that there would be no confusion, I thought it very important that I announce his successor. In keeping with my view of trying to get a corporate board on the various statutory marketing authorities and trying to get the best people possible, after a lot of thought and consideration I felt that Mr Clinton Condon best met those criteria. So another man from Queensland has been appointed. I did not appoint him because he came from Queensland; quite frankly, I appointed him because I thought he was the person who was best fitted to carry out that job. Mr Goodluck —That is a good point. Mr KERIN —I say to the honourable member for Franklin that if there had been a good Tasmanian I would have grabbed him, too. Mr Goodluck —There are some good Tasmanians. Mr KERIN —They do not grow much wheat in Tasmania; that is the problem. With respect to some of the other erratic comments by the honourable member about my wanting to socialise the wheat industry and about the Government doing nothing for the wheat industry-he asked why it should be involved-I simply point out that the public backs this industry with respect to a 95 per cent net underwriting. If there is a collapse in the wheat market the public faces very large bills. At one stage since I have been Minister, if the market had not turned, the Government faced a payout of about $190m. We also provide enormous national interest cover with respect to credit markets. We have also given the Australian Wheat Board the power to involve itself in transactions on overseas money markets with respect to forward cover and interest. This has saved the industry tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. In terms of the arguments that I have had with the industry about the composition of the people on the Board, I have always been inclined, and I have always been at pains to point out, that I was quite happy that it have a grower majority, given the history of this Board, the history of the industry and the fact that the growers own the wheat. In other words, it is different from other statutory authorities. I have never had any problems about there being a grower majority. But I do want to have on that Board the most competent, efficient and capable people, and a Board which is able to act corporately. There should be a balance in terms of the professional staff and a balance in terms of giving a broad perspective to the very big testing problems that the Wheat Board has before it. The final point I mention is the whole question of taxes. I am sure that other words will be spoken about the question of taxes today and in the next day or two. I think farmers should also be aware that they should concentrate not only on whether they may or may not be required to pay additional taxes but also on the fact that if the 60 per cent tax scale is reduced to 49 per cent they will benefit. Farmers will benefit if the measures being implemented by the Government give it a lot more revenue, so that we do not continue to allow people to avoid and evade the payment of tax forever and a day. It appears that tax paying is becoming optional in this country. We must realise that more and more people are accumulating wealth and economic power in this country, while the ordinary farmers and the ordinary wage blokes pay more and more tax. The White Paper and some of the option A proposals disclose information about people avoiding the payment of tax. Farmers are not fools. They, too, are opposed to the enormous tax evasion and avoidance that is going on in this country. They, too, know that they stand to benefit if we have a taxation system that is a lot fairer and a lot more equitable for all Australians. There should not be double standards which protect those who can so arrange their affairs that the payment of tax becomes optional. I commend the Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I draw to the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished former member of this place, the Hon. W. C. Wentworth. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 13, clause 8, after proposed new paragraph 52 (b), insert the following new paragraph: ``(c) a report on the operations of any partnership or company in the formation of which the Corporation has joined,''. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.27) —I move: That the Senate's amendment be agreed to. The amendment agreed to by the Senate relates to paragraph 52 of that part of the Bill entitled `Part VII-Miscellaneous'. Paragraph 52 deals with the necessity for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to produce an annual report and to include various matters. The Senate in its wisdom has suggested that after paragraph 52 (b) we add the following new sub-paragraph: (c) a report on the operations of any partnership or company in the formation of which the Corporation has joined. We accept that amendment. The reference to companies and partnerships and, by implication, joint ventures, relates to clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, which set out the functions and powers of the Corporation. Clause 7 repeals section 18 of the principal Act and allows the Corporation to enter into partnerships, companies, joint ventures and so on, in the pursuit of its functions, which are to investigate, advise on, design, supervise and construct engineering works in Australia and overseas. As I said, the Government will accept that amendment. The legislation assists the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in its envisaged operations as a flag carrier in representing Australia overseas and in assisting the Australian engineering design industry in the private sector. It imposes obligations on it to enter into this sort of activity and to assist as many Australian companies as possible in the pursuit of work overseas. Obviously, given that explanation, the Government would have absolutely no objection to reports upon the companies, joint ventures and partnerships that the Corporation enters into being included in its annual report. It should be as open and frank as possible with the Parliament and the people of Australia. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.30) —The Opposition also supports the amendment. We believe that the amendment is necessary because the Opposition remains very concerned about the operations of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Although the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill was well debated both here and in the Senate, I will reiterate some points. The Corporation has had losses in its last two years of operation of about $10m. Its superannuation liabilities of the order of perhaps a further $10m still have not been brought to account in the Corporation's accounts. The accounts of the Corporation have been qualified for the last three years. That simply would not be tolerated in the private sector. We remain concerned about its current profitability. The Corporation's 1983-84 report stated that the Corporation would be operating on a profitable basis in 1985-86. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in his second reading speech said that he accepted that in that year the Corporation would break even. Perhaps at an appropriate time we should invite the Minister to say whether he still believes that his projections for the breaking even of the operations of the Corporation in 1985-86 are accurate because when the Corporation loses money it loses the taxpayers' money. Clause 18 of the Bill gives the Corporation the power, amongst other things, to join in the formation of partnerships and companies. The Minister's second reading speech made it clear that the relevant amendments involved included the overseas operations of the company. I draw the attention of the House to the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which, in turn, drew the attention of the Parliament to the fact that the Australian Dairy Corporation had created an off-shore subsidiary which had functions wider than those of the parent authority. Accordingly, it was somewhat disappointing that the Senate chose to reject three other amendments to Clause 7 in relation to proposed new section 18, which were: (3) The Corporation shall not join in the formation of a partnership of a company unless the Minister has approved in writing of the participation of the Corporation in that partnership or company. (4) An approval given under sub-section (3), together with a statement of particulars of the partnership or company to which the approval relates, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that approval. (5) The Corporation shall not join in the formation of a partnership or a company which has any function or power which is not a function or a power of the Corporation.'. This amendment seeks to address that deficiency in the amendment Bill to some extent. The Opposition's policy is that when in government we will transfer the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation from the control and influence of political forces and bureaucratic domination to the private sector. Mr Chynoweth —It is a disgrace. Mr BEALE —If the honourable member thinks that losing the taxpayers' money in the way the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has lost money is not a disgrace, I do not know what is. Mr Chynoweth —It is an excellent engineering organisation and you are just going to hand it over to one of your friends. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Dunkley will be quiet. Mr BEALE —I do not mind him saying that he thinks that losing the taxpayers' money is a good idea. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair minds. Mr BEALE —It is our proposal to develop a detailed plan on how transfer to the private sector can take place and to put this plan to the Australian people as part of our general privatisation plans and revised policy on the Department of Housing and Construction. In the meantime it seems appropriate to assure the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation that it has nothing to fear from a coalition government. On the contrary, we would want it, firstly, to be free from the claws of Canberra; secondly, to take its place in the more invigorating private sector; and, finally, to make certain that management and employees are given appropriate incentives to make the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation profitable again and to maintain and improve its undoubted engineering reputation. The Opposition supports the amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.36) —In debating the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill, I say that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill because it is part of proposals that members of the Opposition put to the Parliament in connection with declarations made last year about making the implementation of the Bill more effective. This legislation follows the May expenditure statement when the Government decided to increase the limit on the fuel subsidy levy from 1.2c to 5.2c, whereby it created an additional revenue saving of some $116m. Whilst the Opposition did not oppose that measure by amendment or otherwise because of the nature of the expenditure, that has had a dramatic effect on industries across Australia. Unfortunately, many of those industries add to the real wealth of Australia-those that are exporting and those in the rural and primary industry area which feeds the rest of Australia. That was a tremendous cost and a blow to them at that time. This legislation is to give more effective administration to the implementation of the Bill. For instance, it was found-I understand from the reports that have been given that this is quite accurate-that false claims were being made about the subsidy. I realise that the lifting of the limit from one amount to the other and the rate of subsidy overcame some of these problems because the points of delivery have been reduced from 3,900 outlets to 1,650 outlets. That applied also in connection with the nomination of a distribution point. But I think the big problem was and may still be the effect of jobbers in the market. People in a service station which was free from any other restraints of trade were able, at times, to buy their fuel and retail it at a lower price than that at which the legitimate retailer was able to buy fuel from the same station. That was reflected quite dramatically at points in Queensland. I understand that that is still the case. In spite of the fact that the subsidy rate exemption has risen from 1.2c to 5.2c these jobbers can still have available to them fuel which they can use to undersell the legitimate retailer in the market. There is also the aspect, which does concern Australians, about the ability of some refining companies to enter into price wars and to discount substantially the price in particularly big areas where there is a mass of custom. This is done at the expense of those people in country areas where there is no such competition and the price of fuel automatically rises to the highest level which the retailers and the oil companies feel they can get from those people. I do not believe that the legislation will effect changes in those respects, but they are problems that should be addressed. Clause 3 (1) introduces registration conditions which will further restrict the scope of the scheme. The Bill will also require a statutory declaration to inhibit false claims. In the financial impact statement there is no indication of any cost or gain to revenue. I think the Government should have identified for the Parliament places where there will be expenditure savings. One might say that the oil industry of Australia greases and powers the economy of Australia, particularly with the present reliance on self-production. It is important that such an industry not in its own way reflect losses to the economy. This has been the situation in the last 12 to 18 months, with the devaluation of the dollar and the fact that we have been linked to the Saudi Arabian price. It has put up the price of fuel in the community by substantial amounts. Some people estimate an increase of up to 12c a litre. Increased fuel prices will have an effect particularly in the area in which I am particularly interested-trade. This factor is built into the whole production costs of export industries and is making them less competitive on the open market. The Opposition would free up this market as far as possible so that we were not bound by some of the stringent conditions that are presently in the import parity pricing arrangements. We want that to be understood. In saying that, there is no guarantee that the prices themselves would fall at the bowser, but it would free up the companies and refineries of Australia as to how they might participate in bringing fuel on to the market at the cheapest price. The situation of discounting and jobbing is not making any easier the life of those marketeers, the people who are producing Australia's exports. The fuel industry is important to Australia, particularly in terms of our self-sufficiency. This Bill basically deals with distribution rather than with refining, which will come into an argument later today. This scheme was shown to have led to abuse, particularly with northern prawners. I understand that the complexity and difficulties of the scheme led to spot checks on payments instead of full verification of claims. Some artificial schemes were designed to attract subsidy, some distributors maintained substandard accounts and the records caused difficulty in verification. If this Bill is to improve that situation, there must be some cost effectiveness for government. However, it has not been possible to show the impact of the financial implications, and this perhaps indicates the shambles in which the Government has got itself in this respect. The Bill also validates certain practices for mini-refineries, particularly the one at Roma. All that we say in connection with this matter is that there will be no further subsidies under current legislation. The subsidies will be passed back to consumers. The Opposition is concerned-and we shall be moving an amendment on this matter in Committee-that the conditions laid down for the recognition of a mini-refinery preclude consideration of another mini-refinery anywhere else in Australia which might be set up as a small oil flow-and it might be to the best advantage to treat it in that way because of the limitation on litreage. We intend to move an amendment on that aspect because it is important to give the most encouragement to people in the industry to develop, produce and refine if that is possible. If a limit is imposed, those people will not be encouraged, because those undertaking this task will look at it from the point of view of what subsidy is available in order to determine their viability. We shall be dealing with that matter in Committee. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. All we are saying is that we will free up the market in respect of oil. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Dawson will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(12.45) —It has been brought to my attention that consideration is being given, and docments are being prepared, by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to changing the traditional arrangements whereby citizenship ceremonies are carried out by local government authorities on behalf of the Federal Government. If this comes to pass I believe it will be a totally retrograde step. I rise then, Mr Deputy Speaker, to lodge my protest and objection to any such move away from a very fine tradition acceptable to all Australians and trust that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will reject any such recommendation from his Department. One of the great strengths of the present arrangements is the significance that is given to the public act of taking out Australian citizenship by renouncing a former citizenship; an act that has great emotional involvement for most people taking part in the ceremonies. Since first being elected to this Parliament in 1966 I have attended over 100 citizenship ceremonies-or, as they were formerly known, naturalisation ceremonies-conducted on behalf of the Federal government of the day by the Sutherland Shire Council. Irrespective of who has occupied the important role of President of that shire-whether it was Arthur Gietzelt, presently a Minister in the Hawke Government; the Liberal President, Councillor Michael Tynan; the Independent President, Jean Manuel; or the current President, Councillor Skinner-the ceremony has been carried out with the dignity appropriate to the importance of the occasion. The regular attendance of large numbers of families and friends of those receiving their citizenship ceremonies is testimony to the high regard that people throughout the community put into the public declaration of taking out the prized possession of Australian citizenship. There is no reason, then, why we should move away from this established format which has developed traditions which indicate to the community at large that the taking out of citizenship papers is not just an administrative act like applying for a pension. It is an important event for the community to be made aware of the decision by so many residents born overseas to taking out Australian citizenship. The public declaration is a fitting format and I believe it must be maintained. The use of local government as the intermediary in these ceremonies is particularly appropriate. It is that form of government closest to the day to day lives of the average Australian which personalises the event. By using local government facilities we show what can be achieved through the co-operation of all levels of government. It personalises the ceremony of citizenship. It stops the act of citizenship becoming institutionalised into a statistical figure. Citizenship must not ever be regarded as a mere statistic. The act of taking out citizenship is very individual and very personal. To discourage the format of public declaration at a centrally located place, such as the local shire hall, is wrong and totally contrary to the spirit and mood of taking out citizenship. Of course, there are instances of people whose shyness and language disabilities can, and do, cause them embarrassment. For these folk there is already a way by which private ceremonies can be performed, and over the last 19 years I have been privileged to attend a couple of these and I note that they were carried out with great dignity by officers of the Department Were this proposal something that stood isolated perhaps it may not have needed to be publicised and it could have been regarded as merely the effort of an over-zealous departmental officer keen to make his mark, keen to impress his Minister. However, I believe that this should be seen against the background of other moves that have been made since this present Hawke Government took office. We have seen a series of moves which could have downgraded the significance of citizenship ceremonies. There has been an attempt to change surreptitiously the need for those taking out new citizenship to declare allegiance to the Queen of Australia. There was also the attempt to remove the choice of taking the oath or making an affirmation. Fortunately both of these attempts were futile in view of strong protests from members of the Opposition parties and the resultant general public outcry. There has been the fact that the paper upon which the certificate is printed is now of a much poorer quality. I would acknowledge at this stage the vocal protests made by a good friend Alderman George Moore, Mayor of Kogarah, in Sydney, on this subject. Now we have the strong likelihood that encouragement is to be given to all applicants for Australian citizenship to have their certificates presented to them at private ceremonies in the departmental office without any public statement or acknowledgement of this major event in the lives of each person who has made the decision to join us all as Australian citizens. The Minister must deny any such move or departmental recommendation and see that local governments throughout Australia are not only maintained as the intermediary to conduct these ceremonies but stoutly encouraged to improve continually the dignity and solemnity of such occasions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware there is an embarrassment and uncertainty among many permanent residents of Australia when it comes to following through the formalities which lead up to the taking out of Australian citizenship. Ethnic traditions can cause emotional and social barriers for many, particularly for many women who are the victims of broken marriages. I know from talking with social workers in this field that the public ceremony of granting citizenship is an horrific prospect and is the main reason why so many of these disadvantaged persons in our community will not take the necessary steps, with the resultant disadvantages which accrue to them and more particularly to their children if they do not hold Australian citizenship. For example, I know members and you particularly, Mr Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that employment in the Commonwealth Public Service is now not open to non-citizens. So any barriers which can be removed should be removed for these people. That is to say, private ceremonies should continue to be made available to them. there is a good argument, which I support, for facilitating the process of having a private ceremony. What concerns me today is the move within the Department-I know not whether it has the Minister's nod of approval or not-to do away with the ceremony performed by our local governments. A lot has been said about privatisation of certain government instrumentalities and institutions. What is very important to me is the need to personalise government in all its activities and to this end any shift away from the use of local government must be seen as a further move to depersonalise a very emotional decision in a growingly computerised society. I believe that the Minister is a compassionate man. I have had evidence of this in regard to some of the cases from my electorate which I have put to him. So I appeal to him on two points today. On the one hand, I believe he should be facilitating the ease with which certain categories of applicants should be allowed to have private ceremonies when making their statement of allegiance to our Queen of Australia. Unfortunately time does not allow me to properly develop this theme today. Secondly-and I believe there is a sense of urgency in this grievance today-I appeal to the Minister in the strongest terms to ignore any departmental pressure to have public ceremonies conducted by local governments throughout Australia, stopped. As I have already mentioned it would be depersonalising for all involved, and this proposal should be rejected by the Minister when or if it now finds its way to him. I thank the House. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.54) —Mr Deputy Speaker, my grievance today is about the Australian Press Council and, indeed, the bias of much of the country Press in Australia. The Press Council is on of those self-regulating bodies that tends to pat itself on the back for a job well done. I firmly believe, from personal experience, that this Council is a sham, its function is to protect the Press from criticism. Let us examine the statement of principles put out by the Australian Press Council. It claims that it will treat the public interest as its first and dominant consideration, and that readers of a newspaper are entitled to have both news and comment presented to them with complete good faith and, therefore, with scrupulous honesty and fairness in both statement and omission to ensure the truth and exactness of articles. The statement of principles goes on to say: A newspaper is justified in advocating its own views on controversial topics providing in doing so it treats its readers fairly by not mis-stating or suppressing facts which are relevant to conclusion which it encourages readers to accept-- I have no disagreement with that statement-- and not distorting or unfairly colouring news, either in the text or in headlines. Can we in all honesty say that many newspapers in Australia achieve this? This extract from the statement of principles is very important, as I will show later on in this speech. Just after I was selected as the Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Macarthur, the seat I held before the last election, the then Mayor of Nowra-at the instigation of the local Press, I might add-burnt an Aboriginal flag. This got a lot of publicity throughout Australia. At a fund-raising function for me a couple of people took up a collection to place an advertisement in another paper apologising to the local Aboriginal people for this great insult to them. A reporter from the Shoalhaven and Nowra News approached me and told me I had to use my influence to stop the advertisement appearing. I said that I could not do that, and even if I could I would not. The reporter then told me in front of many witnesses that the paper would work against me in the election campaign. Three days later the editor's secretary telephoned me and said that the editor had said that I did not exist. If I did not exist, how could they be ringing me up to tell me that I did not exist. Mr Barry Jones —They didn't even report me when I went there. Mr HOLLIS —The newspaper did not even report the Minister for Science when he came to my electorate then to campaign for me. It ignored him, as it ignored the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and many other Ministers who came, because it claimed I did not exist. It said that it would accept no copy from me, which it did not, and throughout the campaign this paper refused to publish my name or make any mention of me at all, except during the week before the election when it published a front page story hinting that I was living in an illegal dwelling-which I was not. Then, on the day of the election-it is usually published on a Wednesday-it published a 12-page edition which came out against me and praised my opponent. In fact, when we organised a few letters to the editor of the papers, having made sure that my name was included in those letters, the paper printed the letters but it took my name out each time. The town of Nowra has two papers and when I was not advertising enough in the other paper one day it removed all my Press releases and replaced them with those of my opponents. It informed me that, unless I took out full-page ads, it would publish nothing from me. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, that paper blackmailed me into spending over $4,000 in advertising. On the eve of the election it was going to publish a totally false and misleading story. I found out about this and eventually, on the day before the election, had to obtain a Supreme Court injunction against it. Despite my frequent challenges since the election to publish the story now, it has refused. My argument is that if it was important enough to appear the day before the election, when we had an electronic blackout and I could not answer it, why not publish it after the election? I could speak for hours about my treatment by these newspapers-the phone calls in the middle of the night, the invasion of my privacy and the many other problems that I have had with the media of Nowra. But I turn to another paper in my former electorate, the Camden Crier. For many years the transportation of coal in the Illawarra has been one of the most emotive and sensitive political issues. There have been endless discussions about rail verus road transport. The people of Camden had been convinced, wrongly, that unless the coal was transported by road the mines in the Burragorang Valley would close. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am of necessity condensing and simplifying a somewhat complicated issue. In November 1982 the New South Wales State Government relaxed the limit on coal transportation. I was contacted by the Camden Crier and asked for my views. The point here is that I was contacted by the newspaper; I did not contact it. What I said over the phone was that, although disappointed that the road limit had to be lifted, given the economic climate it was a realistic decision and it would save the mining jobs in the Burragorang Valley. When the article appeared on 10 November it quoted many people welcoming the decision, including the then sitting member, and went on to say that not everyone welcomed the decision: The endorsed Labor candidate, Colin Hollis, said he was disappointed that the limit had been lifted. My political opponent seized on this statement and used it in his campaign against me. Indeed, the article was reproduced and circulated throughout the electorate to show that I was anti-mining. The statement damaged me significantly in the election but, thank goodness, not enough to prevent me from being elected. When I was aware that I had been misquoted and that it was being used politically against me, I telephoned the editor, Barbara Turner, and, as she was out, I explained to a reporter the nature of my complaint and asked that the editor return my call. This she did not do despite me making several telephone calls. I reported the matter to the Press Council on 2 December. The Executive Secretary telephoned me and his whole attitude was to try to get me to drop the matter. In one telephone call he said that if I cared to send a letter to the editor he would see that it was published. I said that that was not good enough, that I wanted the same treatment that the original story had received and wanted my complaint to proceed. Despite the Press Council asking the Camden Crier for its version of events the Crier refused to co-operate. Finally Mrs Turner wrote on 24 June, saying: Mr Hollis was at no time misquoted but he was not fully quoted. Mr Hollis has been treated no differently than any other politician. Press releases sent by Mr Hollis have always been placed in the Camden Crier. How does this fit in with the stated objectives of the Press Council of not mis-stating or suppressing facts and not distorting or unfairly colouring news. The case was adjudicated on 28 July. The Press Council accepted what the editor of the Camden Crier said, including the lies in her letter, and dismissed my case. Even the report the Press Council issued was full of inaccuracies. It said: He had issued a Press release welcoming the State Government's decision to begin work on economic planning of the Maldon-- which the Council could not even spell- Dombartan-- which it also misspelt- rail link and stage two of the Port Kembla coal loader. It went on to refer to what was said in the Press release, but that was a lie because I never issued a Press release. I was responding by telephone to questions from the Camden Crier. By not fully quoting me, especially on such a sensitive, political issue, I have no doubt the Camden Crier and its editor were deliberately attempting to damage me politically. The Council said in its report: The Press Council believes the matter could have been resolved if Mr Hollis had taken advantage of the 7 December offer. That is rubbish. If the Press Council feels a letter placed in any position in a newpaper one month after such a damaging report is any compensation, it is naive. I do not argue that papers cannot decide whether or not to use a Press release, but when they seek views and one gives them, and those views are deliberately misquoted, I believe that the Press Council should act. Because of my lack of faith in the Press Council I would not bother putting any other case to it. I accept that there is always an uneasy relationship between politicians and newspapers, and politicians have no right to expect their utterances to be reported. But when a newspaper asks for our views and when presenting those views distort them, I do not consider that to be acting in a responsible manner. The newspapers talk a lot about freedom of the Press and we all agree with that. As politicians we know that we are going to be criticised and often taken to task, but how responsible are many of the country newspapers that exercise this freedom? I believe that the present Press Council, which is a sham, should be abolished. It serves no real purpose except to confirm the high opinion newspapers have of themselves. As I said, it should be abolished. But we do need a body with a watching brief on the media, especially the print media, as there are regulations on the electronic media and I personally have always found them to be less biased than the print media. They are more likely to give balanced reports. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.04) —I follow a very serious grievance. I have shared a place on a committee with the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and I have always found him to be a most honourable person. I am sorry that he has been placed in such a dilemma. Today all the world is searching for the truth; all the world is looking to journalists and cameramen to provide the truth, to make absolutely certain that the things that we read about and see on television are the truth. We want to see not just one side of the argument but both sides and we want to be able to determine what is right and what is wrong. There is an old saying in Tasmania that once a Tasmanian, always a Tasmanian. If one was born in Tasmania, has lived there, there is always a very close kinship, a relationship that is inexplicable. Most people in Tasmania were saddened by the passing of Neil Davis and I would like to read what Bruce MacDonnell, his former colleague and boss, if I may put it that way, said about the late Neil Davis, as faithfully reported in an article in the Hobart Mercury of 16 September 1985, headed `No tears are left for a frontline legend. Neil Davis died filming a military coup that would have not made news it did but for his death. It is a bitter irony and one which Davis's former boss feels only too well. Mr MacDonell is the General Manager of the American television network, NBC, in Asia and the Pacific and was a friend of Davis. They had worked on the front line together for years. Mr MacDonell flew into Hobart at the weekend to return Davis's ashes to his brother at Mornington. The article stated: It was a drained and grieving Mr MacDonell who spoke at the weekend about his dead friend. `There are very few tears left. Neil was a legend and, it is sad that in his own country you don't seem to realise what a legend he was', Mr MacDonell said. `He was probably the greatest war correspondent ever produced. People in my country are saying he was the Ernie Pyle of television.' Mr MacDonell worked closely with Davis in Kampuchea in 1978 and was in daily contact with him until his death. `He was a cool guy, and one you always wanted to work with', Mr MacDonell said. Mr MacDonell said that Davis knew the fine line between danger and death, and time again had warned colleagues of impending danger. Last Monday, that line blurred-and Neil Davis died. Mr MacDonell said the coup that caused his death was foolish and petty. One happened every two or three years in Thailand, and they were often resolved without a shot being fired. This time, Mr MacDonell said, someone in one of the rebel tanks wanted to show some strength by shooting at something, and the unarmed camera crew were the closest targets at the time. `It was an act of murder', he said. `He died instantaneously. Just before he died he said to his soundman `get down Bill'. He was worried about his soundman to the end. If anyone said Neil would have wanted to go this way, I would punch them in the mouth. He wasn't a hero, he was out there to stay alive. Mr MacDonell said NBC would offer a yearly television scholarship at the University of Michigan, in honour of Davis. The late Neil Davis, affectionately known as Tiny Davis, was born in Tasmania on 14 February 1934, son of the late Mr Geoffrey Davis, who was tragically killed in the horrific bushfires of 1967, and the late Marjorie Davis who unfortunately passed away when Neil was only 10 years of age. He attended the famous old Hobart High School, and many of his former colleagues living outside Tasmania would remember him most affectionately. He has one sister, Barbara, living in Hobart and a brother, Darryl. I extend to them I am sure on behalf of everybody in this Parliament our sincere condolences, and remind them that people outside Australia are now saying that he was a legend; he was the greatest. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, said to me just before I decided to pay this tribute to the late Neil Davis that he was a very fine Australian and a very fine professional journalist and cameraman. Most people would not realise that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-and let us remember that Neil Davis was apolitical-was a close personal friend of Neil Davis. They wrote to each other and, of course, we all remember the great contribution that the honourable member for Kooyong made for Australia in the area of foreign affairs. They wrote and they talked about the problems in Vietnam and Kampuchea, and of course Neil Davis faithfully photographed and reported some of those horrific scenes, including the fall of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, over 10 years ago. If one has not been in those areas and does not know what they were really like it is hard to understand the anguish and the problems that were associated with those poor countries. Neil flirted with death. He did a brave job, he knew what he was doing, but he did his job with a responsibility that could only be indicated by his bravery in reporting faithfully the problems in those countries. I am sure that, as the years go by, his work will be even more recognised than it is today. There was an editorial in the New York Times; there have been thousands and thousands of tributes. Apparently the funeral in Saigon was a massive one and it indicated just what the people of Saigon thought about this great man. To his family, rest assured that he will be remembered, and rest assured, Tasmania, that you have another great son. I am sure that as the years go by more recognition will be given to Neil Davis, cameraman and journalist extraordinaire. The honourable member for Kooyong said to me that he was going to have a talk to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) about the possibility of awarding yearly some scholarship to an outstanding war correspondent to commemorate this great man. Members of the Parliament, I am sure, join with me, and I again remind his family that they are linked with greatness. I am sure that the ceremony on 27 September 1985 at 3 p.m. in the large St David's Cathedral in Hobart will be overflowing. The tributes have come from several sources, and I should remind people that they too are Tasmanians. Tim Bowden from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who was going to write a book, is a Tasmanian and Phillip Koch, who attended the same school and is now Manager of the ABC here in Canberra, is also a Tasmanian who finished his education at the old Hobart High School. The boys and girls who attended the old Hobart High School will always remember with fondness that nice, young, tall blond boy by the name of Neil Davis who was always friendly, who was always decent and reliable. Incidentally, he was a very good Australian Rules footballer. He represented Tasmania in one of the early carnivals and played senior football for the Clarence club but because of his pursuit of finding out what was going on on the other side of the world of course he was lost to that sport. I have completed not really a grievance, though we do grieve that this good man was killed so tragically. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(1.14) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak today about my growing concern at the emergence of a new and dangerous force in Australian politics. Proponents of the new movement, whether they be called the dries, the radical right or neo-conservatives, are revolutionary in intent and arrogant in their beliefs. For the past few years we have seen the unfolding of a move by a small extreme group of radicals to take control and change direction of the Liberal Party of Australia. A few years earlier we saw the abortive attempt by the so-called uglies to do a similar thing in the Liberal Party with their own unique brand of emotive and irrational extremism. Of course the uglies failed in their ultimate objective. They softened up the Liberals for the so-called neo-conservatives. I say so-called because the use of the term neo-conservative is just one of the many deceptions they indulge in. They can claim to have classic values, but the classic period these values come from tends to predate democracy. In fact, I would suggest that neo-feudalists is a more appropriate term. Let us look at a few of their articles of faith: Firstly, dispense with public ownership of the great public enterprises and instrumentalities of Australia, including Trans Australia Airlines, Telecom Australia, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, The Australian National Line, Qantas Airways Ltd and so on; secondly, reverse the industrial relations framework in Australia to a frenzied free-for-all; thirdly, re-establish the financial exploitation of our young by the removal of minimum wages; and fourthly, participate fully in the Reagan star wars experiments. These four are just examples of their articles of faith; there are many more. The rhetoric behind these proposals would have us believe that there is evidence to prove that these actions would result in an improvement in the conditions and living standards of all Australians. But when the rhetoric is stripped away the sole basis for their claims is a flimsy ideology which is not only unproven but untried. The Australian Constitution is a fragile and imperfect instrument, aimed at forming a single unified country out of six competing States. Our early parliamentarians, including the conservatives, understood and responded to that. Over time they established a network of national instrumentalities that spanned our continent, bringing not only a sense of equality for all Australians but also, perhaps more importantly, a sense of pride in being Australian. An Australian, whether he or she lives in Port Hedland, Perth, Alice Springs or Artarmon, pays the same price to post a letter to anywhere else in the country. They pay the same price for a local telephone call and the Commonwealth Bank offers the same services, often through the local post office. All Australians are aware that they own Qantas, and they do so with a sense of pride. They are aware that all of our great instrumentalities are owned by them and are there to serve them. Convert those instrumentalities to private ownership and Australia will begin to fragment on vertical lines, with each community dependent upon the profitability of each service. Of course one must accept that each and every enterprise, whether public or private, will vary in its performance and efficiency from time to time. The mere ownership of an organisation does nothing, in itself, to ensure efficiency. Clearly an organisation can only be efficient and effective if its owners are committed to it, if its management is competent and if the members of its work force have a sense of pride in their organisation. The Opposition constantly refers to the sale of British Telecom as justifying the sale of Australian Telecom. I make it abundantly clear that the two organisations are very different and cannot be compared in terms of population distribution, services, demands, et cetera. However, having said that, let us consider some of the implications of the famous British Telecom sale. British Telecom's value has increased by some 150 per cent since it was sold and its shareholding has dropped from 1.7 million shareholders to one million. In other words three-quarters of a million shareholders have cashed in their shares in British Telecom, more than doubling their money. The cost of selling British Telecom was in the order of #300m. That went to the stockbrokers, underwriters et cetera, so they also made a very healthy profit. Since the sale the cost to domestic subscribers has increased whilst the cost to business subscribers has reduced. So who are the winners and losers? The winners include the stockbrokers, the advertising industry and all those who were involved in handling the sale. They included also those who were able to get in early at the subscription level and then cash in their shareholding not long afterwards, and of course the business community were winners as a result of reduced charges. The losers, of course, is the domestic subscribers, the normal English telephone user who is now paying a higher price for his domestic calls. Let us not try to pretend that it can be any different in Australia, because the shares will be sold only if they offer guaranteed profits for the purchaser, if they are a good investment. There will have to be a commission of some kind or other to the stockbrokers involved and the eventual large corporate multinational ownership will move the balance in relation to charges et cetera towards business subscribers. Another question that the Australian public should think about is who will be advising the Government on the value of these public enterprises. Can they be sure that it will not be a group that includes the right wing trio of Morgan, Elliott and Valder, and would that trio have first go at the purchase? Which stockbroker would handle the Commission for the sales, and can we be sure that those same stockbrokers will not be members of the Liberal Party. Down the trail one can see these major enterprises, of which Australians were so proud, eventually being controlled by overseas owners. Qantas could become Saudi-Australian Airlines, TAA would make a natural Austro-Asian Airways, the Commonwealth Bank would have to become the Westcom Bank and its Chairman would have to be Mr Bob White. Madam Deputy Speaker, the ideas the neo-feudalists present in industrial relations hark very much to their feudalistic basis. The voluntary agreements for employers and employees to go outside the industrial relations system is an open-ended invitation to mass exploitation. If employees of small organisations wish voluntarily to assist their employer there is no reason why they cannot do so now by contributing part of their income to purchasing shares in the company or extending loans to the employer. They can donate back part of their salary if that is what they want to do. There is no prohibition on that happening and we do not need a new industrial relations system for it to come about. What the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is proposing is something quite different. His proposal consists of the employer suggesting that unless the employee takes a cut in wages he will either sack him or close the business down. Hence these forms of voluntary agreements will be achieved at the point of a gun. The only logical result of this system will be a reduction in wages for tens of thousands of Australians who will be given the choice of a lower wage or the dole. On the other hand, the stronger strategic unions will have no such difficulties. This kind of industrial relations philosophy will ensure the establishment of new records of industrial disputes and erratic production. It is reasonable to ask how come this trend has developed in Australian politics. To explain it in depth would take more time than I have but one must look closely at the role of Mr Hugh Morgan, Mr John Elliott, Mr John Valder and others all of whom have one thing in common-an incredible faith in their own beliefs and an equal arrogance in their attitudes towards other Australians. The Liberal Party was weak and ineffectual following years of decay in the two main States and was ripe for a takeover, and that is what occurred. The takeover experts moved in. They, together with Bob White-who incidentally gave the famous instruction to dump the previous Leader of the Opposition-have staged a coup of monumental proportions. Not only have they obtained control of the Party machine thus allowing them to threaten pre-selections, but also they have been able to dictate the membership and policies of the shadow Ministry. Australian politics has a new radical force whose objectives are to dismantle many of the organisations and instrumentalities that we have long cherished and appreciated and to eventually dismantle our whole industrial relations system. At the end of all this they suggest that somehow the majority of Australians will end up being better off. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(1.24) —This afternoon I wish to address a major grievance of the sugar industry concerning the attitude of the Hawke Labor Government. There has been a 100-day committee of inquiry into the sugar industry and its recommendations have been made. I think most honourable members of this House are aware of the major crisis that the industry currently faces. There are two major problems and two alternatives. The first and major problem concerns the means by which European Economic Community countries and some other countries, but basically the EEC, have produced a major sugar surplus. That has led to a depressed world price for sugar, perhaps the lowest world price in real terms since the end of the second world war. Recently I read in a magazine, the Economist of 10 August, an article entitled `Enslaved by subsidies'. One part of that article, which has the sub-heading `Taxing the rich to ruin the poor, states: The European common market pays its farmers 20 cents-ie more than five times the current world market price to grow each lb of sugar. With such rewards, European farmers have increased annual production from 10.8m to 13.3m tonnes since 1977, when the EEC began to export more sugar than it imported. To avoid adding a sugar lump to its beef, butter and grain mountains, the EEC has `sold' 38m tonnes of sugar in the past eight years. The difference between the 20 cents a lb are paid for it and the 4 cents or so it fetches on the market is paid for by European taxpayers, who at present lose about $350 on each tonne unfortunately sold. In the United States, sugar farmers are getting about 17 3/4 cents a lb, or about four-and-a-half times the world price, with similar results. American sugar imports have fallen from 6m tonnes a year a decade ago to less than 3m tonnes now. Though America is at least not dumping sugar on the world market, it foolishly keeps domestic prices very high. This has made every kind of alternative to sugar artificially competitive. In consequence, a sugar substitute made out of maize, and called high fructose corn syrup, has captured about half the import market. With ludicrous logic, this has now set grain growers from the cornbelt to lobbying alongside plantation owners from the deep south for continued high rigged prices for sugar. All of this is an absolute disaster for Australia. We trade about 80 per cent or 2.5 million tonnes of our raw sugar on the world market. Subsequently we are at the mercy of the trade policies of Europe and the domestic pricing policies of the United States of America. The second major problem facing the Australian producing industry is one of domestic costs. While one cannot be categorical about the efficiency of all producers and all millers, they all suffer from the consequences of the rising costs of fuel-particularly those producers who have large acreages and perhaps something less than the latest technology in farm equipment; and they all are affected by the high real interest rates that this Government's economic policies have created for Australia. These interest rates, which range from about 19.5 per cent and higher, are considerably higher than those payable by overseas producers. We also have a great difficulty arising from our inflation rate. The projected inflation rate for Australia is some 6 or 8 per cent; the inflation rate for the EEC is 5.8 and United States rates are also considerably lower. Given that this is a deliberate policy of this Government to shore up our flagging dollar and given the low rate of interest of our competitors, the Federal Government has a real responsibility to help redress this particular position. Because it prevents individual producers faced with high interest rates benefiting from the collective advantages given by the devaluation these borrowers of funds at high interest rates are the real losers in the ailing sugar industry at present. The Savage Committee recommendations suggest as sistance through a price support scheme with a trigger point too low to assist either growers or millers and an interest rate scheme which is designed to assist in relation to only about $118 million of the some $300m of borrowings currently estimated to be outstanding in the sugar industry. Within the recommendations was a crop of deregulation procedures. These were forced on the Committee by the Government which, I feel, is seeking to implement Bureau of Agricultural Economics recommendations through the Industries Assistance Commission report on the industry. The alternative is to leave the industry to its own devices without price assistance to offset the corrupt practices of the EEC. If this is the option adopted by this Government the industry is damned to bankruptcy. Without adequate price assistance and being forced to deregulate, the industry will be damned to an almost similar fate. It is a matter of being damned if left to itself or being damned if locked into the recommendations of this Government's committee of inquiry. The answer is for the Commonwealth Government to provide adequate price support immediately, and to provide funds under the rural adjustment scheme for adjustment. In 1966-67 the Commonwealth provided loans for price support while the States financed the co-operative millers. The circumstances that exist in the sugar industry today are very similar to those that existed at that time and there is justification for a similar policy approach. Governments should join together in providing funds for the adjustment scheme, which is vital to the survival of the industry, and just as vital is the implementation of a price support scheme. This assistance must be made immediately available and the question of deregulating the sugar industry should be addressed by the industry itself. I believe that the responsible voices of the sugar industry recognise that there is a need for them to implement a program of structural change which will allow them to be competitive in world market circumstances which seem unlikely to change in the immediate future. It is to be hoped that if Federal Cabinet is to consider the sugar industry at its meeting on Monday in Townsville it will recognise the realities, recognise that it is dealing with people, that there is a future for the sugar industry in Australia-albeit on a changed structural basis-and that there is an absolute necessity for the Government to take more seriously its obligations to advance the case of the sugar industry both in the EEC and also with the United States Government insofar as its domestic pricing policy for sugar is having an impact on the world consumption of sugar by distorting the market for sweeteners towards the consumption of artificial sweeteners. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(1.31) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to mark the passing of Neil Davis who died during the abortive coup in Bangkok. I would like to support what the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said about Mr Davis. Neil Davis, as indicated by the honourable for Franklin a native of Hobart, will be remembered as one of the greatest war reporters of our time. His work covered almost without break the unhappy history of conflict in Indo-China from the early 1960s. There seems almost no time over the last 20 years that his name has not been in the forefront of those journalists living and working close to the scene. Neil Davis worked first and foremost as a cameraman. In that sense, his work is especially associated with recent developments in war reporting which, without supplanting traditional print journalist reports, have added critical dimensions of impact, insight and immediacy. As many have noted, the Vietnam war was the first war fought on the screens of television. That aspect permitted many people to see, first hand, as it were, the agony and cruelty of the conflict. There is little doubt that television coverage was especially important in the development of critical attitudes to Western development in the war. However, as valuable as that work is, few people probably understand the special dangers of the camera crews whose work obliges them to expose themselves at moments of maximum danger. These crews, linked together by sound cables and stumbling under the weight of their equipment across the battlefield, were and are amongst the bravest of war reporters and, of them all, the bravery of Neil Davis was legendary. There was another side to him which I think was magnificently portrayed in the 1979 Australian Film Commission documentary, Frontline, which brought his work to a wider audience. I feel that some Western journalists whose work takes them into the war zones develop a degree of insensitivity to unfamiliar Third World cultures. I suppose, in a way, this is an occupational hazard of sorts but Neil Davis, throughout his career, retained a remarkably humane outlook to life and a profound affection for the peoples amongst whom he lived and worked. His film footage is an irreplaceable part of the recent history of Indo-China. His career will be a continuing inspiration and example to all those journalists who follow him. The circumstances of his tragic death are, in microcosm, eloquent enough testimony to the value democratic people everywhere place in the work of the free Press. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(1.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to have given some of my time to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to pay tribute to Neil Davis and to also support the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in his tribute. I commend both of them and I am sure that they have the support of members of the House. I want to raise today a couple of matters. One that I think is of concern to a lot of people in the Australian community concerns unsolicited telephone selling. In the last week constituents of mine in the electorate of Stirling, Mr and Mrs Gifford of 29 Payne Court in Karrinyup, who own a small plumbing business, were telephoned by a company called Australian Wide Review and asked if they would like to take up some space in a purported journal called the Australian Engineering Review. The Giffords cannot recall agreeing under any circumstance to place that advertising space. However, in subsequent days they received a letter confirming that they had placed the advertising space and invoicing them for $195. Being people who, like many small business people, are very busy-they are hard at work trying to earn a living-they were a bit alarmed at this, particularly at a bill of $195. Fortunately they contacted my office, and I pay tribute to my staff who picked it up very quickly and drew it to my attention. We have been able to rectify the situation. Australian Wide Review now says that the contract has been cancelled. The important point is that this was a try-on involving a couple of innocent people who were trying to conduct a business properly and who received a letter alleging that they now owe a company money. I would like to draw to the attention of people listening and members of the House that this sort of activity is very wide spread. I am sure many people have received telephone calls soliciting business, and I would like to express the following thoughts: I draw the attention of the general community to the fact that people engaged in these schemes are engaged in nothing other than fraudulent and illegal behaviour because they are issuing invoices against goods or services that have never been provided. Business people should be very much aware that that can happen. I hope that the 400-odd members of the Osmond Park-Balcatta Business Association in my electorate are all aware that they can be prey to such practices. The problem when a business does not have an authorised advertising agency is that there is a tendency for it to not always be aware of what advertising expenditure it is undertaking, whereas if it is being funnelled through an agency there is an extra guarantee. That is an important issue that we ought to be addressing. A couple of things arise from that. I would be keen to see the Trade Practices Act when it is brought forward in a revised form increase penalties and toughen up these kinds of breaches because they are, literally, rip-offs. There is no doubt about it and I am sure members of this House have heard of them occurring in their own electorates. These schemes are ripping off people in the Australian community who quite innocently are being caught by these purported journals. Interestingly, when we checked with the circulation of Australian Engineering Review we found that it circulates to about 35 people. All they do is sent it to advertising agencies. It is not a journal-unlike the Bulletin, or whatever-that circulates widely through the community. It is just a rip-off. The other point I would like to make too, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I believe that we, as a community, must now start to look seriously at prohibiting telephone selling. It would be impossible to stop people picking up telephones and seeking to sell things but I believe it would be quite possible, within the context of the Companies Act in particular and the Trade Practices Act as well, to suggest that any purported contract entered into in such a way would in fact be null and void; that if a contract is not entered into in the presence of the parties to that contract, that contract would have no validity. That is the sort of situation we are going to have to face because clearly an increasing number of these crooks are seeking to take advantage of good people who are going about their normal business. In this case we have got the clear evidence and in this case fortunately Mr Gifford and Mrs Gifford have no particular debt. But I can imagine many people who perhaps might be less aware, who are very busy and who might just get caught out. It is a matter that we are going to have to take up; it is a serious matter and I would hope that we, as a community, can begin to address it urgently. The second matter that concerns me is the issue that has developed in the suburb of Scarborough in my electorate. In the last few days the former head of the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, Mr Wilkins, has basically said that he is in favour of high rise buildings in Scarborough and, in fact, he favours more high rise buildings in Scarborough. He points out that people in Scarborough are getting a better result with the high rise construction of the Bond Corporation. He also adds that neither the Government nor the Stirling City Council should kow-tow to suburban terrorism. I resent strongly Mr Wilkins implying that people in Scarborough are guilty of suburban terrorism. These are ordinary people in Scarborough who were very annoyed that Mr Wilkins, when he was Chairman of the MRPA, approved a building which has turned out to be both an eyesore and a public nuisance. The public nuisance aspect is quite significant. Mr Wilkins has decried allegations that television reception was being interfered with. I would ask Mr Wilkins to come to my office in Karrinyup and I will show him the letters of some 200 people who have written to me complaining about television interference in their own house. In many cases these people are elderly or invalids and watching television is one of their major forms of recreation. Their television has been completely disrupted by what, in my view, was a negligent decision by the MRPA. I say negligent because it was clearly known that such buildings cause television interference. It was clearly recognised in relation to the proximity of the Merlin Hotel project to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation station on Riverside Drive in Perth, yet the MRPA went ahead and approved the building. So they and the city of Stirling, in my view, have engaged in planning which is negligent to say the least. I might also add that we are having very good co-operation from officials of the Bond corporation including Bruce Buckley, who is in charge of the area. We are not having any obstruction at all from them; the obstruction has come from the city of Stirling and the former chairman of the MRPA. It is up to the new Chairman of the MRPA, Mr Bill McKenzie, who is doing an excellent job, to try to restore public faith and acceptance in the MRPA because it was seen as nothing but a rubber stamp for developers. I conclude by saying that these comments of Mr Wilkins only further shore up the belief that in fact his only interests are those of the developers. They are certainly not of the people of Scarborough. If he comes into Scarborough and talks with some of the ordinary people there he would recognise that the Authority's decision was gross, it was wrong and it was negligent. I believe that members of the public in Scarborough are paying the price for what was really a very bad decision. I make one other point relating to the MRPA. There is a proposal to extend Marmion Avenue into Scarborough; in other words to increase substantially the traffic volume in Scarborough. There has been a great deal of debate about it and it is still a matter that is up for decision by the State Government but there has also been a great deal of personal attack. It is interesting that the proponents of the road extension have chosen to attack the Scarborough Ratepayers Association and myself on the grounds that we have a vested interest. We have no vested interests; what we do have is an interest in preserving Scarborough and preserving its integrity as a suburb. I also have to point out that many people who are proponents of the road in fact live in the area of the West Coast Highway and their circumstances would be advantaged by such extension. My own position would be advantaged if the road were built, so one has to ask why would I oppose it. The grounds are clear-they are economic grounds, environmental grounds and the grounds of having concern for the suburb of Scarborough. With both high rise buildings and this proposal to extend Marmion Avenue the problems we face is that no one has had a good look at what is best for Scarborough. It is time that we did. It is an important area. Millions of people will be coming to Western Australia and many thousands to Scarborough as a result of tourism developments over the next couple of years. Very clearly it is time that we asked what is in the best interests of the people of Scarborough; how can we ensure that for a change their interests are protected. Their interests will be protected not by willy-nilly putting up high rise buildings on the beach, not by willy-nilly putting in roads which would dump more traffic into their suburbs, but by having a comprehensive plan to look at their interests for a change. Mr Deputy Speaker, these are two issues which I believe are of great concern to constituents of mine. The first concerns unsolicited telephone selling-it is wrong and should be prohibited by the operation of the Companies Act and the Trade Practices Act-and the second concerns recent comment in relation to planning in Scarborough which, in my view, leaves the people in Scarborough quite disadvantaged. It is important that some of us stand up for Scarborough. I believe that we can do a lot to preserve their interests. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(1.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a certain justification for adopting a policy of looking forwards rather than backwards. Those who constantly refer to the good old days leave themselves open to legitimate challenge on the basis that we are inclined to remember the best and forget the worst when recalling past experiences. However, it is valid to use history as a guide and teacher, to learn from previous success. The present generation does not have a monopoly on all the good ideas and they are not less prone to errors in judgment than their predecessors. To introduce and implement innovative and positive reforms of benefit to society generally is one thing, but to initiate change for the sake of change is quite a different kettle of fish. We are witnessing changes within this country and our community which are indefensible in terms of what is fair and best for Australia and Australians now and in the future. Not so long ago, certainly within the recall of most members of this Parliament, this country enjoyed a spirit of patriotism, adventure and advancement which was developed and maintained by an unashamed sense of loyalty and duty to and love of country, and a common bond which united Australians in the desire to be of service to their nation and each other. We were committed to establishing and maintaining an Australian democracy with just, reasonable and responsible laws-freedom of speech, religion and association and the freedom of opportunity for citizens to choose their own way of living and life subject to the rights of others. We accepted the responsibility and necessity of protecting people against exploitation, of caring for those who could not, for whatever reason, care adequately for themselves. We encouraged individual initiative and enterprise as the means by which to achieve real progress and stability. We were dedicated to ensuring at all costs the security of our country and the traditions and values which are the cornerstone of a decent and moral society. We were truly a lucky country. We knew it and we believed it. We enjoyed the benefits of our faith in ourselves and Australia and our confidence in our abilities to overcome any difficulty or challenge. Perhaps we became overconfident and too complacent. For some reason, perhaps because we had not been required for some years to put our beliefs, courage and determination to the test, perhaps because we simply became too involved with our own personal needs and advancement to bother about what was happening around us-the famous `I'm all right Jack' syndrome-as a nation and as a community we started to lose our way. The situation deteriorated so rapidly that eventually when someone told us that in fact we were an unlucky country some, unfortunately, started to believe it and react accordingly. There developed within our society a new breed of Australians who preferred to criticise and condemn rather than to praise and encourage, who sought out and publicised the negatives while ignoring the positives, who endeavoured to impose the will of a disgruntled and disillusioned few without regard for the rights of the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens. Increasingly sectional interests and vocal minorities were allowed to become too influential and powerful. They pursued their objectives with irrational, ill-founded arguments and misguided zeal-even, at times, with violence. The politics of envy replaced the politics of reasoned responsibility. The traditional standards and institutions which had served this country so well for so long were sacrificed on the altar of so-called social progress and justices. Governments kowtowed to the pressures exerted by these new order zealots and reacted by endeavouring to shut them up by paying them off with millions of dollars of taxpayers' money collected in spiralling amounts from those who were often quite wrongly classified as the haves and distributed it to those who were often quite wrongly regarded as the have nots. The cry `All aboard the Government gravy train' was heard so often that it became boring. Unfortunately, it was seldom ignored by the powers that be. Over the past three years the cry has become louder and even more frequent and the Government has become more unjustifiably generous in its response. Too much is being given away too easily. The long-suffering taxpayer is being asked to fund grandiose schemes and projects of little relevance or consequence for the welfare and well-being of the vast majority of Australians. These government initiated and/or approved and/or tolerated spending sprees are indicative of a disturbing trend towards government acceptance if not government advocacy of the concept of the public funding known as the Columbus doctrine. When Columbus set out he did not know where he was going, when he got there he did not know where he was and when he returned he did not know where he had been-but it really did not matter because he did it all on government money. The obvious flaw in this doctrine is that there is no such thing as government money per se. Government money is money provided by others for governments to use. Governments are not productive; they are spenders rather than earners. Their income is derived in a somewhat parasitic manner by compulsorily acquiring a portion-often an unjustifiably large portion-of the hard-earned income of the productive sector of the economy. The community has every right to expect the Government to administer these funds in a responsible and efficient manner so that unnecessary duplication within the various levels of government will be avoided, expenditure will be confined to areas that are appropriately and rightfully government responsibilities, benefits will be directed to people who are really in need, and grants and other forms of government aid and assistance will be allocated in a fair, equitable, practical and beneficial manner. But this is not the case. Consider the current trend to replace voluntary aid groups and organisations and the dedicated and competent volunteers, who provide a wide range of welfare and support services, with government funded agencies and highly paid administrators who, in some instances, provide greatly decreased assistance at greatly increased cost. Volunteers are becoming a disillusioned and dying race for want of adequate government encouragement and support yet they have always provided, and against enormous odds are endeavouring to continue to provide, a maximum contribution to the well-being of our community at a minimum cost to the public purse. There is something very wrong when voluntary aid agencies are being forced to close their doors for want of a few dollars-some small and reasonable financial gesture from the Government to indicate that their efforts are needed and appreciated-while at the same time one man is presented with half a million dollars of taxpayer's money as he deserts the sinking ship known as the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I do not believe that the majority of Australians want to see our heritage and our traditional standards swept away in a backwash of misguided so-called social reform. We must be vigilant to protect what must be preserved while at the same time recognising those things which should be changed. But this latter category does not include those ideals and institutions which are currently gravely threatened with replacement by less worthy substitutes-our flag, our constitutional monarchy, the role and relevance of our traditional family unit which must remain if we are to maintain a secure and stable society, and even our faith in and fear of God. All these things are being wrongly called into question and are endangered by those who seek to impose socialist concepts and policies in place of the hard won and irreplaceable freedoms, liberties and opportunities which are the basis of democracy. For the good of Australia we must now be prepared to say enough. As those who are entrusted with the enormous responsibility of safeguarding and guiding this nation through the uncertainties of the remainder of this century and into the challenges of the next, we must put aside any petty or preconceived jealousies, prejudices, bias or bitterness, forget favours owed or promised and get on with the enormous and exciting task which confronts us with tolerance, honesty and goodwill. The progress and prosperity of Australia and her citizens must be our first and only consideration. As James Truman Clarke once observed, a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. Unfortunately for Australia and Australians, particularly young Australians, there are far too many politicians and far too few statesmen. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(1.54) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to continue the theme of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) and discuss youth. I wish to raise the matter of youth wages and their relationship to the levels of youth unemployment. Statements by Opposition members clearly indicate that as part of their policy of deregulation of the labour market the first victims of their drive to cut wages are to be Australia's youth. Both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) are on record as saying that youth wages must be reduced before there can be any increase in youth employment. The Leader of the Opposition recently told the Victorian Young Liberal Movement that this policy of slashing youth wages was the only way to go and that this `may be heresy, it may be sound; it may sound troglodytan and we will be accused of returning to the sweatshops of the industrial revolution'. This debate gives me the opportunity to test whether the Leader of the Opposition and his mimic, the honourable member for Tangney, are guilty of the charges they suggest will be raised against them. Under this Government there has been a gradual fall in the level of teenage unemployment since it peaked, under Liberal Party policies, at over 28 per cent. In 2 1/2 years junior employment has risen by over 6.5 percentage points, representing a major reversal of the long term decline in junior employment that has persisted for nearly 20 years. Why was it that under the present Opposition Australia's youth were the greatest losers in our growing level of unemployment while they have been the major winners under this Government's policies? An examination of youth unemployment over the last 20 years provides the clue. We can see that there is a reasonably constant ratio between the rate of youth unemployment and the rate of unemployment generally for the entire work force. Between the 20 years 1966 to 1985 that ratio stood around 2.3 to 3; so there was a 2 per cent increase in general unemployment, youth unemployment rose 4.6 to 6 per cent and the reverse occurred when unemployment dropped. This constant ratio shows that the most promising solution to the problem of youth unemployment lies in the area of macro-economic policy and demand management rather than any changes in wage relativities. Broadly speaking, a fall in the overall level of unemployment because of successful expansionary government economic policies will produce the equivalent of between a 2.3 and threefold effect on the rate of youth unemployment. The figures I gave earlier for the last 2 1/2 years confirms that conclusion. Let me return to the Opposition's claim that the big rise in youth unemployment is due to junior wages being too high. To quote the honourable member for Tangney again, he said in the Canberra Times of 18 March this year: If you look over the last decade you will see that as wage relativities between young people and adults in the work force have been compressed so almost hand in hand have we seen a rise in youth unemployment. In the Opposition's mad rush to prove the basis of its dry labour market economics it has deliberately tried to mislead the public as to the reason for the changes in the levels of youth unemployment. The Opposition hoped that the community would actually believe that wage rates were the sole cause of unemployment and not its disastrous economic policies, which saw double digit unemployment and double digit inflation occur simultaneously-the only time in Australia's history. Evidence to the contrary cited by the bureau of Labour Market Research suggests that while there was some compression of youth-adult relativities between 1972 and 1974, that compression was not spectacular, nor was it fully sustained, and no similar compression occurred between 1981 and 1983 when the rate of youth unemployment rose by 64 per cent under Fraser-Howard policies. Obviously the question of youth relativities is of peripheral importance. Honourable members will be aware of a recent State award in Western Australia providing for lower youth wages through agreement provided extra jobs are created. The Chairman of McDonalds Family Restaurants, Mr Peter Ritchie, claimed that another 20 young people would be hired in western Australia under the State Industrial Commission's new ruling and a further 1,000 young people nationally if wages were more flexible. It is well known by teenagers that a job at McDonalds only lasts until they turn 18, then they are put off. It should be no surprise to honourable members to learn that 85 per cent of McDonald's 12,000 staff are under 18. If lower wages were introduced and a few jobs created by deregulation the way would be open to replace departing staff with new staff at the lower wages. This would be sheer exploitation and the charge of returning to the sweatshop, put forward by the leader of the Opposition, would surely stick. I ask the youth of Australia and this Parliament to compare the economics of this baccalaureate of hamburgology with the conclusions drawn by the reputable Bureau of Labour Market Research. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of parliamentary privilege. You will recall earlier this week having canvassed the failure of the delivery of Hansard because of difficulties in the Government Printing Office. I understand the reason for the delay today is that the Government has instructed the Government Printer to give priority to the printing of tax documents rather than to Hansard. In my view the availability of Hansard is an absolute prerequisite for the proper functioning of this place. I do not believe that the Parliament should be required to accept a delay in the availability of that document for the sake of the Government's trying to get together whatever tax package it will finally present to us. While I understand that the nature of this matter of parliamentary privilege is unusual, I see it as absolutely essential that Hansard be printed. I see no basis on which this Government can have its requirements for the publication of a tax statement and associated documents take precedence over the printing of Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the right honourable member that a breach of privilege involves a breach of one of the particular and special rights or immunities enjoyed by the House, its committees or its members. A contempt may be defined as an act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House, its committees members or officers in the discharge of their duties or which has a tendency to do so. As I understand the comments of the right honourable member, they do not contain grounds on which I could consider, for the purposes of standing order 96, that a prima facie case has been made out. The right honourable member has not presented any evidence of attempts to influence or obstruct any honourable member in the course of his duties as a member. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is in Melbourne today. In his absence he will be very capably deputised for by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to his statement yesterday, which I commend, concerning the decision of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to mount an industrial campaign in retaliation for the fines imposed on the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union. The Minister will recall that he stated: I shall certainly be talking to the ACTU about it and seeking to persuade the ACTU and the unions that might be involved in any such campaign not to take part in such a course. Because it would be counter-productive. Has the Minister had discussions or any contact on this matter with the ACTU and with what result? If not, in view of the importance of the matter, will he tell us when he proposes to see, or talk to, the ACTU? Mr WILLIS —I will attempt to arrange those discussions as soon as possible. It has not been practicable to do that since I made the statement yesterday. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the full circumstances of the payment to Dr Armstrong which the Opposition has sought to exploit in an attempt to destroy the bipartisanship which should exist on the question of the 1988 bicentennial celebrations. Mr HAWKE —This is a matter of importance; I hope that my answer can be heard in silence. When this Government came to office it inherited the legislative structure of the Australian Bicentennial Authority from the previous Government. It was staffed by people in whose appointment it had no input. One of the very first decisions I made as Prime Minister was that while I had grave reservations about the structure of the ABA and its lack of accountability to both the Government and the Parliament, we as a government would do nothing to put at risk celebrations in 1988 or the long preparation for them. I decided that attempts to change the Authority risked creating a political battlefield around a body that ought to be exempt from the normal partisan struggles that would certainly have flowed from such structural changes. Consequently, no changes were made. Most of the personnel of the ABA who are so actively the centre of both headlines and discussions in this place today were there when we came to government. In recent times the very harmony and unity that we sought to preserve around the Bicentennial Authority is being threatened by a growing storm of criticism and unease. In that context, I had several discussions with the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Reid, and on two occasions I had discussions with his officers as well. I asked Mr Reid to see me on 15 August in an attempt to find some solutions to the problems that were starting to beset the ABA. Among the matters I raised at that meeting, I told him that I had received a number of expressions of concern regarding the performance of the Chief Executive of the ABA and that there had been a unanimity of view regarding his inadequacy in that position-as it had been put to me. I told Mr Reid that I was concerned that the prospects for success of the bicentennial celebrations were likely to be substantially compromised if Dr Armstrong remained as Chief Executive. Mr Reid said that he would take on board my concerns and come back to me. On 19 August, after writing to me on the subject, Mr Reid phoned and said that he had given a lot of thought to my concerns, that he had spoken with Dr Armstrong and that as a result it had been decided that the ABA would be best served if Dr Armstrong were to end his service in it. Mr Reid told me that Dr Armstrong still had six years of his contract to run and that a very substantial settlement would have to be negotiated. I took the view that the highest priority had to be given to the protection of the ABA, to the morale of the people who would be continuing to plan for 1988, to the continuing unity and purpose towards the celebrations and to ensuring that whatever changes were necessary to better equip the ABA to fulfil its functions were carried out with the least possible disruption and acrimony. I told Mr Reid that the Government had no desire to be harsh or punitive towards Dr Armstrong and that if it were necessary for him to err on the side of generosity in the course of negotiating a harmonious and non-disruptive settlement, I thought that appropriate. Mr Reid told me that in view of Dr Armstrong's salary, long service leave, superannuation and other entitlements, the settlement figure would total more than $400,000. He was also adamant that he and he alone has the right and the obligation to negotiate the settlement with Dr Armstrong and I left the matter with him on that basis. Mr Reid further told me that discussions would take place between Dr Armstrong's solicitors and the Authority's solicitors. That was, of course, consistent with article 41 of the Articles and memorandum of association. On 28 August Mr Reid wrote to me and sought from me approval for the payment to Dr Armstrong in terms of the settlement he had negotiated with him. I shall seek leave to table that letter at the end of my answer. While the total amount contained in it is consistent with the amount Mr Reid had first mentioned to me, the method of arriving at it was vastly different from the formula, based primarily on six years of salary, that had first been outlined to me by Mr Reid. A large part of the settlement figure was made up of an item of $240,000: To refrain from becoming involved with the promotion and celebration associated with the Bicentenary in 1988 including acting as a consultant or discussing confidential matters relating to his employment with the authority. On 30 August, after having received from my Department advice on the legal position with regard to the authorisation of the settlement, I wrote to Mr Reid and told him that authority to settle any such payment was vested to himself as Chairman of the trustees, provided such payment was made within the general financial allowances for the Authority as agreed to by the Minister. He had this authority under sections 11 and 12 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act and article 41, to which I have referred. I shall seek leave to table that letter at the end of this answer. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister does not need leave to do so. Mr HAWKE —I was somewhat surprised by the change in the composition of the total amount. I took no action about it at that stage. I readily concede to the House today that perhaps I would have been wiser if, whether or not I had authority, I had questioned Mr Reid about it at that point. However, on 10 September I spoke again to Mr Reid. I raised with him my puzzlement at why the basis for the settlement had been altered. Mr Reid told me that the total figure was exactly that which would have been arrived at by the method that he had originally discussed with me. Mr Howard —That was 10 September? Mr HAWKE —Yes. However, the composition had been arrived at after negotiations between the Authority's solicitors and Dr Armstrong's solicitors to provide him with the best tax arrangements. He said that the Authority's solicitors had stated that the agreement reached was within normal commercial practice. I told Mr Reid that I would be most concerned if a settlement had been negotiated in such a way as to provide a contrived scheme to minimise Dr Armstrong's tax. Mr Reid told me that no discussion had taken place with him to that effect. I asked him to find out whether any such discussions had taken place with any other person and to come back to me with such information. That he undertook to do. When he had not provided me with that information by the time I returned from my short visit to Papua New Guinea on 17 September, I wrote to Mr Reid seeking from him an assurance that Dr Armstrong's settlement was not a device to minimise his tax. At this point I still have not received a reply from Mr Reid who is overseas, but I have been informed that he will reply early next week. Again I will seek leave to table a copy of my letter to Mr Reid at the end of this answer. These are the facts; the details of precisely what has happened as far as the Government is concerned with the departure of Dr Armstrong and the settlement that was paid to him by the ABA. Further, I add that on 10 September I asked Mr Reid whether he would be prepared to have a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition to acquaint him with all the facts of the matter. Mr Reid said that he would be happy to do so. I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition who also said he would wish such a discussion to take place. I asked Mr Reid to facilitate such a discussion and told him that I would want it on the basis that nothing was to be held back and that the Leader of the Opposition should be made privy to all the facts. I did that because I believed that it was vitally important that the ABA not become a political football and that for once in our lives we as a nation might be able to do something without the bickering and squabbling that so often seems to disrupt our economic and social life. I had hoped to have been able to take the steps to make the Bicentennial Authority a stronger and more vibrant body better able to carry out the tasks that all Australians expect of it with vigor, enthusiasm and efficiency. It has become clear in past days that such achievement is not possible, that the Opposition is determined to snipe away at the Government with no care for the damage that it may now have caused to the Authority or the celebrations. Having put the whole story on the table I put to the Opposition that the Authority was its creation while in government. The Chairman is its appointee and Dr Armstrong was appointed under its auspices. Now is the time for the Opposition to say whether it has lost confidence in Mr Reid. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister can just table the letters. There is no need for leave. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the answer to that question took almost 15 minutes. You would be aware of precedent in this place. I ask that the Prime Minister be prepared, therefore, to extend Question Time while he is trying to get a bipartisan situation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's point of order does not come as a point of order; It comes as a request. Mr CONNOLLY —Having just heard the Prime Minister condemn himself from his own mouth, I ask him two very simple questions. On the basis of the statement he has just made and on the answers he gave in the last two days, will he explain to the House how he reconciles the information that he has now given us with his Press release of 11 September 1985 when he said that the terms of settlement-I quote the words for the benefit of the House yet again-were `entirely a matter between the Chairman and Dr Armstrong'? Secondly, can he add some light to the question of why his first meeting with Mr Reid on this subject-the future of Dr Armstrong-was held at his request on 15 August, yet he wrote to Mr Reid on only 17 September? Mr HAWKE —In the very complete answer that I have given, I covered all the facts relevant to this issue. It should be apparent to the Opposition that the Press statement to which I have referred is a totally accurate statement of the position. The negotiations were, properly at the insistence of Mr Reid, a matter between Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong. Of course, it is true, as I made clear, that I had discussed this matter with Mr Reid beforehand. This is quite clear and apparent, but the actual negotiations were a matter between Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong. Indeed, in the sequence of events after I had spoken to Mr Reid on the date to which I have alluded, Mr Reid indicated that he would go away and think about what I had put to him. He thought about my view of the need for the termination of the services of Dr Armstrong. He then said that he had come to that view and insisted-as he properly had the right to insist under the law-that negotiation of the matter should be between Dr Armstrong and him. That was his proper insistence, proper in the sense that under the law passed by the previous Government that was as it had to be. So the statement that I made that the negotiations were between Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong was not only the fact, but the fact that it had to be under the legislation. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of concerns in Tasmania about Japanese sensitivities concerning the time being taken to decide on export licences for wood chips from Tasmania? When will the Government make a decision? Will that timing cause problems for the licences? What criteria will be used in reaching a decision on the conditions to apply to such licences? Mr KERIN —I am aware of the concerns being expressed about wood chipping. There has been a very vigorous write-in campaign, putting forward both sides of the argument, to my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, and me. Of course, wood chipping is a very complex and important matter. I have had various discussions in Canberra and I have visited Tasmania three times. I had discussions with Japanese importers in Tokyo in June this year and also in April 1984. I have listened to the views of environmentalists, wood chip employers, wood chip employees and Japanese importers. In all instances I have explained to these groups the processes involved in arriving at a final decision. The major input into the decision-making process is an extensive environmental impact statement which has now been something like two years in preparation. It is a very extensive statement. It is really an environmental impact statement for a whole State. The final EIS should be handed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment soon and he will then consider it and advise me accordingly. It is the proponents who at this stage are delaying presentation of the EIS to the Government, but they have had to take on board something like 450 submissions during the public comment stage since the draft EIS was available. The Government, in coming to its decision, must take into account three other major issues-the economic impact, the impact on the country's national estate and the social impact, especially on employment. In a recent letter to the honourable member for Lyons, the Prime Minister indicated that in taking into account these processes, the Government would be likely to reach a decision on the licences before the end of this year. When that information was provided to the honourable member it was thought, of course, that the Government was going to receive the EIS quite a bit sooner. Our customers have informed me that they are very much aware of our procedures, including the way in which environmental legislation is applied to wood chips, and that they have to deal with the same issues themselves in Japan. They have not indicated concern about the timing of the decision and it must be remembered that the licences are not due for renewal until 1988. A decision by the end of this year will give adequate lead time. I have previously stated my view that there should be a continuation of wood chip licences beyond 1988. This is not to prejudge any conditions that may be attached to the licences, nor to suggest that the wood chip industry will have carte blanche to move into environmentally sensitive areas or areas of particular importance to the national estate. Wood chipping is an important issue. The Government will make a decision after and only after all considerations have been taken into account. The honourable member for Bendigo, who takes a close interest in these matters, can rest assured that in issuing the licences that he has referred to and, indeed, in the case of other licences in the future, these important matters and the full processes will be given proper consideration. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the lengthy answer that the Prime Minister gave about the Australian Bicentennial Authority, which disclosed quite clearly that Dr Armstrong's position was central to the concern he discussed with Mr Reid about the ABA, why did the honourable gentleman omit any reference to Dr Armstrong in the explanatory statement he gave on 11 September regarding that discussion? Mr HAWKE —I go to the point that I made at the outset of the answer I gave at the beginning of today's Question Time. From the time we came to government, we have been concerned to try to conduct our relations with the ABA in a way which would ensure the least amount of disputation and the greatest degree of harmony. I saw no purpose in trying to have in the public arena difficulties in regard to Dr Armstrong. It was properly said by the Chairman of the Authority in the discussions that I had with him that this was a matter he wanted to handle in a way in which he believed, if handled properly by him, as was required by law, would achieve an outcome in which there would be no repercussions as far as Dr Armstrong was concerned. That seemed to me to be an eminently proper and desirable course of action. I have conducted myself in relation to this matter in a way that is consistent with that very proper expression of view by the Chairman of the Authority. On behalf of the Government, at this stage I have conducted our response to these matters in a way which I hope will still mean that that view, which was expressed and which was common to Mr Reid and me as to the desirability of maintaining an exposure of the problems in regard to Dr Armstrong will be maintained, to the most limited extent. I add to that what I have said in my first answer. Once, on a concentration on this matter, it became apparent to me that there were questions that needed to be asked about the composition of the payment, then of course it has not been possible to adhere to that desire to keep the question of Dr Armstrong's termination at a minimal level of publicity, something which was obviously regarded as desirable in everyone's interest. We were not going to allow that proper concern to stand in the way of a proper question that needed to be put when the composition of the payment became apparent. Mr DUBOIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. What is the Government's immigration policy response to the worsening situation in South Africa with the increasing unrest and government repression affecting all sections of the South African community? Mr HURFORD —By way of background to this matter, 1,700 people-white, black and coloured-arrived as immigrants from South Africa in 1984-85. Whether more people will arrive this year depends on who qualifies under our global non-discriminatory rules. It is now too early to tell, but the House may be interested to know that inquiries in our offices in Pretoria and Cape Town have doubled in the first half of 1985 compared with the first half of 1984. Indeed, there was a big increase in July 1985, when eight times the number of people were in touch with our office compared with July 1984. Of course, inquiries do not necessarily mean that those inquiring will come under our global rules and qualify to come to this country. Frankly, I do not expect any dramatic increase. If I can remind the House of those global rules, they are based on family reunions, on our skilled labour requirements and on business migration. When it comes to refugees and the special humantarian program, only nine people came here from South Africa in 1984-85 as refugees. The only exceptions to our global rules are New Zealand, where we have a common labour market, and also the Lebanon, where temporarily we are discriminating in its favour because of its troubles. The Government has no plans to make any exception for South Africa. Any such move would also apply to Sri Lanka or any other sadly disrupted place. Re-settlement in Australia is not a solution to all of the trouble spots of this world, whether it be Sri Lanka, South Africa or anywhere else. I wish to say a little more about those global rules as they apply to South Africa because although a number of members in this House at the moment are interested in other things, a lot of people in Australia are interested in the future of settlement from South Africa. The global rules are such that no account is taken of a person's race, colour or ethnic origin. The predominant number of those applying in Pretoria are white, but 70 per cent of those applying in Cape Town, for instance, are non-whites, mainly coloured people. Another point is that anecdotal evidence shows us that those coming here are predominantly opponents of apartheid. Lastly, I would like to say that although an immigrant's politics is not known, there are selections where we take note of whom we are bringing here and our selection processes bar anybody with a terrorist background and also people who are known racists and who would consequently not settle well in this multiracial, multicultural society of ours. This Government's objective in relation to South Africa remains peaceful change. We have sought to play our part to change the hearts and minds of South Africans to bring about peaceful change through our sports contact policy and through our sanctions. Just as we would not be allowing racists here under our settlement policies, at the same time we hope we will not attract too many sensible South Africans who have a capacity to lead South Africa to that peaceful change. Mr HOWARD —I ask- Mr Hodgman —Can we hear about- Mr SPEAKER —Order! One of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues is interrupting him. Mr HOWARD —I am used to that Mr Speaker; we are old friends. Mr SPEAKER —I have noted. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister a question. Will the honourable gentleman tell the House whether he had in his mind concern about the composition of the sum to be paid to Dr Armstrong when he first spoke to me about this matter? Mr HAWKE —Yes indeed; when I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition in my office, I certainly had a question about the composition of the sum and it was a matter that was discussed with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Minister for Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald which suggests that the Department of Aviation has now completed its inquiries into allegations that the Premier of Queensland and his chief pilot, Ms Beryl Young, breached air safety regulations and claims that key witnesses to the investigation have been intimidated by the Premier. I ask whether the Minister has the results of the Department's inquiries. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. There has been a number of Press reports which allege that the Queensland Premier had flown the Queensland Government's Super King aircraft at various times during 1983 and 1984 although his pilot's licence was not endorsed for that aircraft. It was alleged also that Ms Young, as pilot and commander of the aircraft, had permitted Sir Joh to fly the aircraft even though his licence was not appropriately endorsed. As a result of this media interest- Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, this matter is presently before the Federal Court of Australia. It is up for litigation. It is something that should not be discussed in this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Is it a matter that is before the court? Mr PETER MORRIS —No. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not possible for the Chair to be conscious of the process of legal cases. The Minister assures me that it is not before the court and I have to accept his assurance. Mr PETER MORRIS —As a result of this media interest, six journalists were interviewed but, unfortunately, only one formal statement was obtained. Two journalists preferred not to make statements while three journalists had not seen the Premier at the controls of the aircraft. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots claimed that a former pilot with the Queensland Government air wing had conclusive evidence in this matter, but he declined to provide information, apparently fearing retaliatory legal action by the Premier. All the evidence gathered was passed to the Australian Government Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Brisbane for assessment. The Australian Government Solicitor has formally advised the Regional Director of my Department in Queensland that there is insufficient evidence to support licence suspension or cancellation action under the Air Navigation Regulations. The Director of Public Prosecutions has formally advised that there is no case against the Premier, as each of the alleged breaches being more than 12 months old, is statute barred. Therefore, on the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor, no action has been taken under the Air Navigation Regulations regarding the licence of either the Premier or Beryl Young. Beryl Young has stated categorically that at all times she was in control of the aircraft and that the Premier occupies the co-pilot's seat but for public relations reasons appears to be in control. That is a bit like the current situation in Queensland. Mr Young —It is a bit like the Government up there. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a bit like the Government up there. The Premier of Queensland has clearly used the media to convey the impression that he is an intrepid pilot who flies the Queensland Government's Super King aircraft, an aircraft which he is not qualified to fly. The Premier in the past has been most voluble about his flying prowess, but now he is notably mute. The question remains: Has the Premier been engaging in an elaborate hoax to inflate his own ego and to dupe the people of Queensland and the media, or has he been breaching the Australian's Air Navigation Regulations? Whatever the answer, this unnecessary situation brings no credit to the office of the Premier of Queensland or to Sir Johannes's self-proclaimed reputation as a responsible pilot. All I can say is that this maverick and irresponsible kind of attitude can only harm the advancement of aviation safety in this country. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister a question. He will recall advising the House a few moments ago that in the course of his discussions with Mr John Reid a sum of $400,000 was mentioned as the possible quantum of the settlement with Dr Armstrong. At the time of those discussions, was reference made to the legal entitlement of four months notice for Dr Armstrong? If so, was there any suggestion that the terms of settlement would be a matter between only the solicitors for the Australian bicentennial Authority and Dr Armstrong? Did the Prime Minister take separate legal advice? If so, when? At what stage did he decide that the amount of $400,000 was beyond that which might reasonably be paid in the circumstances? Mr HAWKE —In the discussion I had with Mr Reid the point was made that the settlement to buy out the contract would be substantial because the contract had about six years to go. The salary was $60,000 to $70,000 and applying to that the relevant long service leave and annual leave provisions gave us the sort of figure that was being talked about. That was the extent of the conversation which set the order of the figure that could be involved. As to the second part of the question by the Leader of the National Party, my concern about the amount went predominantly, as honourable members can see, to its composition. It was in regard to the composition that I had the telephone conversation with Mr Reid-on 10 September, as I recall it-and in respect of which the letter was subsequently written. I am not sure whether I am correct in saying that the conversation was on 10 September, but it was on the Thursday before I returned from Papua New Guinea that I wrote to Mr Reid confirming the conversation I had had with him at the end of the previous week. My concern, as I have made clear, was about the composition because my original understanding was that we would get to that order of figure by multiplying Dr Armstrong's salary by six. I referred in my answer to the first question on this matter today to the concern about that composition and the fact that it differed from that which was originally indicated. It was for that reason that I wrote to the Chairman of the Authority. As I have said, I expect to get an answer from him early next week as he is overseas now. The appropriate time to get advice as to the composition or the appropriateness of that amount in terms of its composition will be after I get that reply from Mr Reid, and not before. Dr KLUGMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation been drawn to the unscrupulous advertising campaign launched by Air New Zealand? Will he urge Qantas Airways Ltd not to use the fringe benefits, if any, provided by its stewards and stewardesses to compete with Air New Zealand? Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not thank the honourable member for the question. My attention has not been drawn to the advertising campaign by Air New Zealand, but the honourable member has drawn my attention to a report in this morning's Melbourne Sun entitled `Passenger tells of sex in Jumbo'. It is under the by-line of one Bruce Morris, who I have to say is unknown to me. Mr Hawke —And, more importantly, unrelated. Mr PETER MORRIS —And unrelated, as the Prime Minister reminds me. I can only leave it to the gallery and to honourable members to interpret for themselves what the honourable member is referring to when the article refers to `sex in jumbo'. There are a number of interpretations one can place on that. I do not know what the case is about compensation. All I can say in respect of the issue is that it may be an occupational hazard for those employed in the industry. On the other hand, for the passengers it may be a hazard of long distance travel. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to paragraph 2 of the letter of 19 August 1985 to the Prime Minister from Mr Reid, the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. That second paragraph reads as follows: I have already taken first steps to achieve the objective you wished. Does that mean that the objective wished by the Prime Minister on Mr Reid was in fact the resignation of Dr Armstrong? Mr HAWKE —I have already made it clear in my answer today that, amongst the matters I discussed with Mr Reid, was precisely that matter. Mr Howard —So, you agree? Mr HAWKE —I said; I say again in case- Mr Howard —It is relevant to your credit. Mr HAWKE —I have made it clear in the first answer I gave today that I had conveyed to Mr Reid the view that, in terms of all the advice I had, the best future interest of the Authority would be served by the resignation of the current Chief Executive and that that is what should occur. As I have already said in answer to a previous question, Mr Reid said that he would consider that. He went away and considered it and contacted me and he said that he had come to the position that that should be done. It was in that context of him having come to that position in light of the view I had put to him- Mr Connolly —But you have been claiming that you had no authority- Mr HAWKE —Let me deal with the inane interjection of the honourable member for Bradfield saying that I claimed that I had no authority. This is the very point. I had no authority. I did not create the legislation. The people opposite created it. If they had created legislation whereby the Government had authority I would not need to have had the discussion with Mr Reid, with the Chairman of the Authority. The fact is that the only way in which that objective could be achieved is if the Chairman of the Authority came to the decision that that in all the circumstances was the appropriate thing to do; and he conveyed back to me that that is what he would do. The fact of authority existed because of the legislation that those opposite passed. I conveyed a view to the Chairman of the Authority. He considered it and then conveyed to me that then he would take the steps as only he, under the legislation of those opposite, could do. Mr GRIFFITHS —I draw the attention of the Minister for Aviation to an application by East-West Airlines Ltd to relocate its Victorian based operations from Melbourne Airport at Tullarmarine to Essendon Airport and to the many expressions of concern by local communites to such a proposed move. Can the Minister advise the House of the current status of this application? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the very keen interest that he has taken in this matter on behalf of his constituents. I had the opportunity of discussing East-West's proposals to transfer its operation from Tullarmarine to Essendon Airport with the honourable member, as I have indicated, and with representatives of local communities. There has been considerable adverse community reaction to the proposal and I understand that the cities of Essendon and Keilor have stated that they wish East-West to remain at Tullamarine. I have to say that a review of the role of Essendon Airport is nearing completion and the House of Represenatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation is conducting its own aircraft noise inquiry, including an examination of operations at Essendon. I expect that both of those reports will be available later in the year. In these circumstances I have advised East-West Airlines this morning that I consider that it would not be appropriate to agree to its proposal at this stage for a transfer to Essendon. In coming to this view, I have also taken into account the fact that there are facilities available for regular public transport services at Tullarmarine and I have directed my Department to ensure that East-West Airlines is accomodated at that airport. Mr LLOYD —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Aviation, also concerns East-West Airlines Ltd. I was beginning to despair whether he would ever get a serious question on the subject. On what basis does the Minister justify the inordinate delay in the processing of East-West's application to import F28 and Boeing 737 aircraft? Why is the application not processed on the same basis as those from Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines, when one remembers that it made that application in March-April? Mr PETER MORRIS —The answer is very simple. In respect of the Boeing 737-200 application, the airline itself some time ago asked that further consideration of that matter be deferred. In compliance with its request, I have deferred consideration of it. That was its request. I do not know what misinformation the honourable member for Murray has been receiving, but that happens to be the fact. If he asks silly questions he will get the answers he deserves. In respect of the application to import the F28, on 26 July I discussed that matter with the Managing Director of East-West Airlines. In the matter of that discussion I drew to his attention and that of his colleague present that, in differing items of correspondence provided to me by the airline, it had provided conflicting claims. On the one hand, it said that it had excess capacity. On the other hand, it sought additional capacity. Obviously both versions could not be correct. On that date I asked the airline to clarify the situation. As of this time, this afternoon, I have not received a response. Mr WRIGHT —I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to the continuing attempts by the Bjelke-Petersen National Party State Government to politicise the crisis in the sugar industry. Is it correct that it has been the Queensland Government that has been procrastinating and delaying the finalising of a support package? Will the Minister outline the steps that he, as Federal Minister, has been taking to try to have the State Government meet to resolve this issue? Mr KERIN —If I could just go briefly into some background, the industry of course has very difficult internal politics. The situation between the millers and the growers is well known, as is the difference between regions; and the fact that this industry is also bound up very tightly with Queensland law makes change in an industry that is clearly under stress-and that is understood by all members of this House-very difficult to achieve. What has been achieved is this: At the end of last year when the Prime Minister met a delegation from the Queensland Cane Growers Council agreement was reached to set up a committee between the Commonwealth and State Government and the industry to try to look at the industry within 100 days because the Commonwealth and, we thought then, the Queensland Government accepted the urgency of trying to reach a decision on this industry and on which was the best way to go. What we have before us now is a report by that committee, the 100-day committee, under Mr Russell Savage, which put a view agreed to by the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and the industry members of that committee. Of course, that committee came up with a package that had been agreed to in varying degrees by various people in the industry. That report was to be presented to both governments. When I went to Queensland on the day that the report was to be presented to Mr Turner, the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, and me, I arrived to find that any negotiating position that Mr Turner had had been withdrawn by the Queensland Premier; that is, we were not to talk about the report. The report had already been given out to the Press with an accompanying statement. I swallowed my pride at that, but I simply say that the report was to be given to both governments and it reflected an enormous discourteousness to the Prime Minister of Australia that that should take place. The report is now widely released and people are taking all sorts of decisions on it. State National Party members are taking rather extreme positions, amounting to saying that there is no need to involve the Commonwealth at all. That is absolute nonsense. I am happy to report that Mr Turner is prepared to talk with me on this matter next Wednesday. The Commonwealth will be having a Cabinet meeting in Townsville on Monday and will discuss the whole question of the sugar industry once again. All that has happened since the report was delivered in terms of contact between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government is that the Queensland Premier, in his Budget, came forward with $10m for a rural adjustment part B-that is, the part of the rural adjustment that requires additional money from the Commonwealth, or matching money-but there is no discussion about that. Therefore, he is now running around claiming $20m assistance to the sugar industry when in reality there is no capacity in that industry to pay off carry-on finance. I think that basically the whole proposal smacks of a little bit of opportunism. I do not want to make a lot of politics about this industry. It is a very complex issue and we need to talk about it. I make the point that it is absolutely essential for the two governments and the industry to work together. In terms of looking at other industries which are in trouble, whether the car industry or the steel industry, we have put together packages involving the principal parties. If anyone does not think that the Queensland Government is involved as a principal party in the sugar industry he ought to look again. The Queensland Government set up all the legislation. Ninety-four per cent of Australia's sugar is grown in Queensland. It is Queensland's second biggest rural industry and Queensland well knows it. Mr Sinclair —That is rubbish. It is an export industry and you know it. There is no sense in talking about income support, which was one of the recommendations of the Queensland Government. Mr KERIN —I did not hear the right honourable gentleman's interjection. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister ignore the interjections and keep on with the answer. Mr KERIN —I am talking about the legislation, Mr Speaker. Mr Hodgman —Perhaps he should go to Tasmania. Mr KERIN —You ought to read the Hansard too, dumbo. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore interjections. Mr KERIN —There were three or four major recommendations of the Savage committee. One was about various measures with respect to restructuring which will require the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government to talk. The second concerned income support which, again, will require the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government to confer. The third measure was about a rural adjustment package which, in dealing with other States-as I am doing with Victoria regarding dairying and dried vine fruits-it is essential and sensible for the two governments to confer. The fourth matter was whether, with respect to research, the Commonwealth can deal directly with the industry. As far as income support is concerned, it is not just a question of snapping a figure out of the air. If one looks at the Savage recommendations one takes into account the fact that the sugar price is pooled through a year and that we have a floating exchange rate. It is very important that we agree not only to the level of funds to be supplied by both governments but also on the method of supplying such moneys. I have said that the Queensland Government ought to be involved financially with respect to this industry. The Queensland Government has indicated that, as far as rural adjustment is concerned, it is prepared to be involved. I welcome that. However, I do reject some of the claims by the Queensland Premier that Queensland has no capacity to contribute to this industry. We have a fair idea of how much capacity the Queensland Government has through information available publicly through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the Loan Council and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For example, in 1984-85 Queensland had a cash surplus of something like $100m which has gone into off-Budget accounts. From ABS figures we know that in 1982-83, it had at least $284m in terms of cash holdings; in terms of borrowing surpluses, in 1983-84 it had $634m, in 1984-85 it had a $121m borrowing surplus, and we know that it had $39m up the Rural Reconstruction Board hollow log. So it is nonsense for the Queensland Government to say that it has no capacity to contribute to this industry. What the Queensland Government lacks is a willingness to contribute and a willingness to talk and discuss this vitally important Queensland industry. The Clerk-I have received from the Leader of the Opposition notice of his intention at the next sitting to move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his misleading statements and inadequate handling of matters related to the resignation of Dr Armstrong from the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Prime Minister of which he has given notice for the next sitting. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.56) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his misleading statements and inadequate handling of matters related to the resignation of Dr Armstrong from the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The Opposition moved censure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the matter of Dr Armstrong's resignation from the Australian Bicentennial Authority because we believe that on two accounts the Prime Minister is guilty of misleading the Australian public and, more specifically, of misleading the Australian Parliament. The matter does not relate, as those in the Government would allege, to whether or not Dr Armstrong should have continued as Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority; nor indeed does it relate to the continuing fitness or otherwise of other senior office bearers of the Bicentennial Authority. It is not Dr Armstrong or Mr Reid who is in the dock today; it is the Prime Minister who is in the dock today, because it is the Prime Minister who has misled this Parliament. We have just had the Prime Minister, characteristically and predictably, on a day that a taxation package-which will swamp the news media tonight and tomorrow-is about to be brought down, come into this Parliament and get up in the most abject circumstances to say that he misled the Parliament and the people in the previous statements that he made. Mr Speaker, I take you back to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 11 September. That followed the stories circulating about the payout of a large sum of money to Dr Armstrong in consideration of his retirement as Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority. I ask honourable members to listen very carefully to what the Prime Minister said and to assess for themselves whether the charge of misleading the Parliament and the people is a fair one. The Prime Minister said: I have been asked about reports of the settlement of the terms of the contract of the former General Manager of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Dr David Armstrong. Critically, in the second paragraph, he said: In recent weeks I have had several discussions with the Chairman of the ABA, Mr John Reid, about both specific criticism of the ABA and the plans that were being made for the 1988 celebrations. He went on to say: After those discussions took place, Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong concluded that the interests of the ABA would be best served if Dr Armstrong were to leave its service. The negotiation of the terms of settlement of that departure was-as it had to be under the terms of the legislation establishing the ABA-entirely a matter between the Chairman and Dr Armstrong. I have no comment to add about those terms. That was the text of the Prime Minister's statement. That is what he said about his discussions. At that time, no doubt the Prime Minister and his advisers believed that this was a matter that somehow or other would go away-that there would be other things that would occupy the minds of the public. But it has now transpired-not the least on the Prime Minister's own admission-that the truth of the matter is that he told Mr Reid that he thought David Armstrong ought to go. I am not going to contest with the Prime Minister whether or not that was a valid judgment reached by him as the Minister responsible. I want to make clear on behalf of the Opposition that we are not disputing the right of the Prime Minister, as the Minister responsible for the Authority, to express the strongest possible view to the Chairman of the Authority that something ought to be done about the administration of the Authority. We are not saying that. I have to say on behalf of the Opposition that now that the matter has been raised that there are aspects about the direction of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and some of the approaches being taken that do cause us some concern. It is not my argument with the Prime Minister that he exercised his authority to talk to Mr Reid about it. I have no quarrel with that. But what I quarrel with and what we censure the Prime Minister about is that he did not come clean in his statement of 11 September because that statement of 11 September, against the admission he has now made, at least by omission was patently misleading. It now transpires, according to the Prime Minister's own admission, that what really happened was that they had a discussion and the Prime Minister told Mr Reid that in his view Dr Armstrong ought to go. The letter from Mr Reid to the Prime Minister dated 19 August 1985 reads as follows: 1. I refer to the matter we discussed on Thursday last, 16th August, item one of our meeting. Not just one of a number of matters, as the Prime Minister would have us imagine, but item 1. It could concern only one subject, and that presumably was the position of Dr Armstrong. Mr Reid then goes on to say: 2. I have already taken first steps to achieve the objective you wish. I repeat: `First steps to achieve the objective you wish'. Yet, the Prime Minister would have us believe on 11 September that they discussed criticisms of the ABA and concern about the 1988 bicentennial; but then, dismissively, all of the negotiations are a matter between Dr Armstrong and Mr Reid. The Prime Minister cannot run the argument that by covering this up he was trying to avoid criticism of the Authority because the explanation he gave was that they had canvassed criticism of the Authority. So he cannot run that as a satisfactory argument. Mr Reid then went on to say: 3. As agreed between us, he and I discussed the subject which was item one of your and my conversation at our meeting. Once again this item 1 comes back. It is item 1 on the agenda for their discussion but it does not rate a mention in the public Press statement of the Prime Minister. Yet, he will tell the Parliament that he has come completely clean and that he has been totally candid. Mr Reid then goes on to say: 4. All being well, I hope to have the matter settled this week or early next week. However, see below. He then went on to say: 5. I am anxious to achieve a civilised and especially a non-public statement. This will require care and skill to accomplish. He then makes certain other requests which, for the moment, I will omit. Perhaps prophetically, in the penultimate paragraph of his letter to the Prime Minister, he went on to say: It is vital that no mistakes are made on this matter. Of course, that is one expectation expressed by Mr Reid that has not been realised. So, criticism and complaint number one against the Prime Minister is that at least by omission he blatantly misled the public in his Press statement of 11 September. All of the material that he has tabled in the Parliament today and all of the admissions that he made conclusively demonstrate that he has misled the Australian public. But, of course, that has not been the end of the matter. Under questioning in this Parliament and under the pressure of mounting public concern, the Prime Minister over the last couple of days has engaged in a quite extraordinary performance in this Parliament, first trying to brush it all off and trying to say: `You are a grubby bunch for even raising it'. That basically is what the Prime Minister said. Bipartisanship is great when one is in trouble but when one is not in trouble one does not even get a mention. I believe that basically that is the philosophy that has been tried to be applied in this matter. I want to say to the Prime Minister that I do not accept for a moment the proposition that a bipartisan approach by this side of the House to the bicentennial or, indeed, any other matter for a moment precludes the legitimate right of an opposition to ask straight probing questions about the conduct of a government. The idea that bipartisanship should muzzle an opposition into asking questions is an absolute nonsense. It is certainly not something that we are going to allow. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that yesterday at the end of Question Time I asked the Prime Minister two questions. First of all I asked him whether he would table all of the relevant documents. The second question I asked him was whether, in the name of achieving a bipartisan resolution of this matter, he would agree to the appointment of an independent arbitrator acceptable to him and acceptable to me who would advise whether in all of the circumstances the amount paid to Dr Armstrong was fair and appropriate. He did not answer that second question. He ducked away from it which, of course, has to raise certain queries about his bona fides on bipartisanship on this issue. But very importantly, in answer to my first question, he made an extraordinary comment, extraordinary in the light of the admissions that he has made today. He said: I appreciate the question that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition and I respond in these terms. Listen to this- In regard to the relevant documents, I am prepared to do what I have already done; that is, to show the Leader of the Opposition the relevant documents. This is what he said yesterday. He told this Parliament that he had shown me all of the relevant documents. Yet I get in front of me today a pile of documents, only one of which I have seen before, and that is the memorandum of legal advice from Allen, Allen and Hemsley to Mr Reid as Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority. None of the other documents has been shown to me. They are clearly relevant. Probably the most relevant of all is the letter from Mr Reid to the Prime Minister from which I have just extensively quoted and which demonstrates that what really happened in this matter was that the Prime Minister heavied Mr Reid into getting rid of Dr Armstrong. That is what really happened. Yet, the Prime Minister would have us believe that that is not a relevant document. The only reason that he has finally had to come clean about this matter is that he has been flushed out. The pressure of media comment and Opposition pressure has meant that the Prime Minister has had to come clean and has had to admit that the role that he, by omission in his Press statement, wanted us to believe that he did not have in this matter, he did in fact have. I go back to that Press statement because that was the beginning of the Prime Minister's deceit on this matter. He sought in that Press statement at the very least to imply that he had not discussed Dr Armstrong's position and that he had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of Dr Armstrong as the Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority. Yet, it now transpires from the documents that have been tabled in the Parliament today that in fact the Prime Minister heavied the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority into achieving and bringing about the resignation of Dr Armstrong. So the first and most serious charge that we make against the Prime Minister is that he misled the public in his Press statement of 11 September and that he misled the Parliament in his answer yesterday to me. That has been conclusively demonstrated not just by argument and questioning from the Opposition but by the material that he, the Prime Minister, tabled in the Parliament today. The other matter that causes us at least areas of grave concern and is the basis of further questioning by the Opposition and by the public is the simple fact that the Prime Minister has suddenly discovered a concern about the size of this amount. He did not have a concern about the amount when he made the statement on 11 September, although he now says that he formed that concern on 10 September. If he was concerned about the amount, why did he disclaim any responsibility for it? Perhaps it was because he was concerned about it that he suddenly decided that he ought to display a bit of responsibility. We all are entitled to have the impression that the Prime Minister's concern about the level of the amount became a reality when he perceived public disquiet about the level of the amount. In fact, he started off by saying that he wanted the matter dealt with leniently and generously. Yet, further down the track he discovedred that, because of public probing and because of public questioning, in fact he ought to evince some kind of public concern. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say, as he has constantly said throughout this matter, that it is all a question of the responsibility of the Bicentennial Authority, because he knows that section 11 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act states that the money expended by the Authority are those approved by the relevant Minister. Who is the relevant Minister? The Prime Minister is the relevant Minister in this matter. No other person is the relevant Minister. No doctrine of ministerial responsibility, however contorted or however misrepresented, can absolve the Prime Minister from ultimate financial responsibility, as the responsibile Minister, for the expenditure of funds. He knows as well that ultimately, no matter what kind of corporate structure one has, no matter what kind of interventions of an administrative kind one has, in our system of government the buck stops when one signs the cheque. That is what it all boils down to. Any kind of proposition or doctrine that suggests that the Prime Minister was a mere cipher in this matter, that at the end of the day he had no alternative but to sign the cheque that was put in front of him, that he had no alternative but to rubber stamp the deal which Mr Reid had negotiated with Dr Armstrong, is absolute nonsense. He was aware from the very beginning that a fairly generous settlement would be required because of the nature of the discussion which he had with Mr Reid and which has now been disclosed in the documents that have been tabled. He knew that. Any proposition that the Prime Minister had reason only over the last few days to be concerned about the level of this amount will be demonstrated to be patently false and patently inadequate by any fair examination of the documents. Our charge against the Prime Minister is not that he concerned himself about the Bicentennial Authority; not that he formed a view that maybe it was a good idea that Dr Armstrong should go; not that he will in the future concern himself more about the Bicentennial Authority; not that he does not have a right to talk to Mr Reid, and talk to him ad nauseam if he wishes to do so, as the responsible Minister for the operation of the Bicentennial Authority-that is not our complaint. Let us hear nothing from the Prime Minister about the long term future of the Authority. That is not the issue. The issue is the long term future of the Prime Minister. It is not the long term future of the Bicentennial Authority. On this occasion the Prime Minister has been guilty of misleading the Parliament. He has been guilty of misleading the Australian public. He has been guilty, at the very least, of sloppy and inadequate administration and discharge of his ministerial responsibility. On all of those counts he is deserving of the censure of this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Connolly —The motion is seconded and I reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.12) —Let me make it clear that, of course, I repudiate completely the observations-I do not put them any higher than that-made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), because no one sitting in this House would have regarded his speech as a very convincing attack. Of course, I completely repudiate the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, and I will proceed to deal with them. But before I do so, may I say that it must strike not only people in this House but in this country as passing strange that the man who deliberately perpetrated the greatest fraud on the people of this country, who, not in regard to a matter of half a million dollars, but in the matter of $9 billion, deliberately- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in relative silence. I would ask honourable members to reflect on the fact that those who desire freedom of speech should also allow others freedom of speech and not behave in this organised way. Mr Shack —That does not give him a licence to- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Tangney sits on my left. I have heard him using language which is offensive in Parliament on any terms. I do not pull him up because I do not want it recorded in Hansard. I suggest he show some respect for himself and the House. Mr HAWKE —I will come to the issues in a moment. But I think it is appropriate that, if we are to listen to this Leader of the Opposition making accusations about other people misleading the Parliament and the people, let us at the outset place on the record the magnitude-the bizarre magnitude-of this man's record on deliberately misleading the people of Australia, not in regard to half a million dollars but in regard to a sum of $9 billion. I refer to the observations of the Leader of the Opposition. He admitted on 8 March 1983 that the deficit figure used during the election campaign was not based on Treasury figures, but was made up by him. In talking to the Prime Minister, he said: `I just gave a broad idea that the situation looked as though it was worse than we had really imagined'. By way of preface to the response that I will make to the Leader of the Opposition I say this: Let the people of Australia remember, when they listen to this man attempting to censure a Prime Minister, that this is the man who deliberately lied to the Australian people- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. Mr HAWKE —He deliberately put a false position to the people of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Has the Prime Minister withdrawn? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I have withdrawn that. He deliberately put a false position to the people of Australia. He said that he knew what the real position was; he had been told by Treasury; he knew the figure was worse than had been stated, but that was not going to worry him; he was deliberately going to mislead to the tune of $3 billion. That is the man who has the hide in this House to misrepresent what has happened in this case and say that it involved misrepresentation. If it were misrepresentation, I would not be in the same league. He is a $10 billion misrepresenter. He has the hide to talk in here about misrepresentation. Let us get to the facts. After listening to this hypocrite talk, we find that what he had to say was that the question of the adequacy of Dr Armstrong to continue in his position as Chief Executive was the No. 1 item on the agenda for the meeting with Mr Reid, but that it was not No. 1 on the Press statement which I released on 11 September. That is absolutely right. There is a reason why it is No. 1 on the agenda in talking with Mr Reid and not No. 1 on the Press statement. It was not involved with any attempt to hide or delude; it was concerned with the very real and proper objective which I had and which I shared with the person appointed by the Government-that is, Mr Reid-that what ought to be done in this matter was to try to handle it in a way which would be not only in the best interests of the Australian Bicentennial Authority but of the people of Australia. That was a shared position that was reflected in the letter by Mr Reid to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. So it should not be a matter of surprise when he says in here: `Look, there is a difference between the agenda discussion by Mr Reid and the Prime Minister and what is contained in the Press statement'. There was a reason for it-a reason that has been made clear. I have not at any point attempted to deny this either in my public statements or in my conversation with the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has the most convenient memory I have ever come across. He asked whether I went to a certain matter. He knows that I went to these matters in the conversation with him. Mr Howard —Not according to my record. Mr HAWKE —Of course, the Leader of the Opposition's notes that he goes away and writes afterwards-very convenient notes. If he would mislead the Australian people to the tune of $3 billion or $4 billion, what sort of concern would he have about subsequently trying to misrepresent events for his own perceived advantage? The reason that I spoke with the Chairman of the Authority on the day in question was that there had been a range of representations-not only the most publicised one from Mr Ranald Macdonald-made to me in regard to the welfare of the Bicentennial Authority, which has the responsibility for preparing this country for its celebrations in 1988. Unfortunately, there was this common thread in them which went to the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the Chief Executive. It was my responsibility in those circumstances to take that issue up with the Chairman of the Authority. It would have been irresponsible if, those matters having been brought to my attention, being the Minister responsible, I had not, as the first item on the agenda with him, discussed those matters with him. That is precisely what I did. The response of the Chairman was to listen intently to what I had to say. Then he said: `Well, I will go away and consider it'. He went away and considered it-and he went away and considered it in the knowledge that he was acting in the context of the legislation passed by those opposite, legislation which I say is very strange legislation. Is it not remarkable that they could have a government responsible for putting out hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, but what was the deal that they came to? What was the organisation? No opportunity of any governmental or parliamentary involvement, direction and responsibility for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Those opposite have the hide to get up here and say: `Oh, look, there is a half a million dollars of taxpayers' money involved in this. Did you behave aptly and properly in the expenditure of half a million dollars of taxpayers' money?' The very reason why we have got this problem is that the people opposite deliberately set up legislation which took away from government, which took away from parliament, the opportunity of supervising, controlling and regulating not half a million dollars, but hundreds of millions of dollars. Does not the bizarre hypocrisy of this become so evident? Honourable members opposite get up here and talk about whether there might have been possible mishandling-bad decision-about half a million dollars, deliberately having created the legislative position where this Parliament and this Government have not got the authority or the power to look over hundreds of millions of dollars. As I have said, it would have been appropriate for this Government when we assumed office to say: `That is a gross dereliction of responsibility on the part of our predecessors' and move then to undo the ABA, to get rid of the appointments the former Government had made. But with a great sense of responsibility we said: `No. The greater interests of this country demand that we seek out views about that issue, accept what the former Government foisted upon us and within that framework try to deal with the problems that emerge'. That is, with a sense of responsibility, precisely what I have tried to do since we came into government generally. As problems started to emerge under the structure which the former Government created and in the terms of the appointments of the people it put in place, what did I do? I immediately said: `Well, we have got to examine those widespread criticisms and see what it is that we can do to handle those within the legislative framework that you foisted upon us'. So I listened to, I studied and I asked for advice on those criticisms that had been made. Having done that, I called in the Chairman of the Authority. Of course, with a sense of responsibility, the first item on the agenda was the common thread of the criticisms that had been put to me. I said to him: `Well, there it is'. He made it clear that he listened intently. He made it clear that he had to study the criticisms, the points I had made to him. He said that he would go away and do it. When he contacted me back what did he say? He said: `I make it clear that it is for me to negotiate this issue. I have the responsibility under the legislation. Leave it with me'. If honourable members want to know whether he asked for authority, he had it in the Act. I made it clear that in conducting those negotiations with the Chief Executive he was doing it properly, following the discussions that I had had with him and the limited amount of discussions in terms of legislative opportunity or responsibility that I was able to have. It was appropriate that Mr Reid should so conduct those discussions. I make it clear that the original intimation to me was that, in terms of the amount, the size that would emerge related to the fact that in buying out the contract one had about six years of that contract to go and when one took six years of the contracted salary into account and related the long service leave and annual leave provisions, one was talking about something over $400,000. The Chairman of the Authority went away and conducted the negotiations in those terms. When I came to consider this matter, after he had written back to me and said `these are the areas of components', it was quite clear, as one addressed one's mind to it, that there was a distinct difference in terms of the composition of the amount. It was distinctly different from the basis which had been put. I therefore raised in that telephone conversation on 10 September this question and said: `It is the case, is it not, that this composition is different from that which you intimated to me'? The Chairman of the Authority said quite unequivocally: `Yes, it is different'. I said: `Well, look, I am concerned about this and I want you to assure me that what has been done is not something which is inappropriate'. In those circumstances he sent me the letter from Allen, Allen and Hemsley, which indicated, as the Bicentennial Authority's solicitors, that there was nothing inappropriate, that it was in accordance with appropriate practice. I still said to him: `Well, look, I want to be assured on this matter'. I did not have the right under the Act as it was to do anything about it because the legislation which the former Government passed had taken that authority away from the Government, had taken that authority away from the Parliament. But I still was not going to allow something improper to occur. So I said: `I want it in writing and I am awaiting that in writing'. When we get that in writing from the Chairman of the Authority we will examine it. If, in fact, there is something improper, then we will have to do something about it. I hope that if that arises-if it arises-we will not have a continuation of the hypocrisy from those on the other side of the House; that they will agree with us that something will have to be done about the legislation so that the people of Australia are protected, as they were not by the legislative action of those opposite; that the people of Australia will have their interests protected in such a way that control can be exercised by the Government and the Parliament of this country if something improper in fact turns out to have occurred. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.28) —I am entering this debate as the shadow Minister responsible for the affairs of the bicentennial. I commence by making the point that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has declared that, in fact, he misled this House and that he has conducted himself in a manner which is totally inconsistent with the fundamental responsibilities applicable to any Minister of this Parliament. These responsibilities were accepted by the Prime Minister after the last election when he changed his administrative orders and took the responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who I have not the slightest doubt could have done a better job, as events have turned out. He changed the situation and took responsibility for the Authority. In the last 10 months we have seen case after case of catastrophe and climactic situations which have resulted today in the Opposition moving a motion of censure against the Prime Minister of Australia. I say to my colleagues and to honourable members opposite that this Parliament can debate no more important motion than a motion of censure against the Prime Minister. It is an absolute disgrace that what we have gone through this week in this Parliament is a farrago of lies, deceptions and misrepresentations of the fact. Yet today we are seeing a Prime Minister who has accepted the fact that he has been wrong for so long. Two months ago-in July-a senior member of the Board of the Authority resigned. Mr Ranald Macdonald, the Victorian representative, a friend of the Victorian Premier and known as a friend of the Prime Minister, resigned saying that the state of affairs in the Australian Bicentennial Authority was nothing less than a shambles. What did we hear from this Government and, more importantly, what did we hear from the Prime Minister? Total silence. We have been told today that he wanted to be bipartisan about this whole affair. I remind him that on 12 July this year, following the resignation of Mr Macdonald, on behalf of the Opposition I wrote him a letter in which I said: I am writing to advise you of the community's growing concern-- because clearly he had not noted it-- at continuing allegations relating to the manner in which the Bicentennial Authority is controlling the expenditure of $166m at July 1982 prices provided by the Commonwealth for the funding of the Bicentenary 1988. In my concluding paragraph to that letter, I said: I wish to reiterate that the Opposition believes the Bicentennial celebrations should not be subject to political disagreement. Nevertheless, it is clearly your duty as the responsible Minister to ensure that the community's interests are fully safeguarded. It is the intention of the Opposition to see that this is done. I did not know when I wrote those words that two months later we would be debating this motion of censure against the Prime Minister. But the important thing is that the letter was written-and I say this to Labor members because they might be used to this sort of inactivity-and I still await a response. This is an example of the fact that this Prime Minister for the last 10 months, when he has been responsible for the Authority, has totally refused at any time to take a serious interest in its affairs Is it any wonder that one can say of the quality of his administration only that it is inept, incompetent-and now we add to that, deceitful? The people of Australia will make the judgment. There is not an editorial in any major newspaper in recent days which has not criticised this Government and in particular this Prime Minister for the manner in which he has conducted himself in this affair. Let us go back to where it all started, the infamous Press release of 11 September 1985. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) pointed out, it was a statement better known for what it did not say than for what it did say. The simple fact is that Mr Reid, the Chairman of the Authority, was summoned to Canberra to see the Prime Minister on 15 August, when there were some three hours of discussion on the affairs of the Authority. Yet when this matter was released by Laurie Oakes in the media, when he stated that a settlement of some $500,000 had been achieved, what did we hear from the Prime Minister? Again, as with my experience at the time of the Macdonald resignation, total silence. But we are assured that of course the Prime Minister is responsible and is interested in the affairs of his portfolio. Nevertheless, the days have passed; questions have been asked for three days in this House. We saw yesterday the refusal of the Prime Minister to table documents. We saw his rather sleazy attempt to try to embarrass and implicate the Leader of the Opposition by calling him behind the table, by inviting him to his room, at which time he showed him one letter. That was the legal opinion from Allen, Allen and Hemsley. On two occasions we asked the Prime Minister what additional legal opinion he had sought to ensure that all legal implications of the decisions had been covered. This was obviously his duty as the Minister responsible under the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act. It is significant that whenever that question has been asked, he has failed to answer it. The reason he has failed is quite obvious. There is no other opinion. He did not seek the opinion of the Crown legal officers. He did not seek the opinions of independent lawyers. He accepted at face value one document from Allen, Allen and Hemsley-the lawyers of the Authority. He can do that if he wishes, but if he had demonstrated any real concern to ensure that the national interest and Australian taxpayers' money were being protected, clearly he should have ensured, and it was his responsibility to ensure, that he checked the opinion against the views of the Crown law officers. The Prime Minister's `charity'-I used the word because it is the word he used to describe the outcome of his negotiations with Mr Reid in terms of what he thought ought to be the settlement on Dr Armstrong-is simply `charity' with other people's money. It is `charity' with the money of the taxpayers of Australia. Let us look at the matter in more detail. The document tabled by Mr Reid last Friday in the SenateEstimates Committee falls into two important categories. First, we are told there are what are called legal entitlements. They include superannuation payments of $73,709; long service, recreation leave, $24,020; and minimum notice under the terms of the appointment, $24,844. In other words, the legal entitlement for this man was $122,573. I emphasise that at no stage during the questioning did the Leader of the Opposition, or any other members on this side of the House, question the legal entitlement. We accept that because it was covered by the contractual agreement between Dr Armstrong and the Authority as we understand it. What we have questioned continually has been the settlement term payments, the additional payments valued at a further 366,193 of taxpayers' dollars. What does that consist of? Eight additional months notice with added superannuation and compensation for restraints and releases! Time after time we have asked the Prime Minister to go into details of what this means. He started off in his Press release by denying that he knew anything about it. Somehow he had a three-hour discussion with Mr Reid on 15 August, during which time, we were led to believe, the affairs of Dr Armstrong and his future were not considered. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment knows as much about this as I now know about it, and he is equally aware, as I am that we were not given the reality of the situation. Yet the Prime Minister, during inquiries about his Press statement, continued to tell this Parliament, for a number of days, a fabrication of reality. Now he finds himself having to defend a position which is simply indefensible. As I said in my first question here today, he has condemned himself from his own mouth. He has done enormous damage to his Party, he has done enormous damage to the role and function of Prime Minister, and he has brought discredit to this Parliament. One of the principles on which parliamentary democracy stands is that in this House one tells the truth. If one is caught out, as the Prime Minister was, one clears one's name at the first opportunity, not after three days of continued questioning. That is the record and standard that the Labor Party has brought into this Chamber. They are the standards that the parties in opposition repudiate. Let us look at the legal situation which the Prime Minister has been trying to confuse in this question. He claimed that he had no power. He claimed that it was all our fault. What he has not told the Australian people, what he has not told this Parliament, is that the signatories to the articles of association included not only Malcolm Fraser and the Deputy Leader of the Government at that stage, but also Mr Hayden, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, and his Deputy. If ever there was a serious attempt to make a bipartisan arrangement, it was initiated by the Fraser Government on terms and conditions accepted by the honourable member opposite, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Yet the attempt has been made to say it is all our fault. How ridiculous can that be. Let us take the matter a step further. We have been told now for three days: `I didn't know the gun was loaded. I did not have the power. It is all the Opposition's fault'. Let us look at the situation. In the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act, which is related to the very basis of the Commonwealth, is power which everybody knows has to subsume anything which may be contained in a mere memorandum and articles of association-section 41 is continually mentioned by the Prime Minister. We are told section 6 of the Act gives the Minister the power to direct the Authority on matters of policy. He has told us that he had nothing to do with it. Page 2 of the document which was tabled last Friday by the Authority's Chairman at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing stated: The Commonwealth Government has accepted the program after minor amendment to take account of its own priorities. For Heaven's sake, on matters of policy the Commonwealth is obviously premier in such matters. The Prime Minister said to the Australian Bicentennial Authority: `We want to review your programs. We want to put money into all sorts of minority interest groups. We are not interested in the mainstream of Australian thought, and because we have the power under section 6 of the appropriate legislation you will do what you are told'. Of course, that does not seem to happen where taxpayers' money is concerned. In sections 11 and 12 of the Act we are told about estimates of expenditure. The document stated: Moneys of the Authority shall not be expended by the Authority otherwise than in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister. Can anything be more clear than that? Estimates of expenditure must be approved by the Minister. But what have we had-only a farrago of lies! Last Wednesday the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition: `I want to show you a letter'. Dated 30 August, it said to Mr Reid: `If you have a financial problem go and talk about it to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment'. At no stage did the Prime Minister ever suggest, publicly or apparently privately, that he was in any way concerned that funds would be made available. As he said: `I want to be `charitable' with this settlement'. I hope the Australian people will be charitable with this Prime Minister and his rag-tag bobtailed Government because after what is imposed upon the Australian people tonight and after what they have had to go through over the last three days with this farrago of lies, they will see the Government for what it is and they will cast it adrift with its bags and baggage. The fact of the matter is that we have reached a situation today where the Prime Minister has been caught out. It has been demonstrated that he has carried out his responsibilities with ineptitude and incompetence. He has failed to face realities. As the Minister responsible for the Bicentennial Authority it is to his failed judgment alone that the Australian people must look. This Parliament expects sensible, truthful answers to questions which are of major concern to the Australian people. It is a matter of the greatest concern that this has not taken place. The Prime Minister has suggested that generosity shown is to be the criterion of policies. I would have thought that the criteria for the policies of any government, even the Hawke Government, must always be the absolute interests of the Australian people. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.43) —Nothing is more disturbing than to see a graduate from a private school of the North Shore getting angry in the Parliament. When the old smile cunningly the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) really gets angry. It upsets the Parliament. It must be a matter of great moment for the Parliament to stop and listen to what the Opposition has brought forward today. It is a censure motion on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) could not wait to use the Standing Orders to have his first go at censuring the Prime Minister. What reason does the new Leader of the Opposition put forward for censuring the Prime Minister? It is a motion that has been moved perhaps once or twice a parliament on a Prime Minister since Federation. As the honourable member for Bradfield said, it is one of the most important motions that can be used in Parliament on serious matters. Do honourable members know what he wants to find the Prime Minister guilty of? It is not that he put out a Press statement on 10 or 11, or whatever day of September it was. It was rather that a paragraph was missing. It is not as though anything was wrong in what he put out; but it did not go far enough for the Leader of the Opposition. It is like telling Tolstoy: `We like 30 chapters of War and Peace but it would be much better if you had written 31'. That is the ridiculous level to which the Leader of the Opposition now drags this Parliament. He wants to discuss a censure motion on the Prime Minister about the Australian Bicentennial Authority and what has occurred. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition hears the name Big Mal it makes him blink. People keep talking about the Leader of the Opposition and all the great policy ideas he had from 1975 to 1983, but whenever he took them to Big Mal he started to shudder because Mal used to put them through the shredder. There is now talk of Big Mal coming back. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to get all of his policies in place before Mal-the dreaded squire from Nareen-returns. Who appointed John Reid to the position of Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority? It was Big Mal. Of course the Leader of the Opposition, who was a great antagonist of Big Mal in the Cabinet as it then was, strongly argued against him. He said: `No, you cannot have John Reid. He won't run it efficiently'. He acted on this question as he did on thousands of questions that were raised in Cabinet between 11 November 1975 and 3 March 1983. Whenever Mal said something had to be done the Leader of the Opposition agreed with him. He put out his big, brown tongue as far as he could and said: `Mal, I'm with you 125 per cent' and he is still playing that role. The Leader of the Opposition wants to use the Parliament to grow 6 inches under the auspices of a censure motion on the Prime Minister so that everybody in Australia will take a little more notice of him. What a ridiculous move! One would have thought, with a couple of years to go to the next election, that he would be a little more patient with the use of the parliamentary theatre and the Standing Orders to make his presence felt. I am sure that a bit of bad tactical advice has been given to both past and present Leaders of the Opposition in the last couple of weeks. I think the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) would admit that. Surely we will read in his memoirs that he took some bad advice a couple of weeks ago. I suggest to the honourable member for Bennelong that he took some bad advice in moving this censure motion today. There has been no substance to the allegation about the Prime Minister misleading or telling lies. What the Leader of the Opposition is really saying is that the Prime Minister did not tell us everything that he possibly knew about the matter. Let us look at the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Firstly, the Opposition set it up a few years ago. It has a budget-supposedly it is an amount of money that will be spent from the time of its inception, when it was set up by the Fraser Government, until it carries out its program in 1988-of $200m. It is not likely to be an authority that will escape any sort of surveillance by people outside. In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of publicity about the conduct of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and its administration. I will tell honourable members what the Prime Minister is guilty of, if he is guilty of anything. He is guilty of acting like a Prime Minister in saying to the Chairman: `Come and see me. There is a lot of public concern about what is going on. I want you to answer some of the questions. We have had the resignation of a very well known Australian from the Board. He has made a lot of allegations about the misuse of money. The organisation has already spent something like $47m. I want some answers about where we are going'. The Bicentennial Authority, with its $200m, is supposed to plan a celebration in 1988 for all Australians. Mr Connolly —Why didn't you come clean last July? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Bradfield says: `Come clean'. Honourable members opposite have referred to some of the things that have occurred. Mr Reid had a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has repeatedly told the Parliament that he expressed his concern about the administration of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The Leader of the Opposition made great play about one sentence in a letter dated 19 August sent by Mr Reid following his meeting with the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition, in his usual debating capacity, picked out the line that suited him best. The letter stated: 2. I have already taken first steps to achieve the objective you wish. `Ah', the Leader of the Opposition said, `there it is. That one line. Why didn't John Ried just sign the letter after that?' He did not. What the Leader of the Opposition did not tell the Parliament was what else was in the letter. Let us take it a bit further. The letter continued: 3. As agreed between us, he and I discussed the subject which was item one of your and my conversation at our meeting. 4. All being well I hope to have the matter settled this week or early next week. However see below. 5. I am anxious to achieve a civilised and especially a non-public settlement. This will require care and skill to accomplish. 6. To assist me in this task I should appreciate receiving from you specific assurances as follows:- That no comment inside or outside the Parliament will be made by anyone in senior political office until I have advised you of the proposed timing of a proposed Press Release by me whenever that might occur. I would hope that no other comment would be forthcoming thereafter either, except in terms of the agreed Press Release. B. That I have your authority to negotiate a financial settlement to the contract of employment, details of which would be certified by professional advisers to me in the first instance and then to you as being reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. 7. In this context you should know that still to be negotiated are, inter alia: Mutual releases from future action on past and future obligations. Restraints on speaking to the media. Restraints on entering into competitive employment. Restraints on disruptive contacts with staff of the organisation. Obligations to provide me with information and background knowledge over the next 12 months. Restraints from possible litigation for wrongful dismissal. Restraints against involvement in political dialogue which could destabilise the work of the organisation. Who laid down the conditions? John Reid, the person appointed by the Fraser Government, was laying in place the way in which he felt it was best to come out of the dialogue with the Prime Minister in terms of putting the Bicentennial Authority back on an even footing, so that it could get on with its work for the celebrations in 1988. One thing is disturbing to perhaps all of us. This includes the Sydney Morning Herald. We will now see in its editorial what will develop, with the Sydney clique taking over the Liberal Party again. In the days of little Billy McMahon, the Sydney Morning Herald would publish an editorial and Billy would come into the Parliament and carry it out. Now we will have the same thing. So when we read an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald which says what the Opposition ought to do while we are in government, the little member for Bennelong will come in and do that. The leader writers on the fourteenth floor at Broadway, New South Wales, will dictate the policies and actions of the Liberal Party. What happened today? As we were eating our cornflakes and reading the editorial this morning of only about 50 of us in Australia read it-we could see that the editorial was telling the Liberal Party what to do in parliament today. Honourable members should look at it. It may interest honourable members to know, when we are talking about the half million dollars about which many people have raised questions-they have certainly done so in my electorate-that I was informed by my colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) that only this week the Principal of the Chisholm Institute of Technology was paid $300,000 after three years service for the termination of his employment. Mr Goodluck —That's a disgrace. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member may say that these payments are disgraceful and that they should not be made, but no honourable members opposite said that this money should not be spent when Mal was in parliament. Do honourable members remember the amount of money he spent before the 1983 election, holding all those businessmen's lunches during the election campaign? Tens of thousands of dollars were spent by the Liberal Government, trying to persuade the business people of this country to put all their donations into the Liberal Party to make sure that we did not win the election. Which honourable members on the other side of the House said: `That is government money; we cannot do that'? Who said: `We should not be allowed to spend that sort of money'? No one in the Liberal Party said that. It is wrong to use the Parliament to say that the Prime Minister perhaps should have said after his discussion with John Reid `I want to come in here and make a statement. I want to tell you what all the problems are. I will tell you where all the money is. Let us put it all out in public so that that is all in the headlines'-so the whole thing becomes disruptive and the Bicentennial Authority disintegrates. Is that what those opposite want? That is what they are doing in the Parliament today. They are condemning the Australian Bicentennial Authority to disintegration. Not one word would in any way imply that the Prime Minister has misled this Parliament in statements that have been made and given to the Leader of the Opposition or in statements or answers to questions given in the Parliament. As I said, some very serious questions were raised about the Bicentennial Authority by the member of the Board, Ranald Macdonald. That is quite legitimate. He served on the Board. He was extremely concerned about the direction that the Bicentennial Authority was taking. Obviously, the Prime Minister, as the Minister responsible for the Authority, had a responsibility to be concerned. It was legitimate. It was his responsibility to call in Mr Reid and ask what was going on. If the ultimate action of that discussion led to the resignation of Dr Armstrong, that is one thing. If Mr Reid then made a settlement with Dr Armstrong-an amount of money which some of us do not like-that is between Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong. It comes out of the appropriations given to Mr Reid last June under authority of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act. It is as simple as that. If those opposite want to chop out these sorts of payments, they should chop them out right across the board. They should not select Dr Armstrong or the Bicentennial Authority and think that they will gain a political plus from this. It is absolutely ludicrous to try to use the Parliament to censure the Prime Minister in this way because, as I said, there is not one element of truth in the charges that those opposite bring-that he misled the Parliament. If we devalue censure motions to the level to which those opposite have dragged them down today, we will have censure motions on the hour. In fact, when the Fraser Government was in office, if we had moved censure motions every time big Mal-and his then Treasurer-told us an untruth or mislead the Australian public we would have done nothing else in the Parliament but have censure motions, because they never stopped telling untruths. There were some whoppers. Do honourable members remember when the State Premiers met here? The Government had a celebration. It kept $70m that it was supposed to give to the State Premiers. Former Government members boasted, skited and celebrated the fact that they were able to keep $70m that was pinpointed to go to the States. What those opposite have done today is absolutely ridiculous. This matter would not have been worth more than a Press release. If the Leader of the Opposition does not have enough staff with the ability to put out a two-paragraphs Press release, would he please see me. I would be very sympathetic to those sorts of pleas from the Opposition if they need more staff. I believe in the Westminster system-that there will be a better Opposition if its members have talented staff. The unfortunate feature of giving them extra staff is that they are employing dummies. They do not know how to use the Parliament, they do not know what to put in their speeches and how to use the forms of Australian politics. This has got them in a mess. At the end of a fortnight all one can say is that they find themselves in a position in which they did not want to be. The bloke outside is the bloke that those opposite still want to be the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing has changed. The Opposition has eight eight people on the back benches that it wanted on the front, and eight people on the front bench that it wanted on the back. We have not yet met some of the fellows on the front bench of the Opposition. They will make some outstanding contributions. My shadow Minister came to meet me. I said: `I am very pleased to meet you. You get your pension after you have been here for three terms'. He said: `I have been here for four now'. I said: `Well, where have you been?'. He said: `I am a Tasmanian'. I said: `You are supposed to come up here to the Parliament when you are elected'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O`Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O`Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price. L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann. A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER —I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year 1984-85. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to Standing Order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Dundas to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal 1985 Review. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Review into Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 122nd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, held in Darwin on 21 July 1985. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 15th meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council, held in Darwin on 21 July 1985. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present an information paper on the outlook for the aviation industry. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES —(Lalor-Minister for Science)-For the information of honourable members I present the National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee report on fellowships awarded for 1984 and 1985. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member seeks to make a personal explanation on the ground that he has been misrepresented. I allow him indulgence to continue. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. In an article on the front page of yesterday's Sun-News Pictorial headed `Tax rift: PM calls in chiefs', by Niki Savva-unfortunately not referring to me as one of the chiefs-there is reference to comments that I allegedly made in the Caucus meeting the previous day. Having regard to the age of the people in the gallery, I shall not record the alleged remarks in accurate detail. Suffice to say that the swear words attributed to me were not used by me either in the Caucus meeting or in any other meeting. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives 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 Cadman,Mr Fife,Mr McArthur and Mr Miles. 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, fulfilling employment, 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. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and internatioal co-operation; 3. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in rehabilitating impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Sinclair and Mr Tickner. 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 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 John Brown,Mr Carlton,Ms Fatin,Mr Hollis and 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 service in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Simmons and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any futher 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 Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the Industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation and Hospitality Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition 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 and Mr Porter. 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 and Mr Hawker. 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 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 inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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: ``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. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all steps be taken to prevent the continuous erosion of the rights of the holders of freehold land. Your petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament the denigration of freehold rights as practised in N.S.W. and calls on the Parliament to enact overriding legislation to allow full and proper compensation to all Australians where Government requires the use of private property and traditional rights attached thereto. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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 adds 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. 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 adds 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 Fife. 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 dissatisfied 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 in the 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 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 that 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 Hand. 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 Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensions. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. 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 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 to 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations and enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. 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: 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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% 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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 other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Tickner. 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 government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Andrew,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain concerned people, who are residents of the State of Victoria, draws the attention of the House to the abhorrent policy which continues to exist in South Africa concerning the rights, freedoms and opportunities of the black and coloured people. We believe our country of Australia has a responsibility to stand up and more clearly and firmly declare its absolute rejection of such an inhuman and unchristian policy existing in that political system. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government continue to protest, in the strongest practical way, to the South African government by effecting any or all of the following suggestions: 1. Complete trade embargo on products produced by exploitation of `black/coloured' labour in South Africa. 2. Total abolition of tariff duties on products produced by `black/coloured' South African co-operatives. 3. Total boycott of all sporting relations with South Africa. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; that the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; that the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; that the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrsanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect on rural Australia of the Government's tax policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That Government Business be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave for the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to read the second reading speech on my behalf later this evening and to present four other Bills on my behalf as I shall be absent from the House. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) wishes to make a statement on other matters now. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister seeks leave to continue his remarks at a later stage. Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —Are you going to introduce the Bills later? Mr HURFORD —One Bill has been introduced. I have moved that the Bill be read a second time and I have asked leave for somebody else to substitute for me later on this evening. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-Since its election in 1983, the Hawke Government has consistently pursued policies directed towards restoring strong economic growth and creating a fairer Australian society. By any measure our strategy has been an outstanding success. For the past two financial years this nation has recorded growth rates that are the envy of the Western world. Under this Government over 430,000 more Australians have found jobs, inflation has been cut significantly from the double-digit legacy of our predecessors and we have arrested and turned around the blow-out that we inherited in the Commonwealth Budget deficit. We now confidently anticipate a third year of strong growth. And despite the protestations of the doomsayers after I brought down the Budget last month, that prospect is being confirmed repeatedly by a series of positive economic indicators. Mr Speaker, the achievement of sustained high growth rates remains the overriding economic objective of this Government. We have policies set for growth. Not because that is an end in itself, but because it is only through economic growth that we can cut unemployment. It is only through growth that we can increase assistance to the needy. And it is only through growth that we can generate the higher living standards that the whole community desires. If we are to maintain the momentum of growth it is essential that we act now. We must be prepared to tackle head on the issues that in the past have been consigned to the too-hard basket. We must be prepared to debunk the myths and overturn the barriers that stand in the way of our goal. This Government is prepared to do that. Today we are taking the hard decisions, confronting the issues and embarking upon a very substantial reform to the Australian national economy. For the first time in Australia's recent history a government has been willing to place tax reform on the political agenda. But much more than that, for the first time a government has been willing to act. We have invited debate, we have asked the people of Australia to express their views and we have listened carefully to what they have said. The tax reform measures I am announcing today are the outcome of that unprecedented process of consultation. While they do not include a broad based consumption tax of the kind proposed by the Government at the July tax summit, they do represent the most far reaching reform of the Australian tax system to be undertaken by a government in living memory. Today we are addressing a crisis in our national taxation system that has been left by a succession of governments to compound year upon year. There was a time when Australia had a reasonably sane and credible taxation system. But that time is long gone. The system has been broken and beaten by an avalanche of avoidance, evasion and minimisation. And more so than in any other period in Australia's history, the taxation system deteriorated during the stewardship of the previous Government. During those seven years tax avoidance became the norm for hundreds of thousands of Australians. Taxpayers were allowed the indulgence of moving into contrived artificial paper avoidance and evasion schemes-including those of the criminal variety. The Government of the day was tardy in acting to stem the blatant abuses that were ocurring before its very eyes. More than that, it failed to act at all to tackle the underlying problems. It is the deterioration and decay that occurred during the late 1970s and early 1980s that has now made substantial reform so essential. For years Australians have gained satisfaction from believing that their tax system was progressive; that those who could afford to shoulder a greater share of the burden did so. Today, that is a fiction. The system no longer works that way. The top marginal tax rate-the 60c in the dollar rate-has been paid by barely a few of those whose incomes should place them in that bracket. Tens of thousands of these people have walked away from the system. In their place middle income Australians have been forced to take up the load. These are the people who have not been in the position to arrange their affairs to take advantage of the tax shelters, the schemes and the concessions. They have not joined in what had for higher income earners become the socially acceptable business of avoidance and evasion. But it is they who have sustained the system during the past decade. What we have seen is a dramatic compression in the application of the marginal tax rates, so that where at the beginning of the 1970s the top rate came in at the current equivalent of $110,000, today it comes in at $35,000. In the early 1970s the top rate applied at five times average weekly earnings. Today it applies at 1 1/2 times. It is for these reasons that from the outset a major objective of tax reform has been to substantially lighten the heavy hand of high marginal tax rates on honest taxpayers in this country. It would be stupid not to recognise the lesson of recent history; taxpayers just will not pay ridiculously high marginal tax rates. The system invites abuse if it attempts to impose such a burden. The time has come when the facts must be faced. Change is needed and, if this nation is to continue to progress, it is needed now. Lower marginal rates will enhance our economic performance by better rewarding initiative. They will help generate growth by increasing rewards for work relative to those from tax avoidance and evasion and they will make for a better nation by reducing distortions in the savings and investment decisions of ordinary Australians. A fundamental and major reform which this Government will undertake is to reduce the top rate of income tax from 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. Further, we will cut the intermediate rate of personal income tax from 46c in the dollar to 40c. This slashing of marginal tax rates represents a dramatic and permanent reform to the Australian tax system. It will mean that in the future no Australian will be required to pay more than half his or her income in taxation. It is this action along with the abolition of shelters and the introduction of stronger penalties which will act to end the rorts and abuse of the system. Combined with our extensive reform a year ago to drop the bottom personal income tax rate from 30c to 25c in the dollar, today's measures will restore the system's effective progression. They also make possible the vital innovation of aligning the top personal income tax rate with the company tax rate. In a stroke this will make a whole host of tax avoidance devices futile. Further, in this package for the first time a government in this country will have recognised the call from shareholders of Australian companies to remove the double taxation on dividends. This is a reform which was denied in 30 years of coalition government. From today the Government will also have ended the debate which has persisted in Australia for decades as to whether income taken as capital ought to be exempt from tax. We will establish a capital gains tax so that in the future taxpayers who take their income in the normal manner will not be disadvantaged as against taxpayers who choose to take their income as capital. The benefits of tax reform will be shared among all Australians. A number of measures are to be taken to relieve poverty traps in our social security system. These changes will involve easing the income tests applied to pensioners and beneficiaries and will increase the incentive available to these people to earn extra income. This whole group of reforms-reductions in marginal rates, the alignment of the top personal rate with the company tax rate, the full imputation system for relief of dividend tax, the capital gains tax and the action to relieve poverty traps-makes this statement of reform the most comprehensive in the modern era. This reform package launches an attack on tax shelters and sectional concessions. Measures that even up the taxation treatment of different industries will attract resources to where they earn the greatest real profits, rather than to where they attract the greatest concessions or generate the largest tax deductible losses. It is true that tax shelters and other minimisation devices may, on occasions, stimulate particular industries or activities. But it must be understood that whenever such a subsidy is conceded it involves a real-and largely hidden-cost to the rest of the community. Ultimately, every tax concession, minimisation scheme or evasion rort means that all of those who do not benefit must shoulder a greater burden. More often than not, it is the higher income earners who benefit from exploitation of these practices. Again, it is the middle income earners-ordinary taxpaying Australians-who must shoulder the difference. By broadening the income tax base and closing loopholes, today's measures will achieve a return to fairness in the Australian tax system not seen for decades. Australian society will be much the stronger for it. These measures, and this reform package, are not about raising revenue for the Government. The total yield of this package will be returned to taxpayers. Not only that; it incorporates tax cuts to be delivered in satisfaction of the Government's commitment to continued wage restraint. In all, significant cuts will be delivered to everyone in the community save those taxpayers who have made a feast of tax avoidance and evasion. Next financial year tax cuts totalling $2 billion will be delivered to all Australians. Of this $2 billion, $800m will be netted in that year from the tax reform measures. In the following financial year the cost of the tax cuts will be about $4.5 billion, of which the growing yield from the tax reform measures will account for about $1.5 billion. In other words, the cost to revenue of the cuts will far outweight the proceeds from the new tax measures. Putting these figures in individual terms will mean that in the first year the average income earner will receive an income tax cut of $9 per week. In the second year, a further reduction in the tax scales in July 1987 will bring the total tax cut for the average income earner to $15.20 a week. None of these tax cuts will be financed by adding to the Government's deficit. They will be achieved by the most rigorous restraint on public sector outlays. This Government has already demonstrated its economic credentials. We are committed to responsible and prudent fiscal policy. We have more than halved the deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product in three years. We have curtailed outlays growth to its lowest rate in six years. The Government entered the discussions with the trade union movement on wage restraint with a total commitment that the budgetary scope to finance these cuts would be found through expenditure restraint. The tax package is part of our overall strategy designed to promote growth. This Government knows that responsible and appropriate fiscal policies are an essential element of macro-economic management. We will not put sustained economic growth at risk by relaxing fiscal discipline. Details of the proposed measures are provided in attachments to my printed speech, which I shall table on conclusion. I shall now outline the main features of the Government's reforms. FRINGE BENEFITS There has been an accelerating shift in recent years toward the payment by employers of remuneration in the form of fringe benefits. While not readily admitted as such, this shift often has all the hallmarks of outright tax evasion. High marginal income tax rates have played a major part in providing the incentive for this trend-and we will rectify that problem in this package. However, the growing shift to fringe benefits has been a major factor in reducing the tax liabilities of predominantly higher income taxpayers. An increasing awareness of these perks has highlighted the unfairness of the tax system and has contributed to undermining taxpayer morale. As a consequence, the Government will be proceeding with the taxation of fringe benefits broadly along the lines described in the draft White Paper on reform of the Australian taxation system. That will mean taxing all of the major fringe benefits, whether received in cash or otherwise. Non-Cash Fringe Benefits In the case of non-cash fringe benefits, the tax will be payable on the assessed value of the benefits provided to employees and will be levied on the employer at the prevailing company tax rate. Initially that will be 46c in the dollar, changing later in line with the alterations to the company tax regime. The type of benefits to be taxed include employer-provided motor vehicles, free or low interest loans, residential accommodation, goods and services sold at below cost or provided free by an employer and expenses paid on behalf of an employee. The valuation rules to apply in each case are detailed in the attachments. In the case of motor vehicles where no records of costs or business use are maintained, a proportion of the purchase price of the car will be subject to the tax at the relevant company tax rate. Under these rules, the maximum tax payable on each car will be around 11 per cent of the purchase cost. Lower levels of tax apply where the total distance travelled by the vehicle during the year exceeds specified threshold levels. If a higher proportion of business use can be substantiated there will be the option of maintaining cost records and log books detailing the breakdown between private and company use. The fringe benefits tax will not apply to benefits associated with employer contributions to superannuation funds and employee share acquisition schemes, which are already subject to specific taxation provisions. The tax will be designed to have little or no effect on the many small, traditional employer-provided benefits such as most staff discounts. A complete exemption applies to staff canteens, free commuter transport fares, the home to work use of taxis and commercial vehicles and child care facilities on employers' premises. Special concessions will apply to housing and travel benefits provided to employees in specified remote areas. All employers, with the exception of religious bodies, will be liable for the tax, including the Commonwealth, State and local governments. Clearly, government bodies other than the Commonwealth will incur a direct liability if they choose to provide such fringe benefits. In the case of the Commonwealth any payment of the tax will be shown in the Budget papers and will be subject to the Government's own on-going expenditure restraint guidelines and to parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, measures are to be taken to equate more closely the treatment of non-cash fringe benefits for Commonwealth public servants with that which is likely to apply to their counterparts in the private sector. For example, the same rules that the Tax Office applies to private sector employees will be applied to public servants when apportioning the cost of government provided home telephone services. Commonwealth financed provision of credit cards to senior public servants is to cease forthwith and existing cards will not be renewed. The private use of Commonwealth-owned cars provided to employees will be stringently controlled. With the introduction of this tax it is expected that some employers and employees may see advantage in replacing fringe benefits with cash payments. As this would bring currently non-taxable benefits to book, such a development would be consistent with the Government's objectives in taxing these benefits. The Government will consult with employers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions about possible adjustments to the wage fixing principles to provide for such `cashing-out' of benefits under appropriate conditions. The Government does not expect, and would not wish to see, any further build-up in the provision of fringe benefits. The Government will review these arrangements, with a view to tightening their application, should any significant increases occur. The tax will commence on 1 July 1986 and be paid quarterly, with the first payment due in October 1986. The amount of tax revenue to be recouped is estimated at $320m in 1986-87 and $515m in 1987-88. Living Away From Home Allowances While most living away from home allowances are not paid at excessive rates to avoid tax, there has been growing abuse in this area. The Government has decided to tax the remuneration component of living away from home allowances at the employer level in the same way as for non-cash fringe benefits, with effect from 1 July 1986. The taxable value for this purpose will be equal to the amount of the allowance in excess of the proportion which represents reasonable compensation for additional expenditures on accommodation and on food. The revenue gain is estimated at $10m in 1986-87 and $15m in subsequent years. Entertainment Expenses One of the greatest difficulties in recent years in determining legitimate expense claims has been in the area of entertainment. A good deal of so-called business entertainment tends to be done on a reciprocal basis and is often undertaken for predominantly social or personal benefit rather than business purposes. In practice it is almost impossible for the Tax Office to separate those social activities from genuine commercial activities but it appears that the major part of expenses claimed have little or no genuine relevance to business activity. It is the Government's view that the general public should not have to subsidise through the tax system the social activities of higher income earners who seek tax deductions for entertainment expenses. Accordingly it has been decided to deny deductions for all entertainment expenses incurred after today. Reflecting the lagged nature of business tax payments, this measure will produce $310m in revenue in 1986-87 and $330m in 1987-88. The disallowance of deductions for entertainment will apply across-the-board and will include business meals, drinks, cocktail parties, tickets or boxes at sporting or theatrical events, sightseeing and hostess allowances. It will include entertainment claimed to be associated with an advertising or promotional purpose, and it will cover the entertainment expenses of all taxpayers. However, the measure cannot be directly applied to a tax exempt organisation which pays entertainment expenses which confer a personal benefit on its employees or associates or reimburses them for such expenses. In such cases, it is intended that entertainment expenses be subject to the tax on non-cash fringe benefits. Substantiation of Expense Claims A deficiency of the existing law is that it does not specify the proof required to substantiate employment related expenditure claims. This results in successful claims for which there is no proof of expenditure. To rectify this deficiency the Government has decided to amend the law to provide that deductions will not be allowable for expense claims unless the claimant is able to substantiate the amount and purpose of the claim by receipts or other documentary evidence. All allowances above a certain limit, including independently arbitrated allowances, such as parliamentarians' electorate allowances, will besubject to substantiation. More detailed substantiation requirements than for other expenses will generally apply in relation to car and travel expenses. Moreover, deductions will not be allowed for the travelling expenses of a spouse on a business trip. For self-employed people the new requirements will apply only to travel and vehicle expenses. However, the rules will not apply to claims within the limits of employment-related travelling and accommodation allowances, provided that the travel is undertaken in Australia and the allowance is reasonable in amount. Similarly, reasonable overtime meal allowances will be excluded. Nor will the rules apply where total eligible expenses do not exceed $300. With a 1 July 1986 commencement date, the estimated revenue in 1987-88 is $105m, building to $200m after about four years. CAPITAL GAINS TAX There has been a long debate in this country about the role of capital gains taxation-a debate which unfortunately has too often been characterised by misinformation and hysteria rather than rational discussion. The Government believes that in inviting discussion about capital gains taxation in the draft White Paper the Australian community was finally offered an opportunity to consider the question of capital gains taxation in a more reasoned atmosphere. The Government has decided to introduce a capital gains tax but, in the light of the public debate, to incorporate several major modifications to the proposal outlined in the White Paper in June. These changes address the concerns which have been expressed and will substantially reduce the impact of the tax and allow the community a lengthy period in which to adjust to its application. in particular, it has been decided that the tax will in every sense be prospective. That means it will apply only to gains on assets purchased or acquired after today. All assets already owned by taxpayers will be exempt from the tax when sold by them, both in repect of gains accrued until now and all future gains. The Government has decided that the deemed realisation at death proposal, outlined in the draft White Paper, will not apply. Liability for tax in the case of death will be rolled over to successors, and will only be assessed on any subsequent disposal. Therefore the capital gains tax will not apply in the case of death. Other main features of the tax include: It will apply only when the asset is sold or transferred by gift; it will apply only to real capital gains calculated by fully indexing the cost of the asset for inflation; a complete exemption will apply to gains on the taxpayer's principle residence and reasonable curtilage, on all motor vehicles, on other personal-use items such as furniture up to a sale value of $5000, and on gains with respect to superannuation and the proceeds of life insurance policies; there will be provision for nominal losses to be offset against gains; the tax will be levied, on real gains, at ordinary rates of personal and company income tax. The existing capital gains section 25A of the income tax law will not apply in respect of assets acquired after today, but will continue to apply for assets acquired before midnight tonight. The existing section 26AAA will continue to apply for all relevant assets. Because of the wholly prospective nature of the tax, revenue is expected to build up gradually over a lengthy period, as newly-acquired assets are disposed of. As an illustration of the fact that this tax will affect only a tiny section of the population, its expected revenue yield, in the fifth year of operation is estimated to be only $25m. The tax will mean that for assets acquired after midnight tonight, taxpayers will simply need to keep their records of purchase price, spending on improvements and sale price. Valuation of assets already held will not be necessary as all are exempt from the new provisions. To cite an example, suppose an asset such as an office was purchased tomorrow for $100,000 and assume it is sold five years later for $130,000. If during that five-year period inflation totalled 25 per cent, the gain would be assessed only as the difference between $130,000 and $125,000. The gain of $5,000 would be taxed at the taxpayer's marginal rate-which in the case of a 40c in the dollar taxpayer would amount to only $2,000 in tax. I repeat, however, that every asset already owned by taxpayers will be exempt from the tax. WHOLESALE SALES TAX I announced on 13 August 1985 that the Government had decided against any major extension of the indirect tax base but would carry out a rationalisation of the existing wholesale sales tax schedules and rate structure. As a result of this rationalisation, the rate structure is to be simplified to reduce the existing four-step scale to three. These steps will be 10, 20 and 30 per cent, in lieu of the existing 7 1/2, 10, 20 and 32 1/2 per cent schedules. The rationalisation will include the incorporation of the current 7 1/2 per cent category into the 10 per cent category. The rate for chocolates and other confectionery will be reduced from the current 20 per cent to 10 per cent, while the tax at that rate will be extended to close substitutes of the existing taxable items including snack foods, ice cream and biscuits. Also to be taxed at 10 per cent will be non-oil-burning domestic space heaters, domestic cooking stoves, domestic water heating systems and wrapping materials for household use. Each of those items is currently excluded from the sales tax base, a treatment inconsistent with that accorded almost every product of a similar kind. The rate of tax on items currently subject to 32 1/2 per cent is to be reduced to 30 per cent in the case of televisions, radios, videos and other electronic equipment, jewellery, furs, cameras, watches and clocks, cosmetics and perfumes and poker and amusement machines. Other items currently taxed at 32 1/2 per cent will fall to only 20 per cent including pens, most brushed and shaving utensils, sound and video tapes and records. A number of other anomalies and inconsistencies in the wholesale sales tax are being addressed, and details of all the changes are included in the attachment. These changes will apply to goods passing the taxing point after midnight tonight. Safeguarding measures will protect the revenue against any last minute transactions that attempt to avoid tax liabilities arising from the changes. These measures are estimated to result in a net revenue gain of about $75m in 1985-86 and about $110m in a full year. The estimated net effect of these changes in the consumers price index is very small at around 0.1 percentage points. AUSTRALIAN CARD In order to combat tax evasion and reduce health and welfare fraud, the Government has decided to implement a national identification system involving the issue to individuals of a card to be known as the Australia Card. A companion system for entities such as companies and partnerships is also being developed. Planning and development for the system will be completed over the next 18 months and Australia Cards will be issued from March 1987. The aim is to create an accurate register of all Australians which will contain only the most basic information, such as full name, address and date of birth. It will assist the Government to verify records and payments, but it will do no more than that. The privacy of every individual will be maintained. People will need their Australia Card in only three situations-in connection with employment, conducting specified financial dealings and other matters with tax implications and when claiming Commonwealth benefits. The Australia Card will help to ensure that everybody in the community contributes a fair share towards the costs of providing government services and that no individual or group takes from the community more than their fair and equitable entitlements. It is estimated that taxation revenue gains will amount to about $100m in the first year of full operation of the system, expected to be 1989-90. Revenue will rise to around $540m per annum after the third full year of operation. TAX-FREE THRESHOLD The tax-free threshold is primarily intended to recognise the limited capacity to pay tax of low income earners who are required to support themselves for the whole of the year on that income. In its present form the threshold provides an overly generous concession to part-year workers who are not wholly reliant for the full year on the taxable income returned. The Government has decided that from 1 July 1986 the tax-free threshold will apply only on a pro rata basis in the case of those taxpayers joining the Australian work force on a full time basis for the first time and those leaving Australia permanently. The full threshold will continue to apply to other taxpayers. This measure is expected to yield around $90m per annum from 1987-88. PRESCRIBED PAYMENTS SYSTEM Contrary to the alarmist claims made at the time of its introduction in 1983, the prescribed payments system has proved extremey successful in combating tax evasion by contractors and sub-contractors in the building, transport, motor vehicle repair and cleaning and other industries. On the scheme's introduction, the 10 per cent deduction rate that currently applies to payments by the relevant industries was set on a conservative basis in order to facilitate its implementation. Having reviewed the arragements, the Government has decided to increase the deduction rate from 10 per cent to 15 per cent from 1 July 1986. As as present, those with a responsible tax record may apply to have this rate lowered where appropriate. This measure will assist in countering evasion by applying a higher withholding rate to those payees who provide false information on deduction forms. Also from 1 July 1986, owner-builders are to comply with full prescribed payments system requirements by making deductions from payments in connection with construction projects in excess of $10 000 that begin after that date. The Government proposes to review further the operation of the prescribed payments system, including the desirability of extension to other industries. The net revenue gain from these changes is estimated at $105m in 1986-87 and $45m in subsequent years. QUARTERLY PROVISIONAL TAX The existing system for the collection of provisional tax places stress on the money markets due to the substantial seasonal withdrawal of liquidity from the financial system in each June quarter. To overcome this problem the Government has decided to introduce an instalment system for the payment of provisional tax by individuals, to commence in 1987-88. When fully implemented four instalments will be payable. I emphasise that taxpayers will not be called upon to pay, in any financial year, a greater amount of tax than under the current system. Self-assessment procedures will continue to ensure that taxpayers will not be required to pay an amount which exceeds their estimated net tax payable for the year. The new system will not apply to taxpayers whose provisional tax liability does not exceed $2,000. Such taxpayers will continue to pay provisional tax on an annual basis. This will exclude about three quarters of a million provisional taxpayers, about half of the total. An alternative pattern of instalment payments with later due dates will be available to taxpayers, such as some primary producers, whose income flow is concentrated in the second half of the financial year. The reduction in sales of government securities that will result from the measure is estimated to generate interest savings of the order of $55m annually from 1987-88. QUARANTINING OF FARM LOSSES One of the most heavily used tax shelters set out in the draft White Paper is the write-off of farm losses against income from another source. The manner in which the tax system is currently structured allows other than genuine farmers to generate significant tax gains by directing investment to what otherwise would often be considered unprofitable ventures. The proposed measure is along the lines of that canvassed in the draft White Paper, but with significantly more generous treatment of non-farm income. The new rules will commence in the 1986-87 income year. There will be two approaches. The first will allow farm losses to be fully written of against non-farm income of up to $15,000 with a dollar for dollar shade-out for non-farm income between $15,000 and $30,000. These thresholds will be subject to indexation. The second approach will allow farm losses to be written off against non-farm income up to the aggregate of the previous five years net farm income if this provides a greater write-off. This profitability test will cater appropriately for those cases where farm losses are caused by downturns and disasters, rather than tax sheltering activity. Both approaches are designed to ensure that a genuine farmer who needs to take outside work to supplement farm income will in general not be adversely affected. Revenue gains are estimated at $125m in 1987-88 and $95m annually thereafter. Partly offsetting these revenue gains will be a significant improvement in the primary production averaging provisions. An additional $20m per annum benefit to farmers will arise from a complementary increase in the notional farm income limit for primary production averaging purposes, from the current level of $5,000 to the new level of $15,000. This represents a significant increase in the amount of non-farm income which may benefit from the averaging provisions. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr KEATING —I was interested to hear the cheers from cockies' corner on that one! WATER CONSERVATION The Government has decided to replace the immediate deduction currently allowed for expenditure by primary producers on conserving or conveying water with a write-off in equal instalments over five years. The change will apply to expenditure incurred under contracts entered into after today. Having regard to concerns expressed about land degradation problems, the Government has decided not to change the immediate 100 per cent deduction currently allowed for expenditure on soil conservation. The revenue savings are estimated at $25m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. FILMS The very generous tax treatment granted to the Australian film industry has in recent years led to a burgeoning cost to the revenue and to accompanying doubts about whether this subsidy is returning value for money. The cost has grown from $13m in 1981-82 to $135m anticipated this financial year. Consequently, the Government has decided that the concessional treatment currently provided for film investments will be reduced to a 120 per cent tax deduction and 20 per cent income tax exemption for income. This will apply to investments made under contracts entered into after today. The grant to the Special Production Fund administered by the Australian Film Commission is to be increased from $4m to $6m in 1985-86, and to $7m in 1986-87. The estimated net saving to revenue of the changes is around $35m in both 1986-87 and 1987-88. PETROLEUM AND AFFORESTATION COMPANIES As canvassed in the draft White Paper, the Government has decided to withdraw from midnight tonight the special rebate and deduction available for certain capital subscribed to petroleum and afforestation companies. Revenue savings from these changes are estimated at $10m for 1986-87 and $15m for 1987-88. INCOME TAX ON PUBLIC UNIT TRUSTS The draft White Paper drew attention to the increasing use of trusts to avoid company tax. Although the reforms to the company tax arrangements, which I shall mention shortly, will reduce the incentive to use trusts, there would still be advantages for tax-exempt institutional investors in the trust form. The Government has therefore decided to extend company tax arrangements to public unit trusts but only those which operate a trade or business, as distinct from the great majority which are vehicles for investing in property, equities or securities. These latter public unit trusts, and all private trusts, will be unaffected by this measure. The new arrangements will apply to trusts established after today to operate a trade or business. There will be reasonable transitional arrangements to phase in the new treatment for existing trusts of that kind, with first company tax payments not required before 1988-89. FOREIGN TAX CREDIT SYSTEM Under current arrangements the income of Australian residents from foreign sources is generally exempt from income tax if it has been subject to tax overseas. That exemption applies, however, regardless of how little that foreign tax may be. As a consequence the Government has decided to replace the existing arrangements with a general foreign tax credit system along the lines set out in the draft White Paper. Under the proposed system the foreign source income of Australian residents will be taxed in Australia and a credit for foreign tax paid will be allowed against Australian tax payable on that income. Salaries and wages will generally remain exempt in Australia if taxable in the source country. The new system, which is similar to systems operated by the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany, will apply to income derived from the beginning of the 1987-88 income year. I stress that, in proceeding with this measure, the Government will, through appropriate measures, give recognition to the position of regional countries that provide tax incentives to attract legitimate investment from Australia and elsewhere as a means of fulfilling their development aspirations. The direct gain to revenue is estimated at about $45m per annum at 1984-85 levels of income, with the first revenue gains accruing in 1988-89. GOLD MINING The draft White Paper proposal to tax income from gold mining has not been adopted. An independent inquiry has been established to examine the impact of the White Paper proposal on the gold mining industry. That inquiry will report to the Government during the first half of 1986. TAXATION RELIEF The measures I have announced will raise about $1 billion in 1986-87 and $1.7 billion in 1987-88. As I stressed earlier, the government is engaged in a tax reform exercise, not a tax raising exercise. Consequently, every dollar raised by these measures-and more-will be returned to taxpayers and social security beneficiaries by reform of the income tax rate scale and the company tax regime and by reductions in poverty traps. I turn now to these proposals. MINING At present, excess deductions for exploration and development expenditure cannot be transferred to another company, even where the companies satisfy the 100 per cent common ownership test. Mining companies therefore cannot take full advantage of the group loss provisions available to other companies. As canvassed in the draft White Paper, the Government has decided to extend that opportunity to petroleum and general mining companies. This will apply to excess deductions from exploration and development expenditures incurred in 1985-86 and subsequent income years. The estimated revenue costs of this measure are $70 million in 1986-87 and $65 million in 1987-88. The Government also proposes to freeze, until the 1986-87 Budget, the difference between the diesel fuel excise and the diesel fuel rebate for diesel fuel used in mining operations. The rebate will be further reviewed in the context of the 1986-87 Budget. IMPUTATION SYSTEM OF COMPANY TAX It has long been a complaint of taxpayers that dividend income is effectively taxed twice-once as company profits and once as personal income. A further problem has been that the company tax rate is less than the maximum personal marginal tax rate. This has provided an advantage for some higher income earners who can avoid the higher marginal tax rate by establishing companies for tax sheltering. While the existing tax system provides a positive incentive for some people to channel income through companies, it effectively discourages most investors from buying shares altogether. For decades the pattern of investment by Australians has been distorted away from productive enterprise owing to the double taxation of dividends. The Government believes the raising of equity for our continuing national development should be encouraged. Accordingly, the Government has decided to proceed with a system of full imputation on company income distributed to resident individual shareholders. To help defray the cost of this measure, the company tax rate will be increased from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. However, there will still remain a significant net cost of about $250m per year to Commonwealth revenue. People receiving dividends will receive a credit when they determine their own personal tax liability. Thus, for each $51 of dividends received, $100 will be included in the shareholder's assessable income, and a credit of $49 allowed against the taxpayer's assessed income tax bill. For a taxpayer with a marginal tax rate of 49 per cent, this will effectively free the dividend from any tax. Individuals facing lower marginal tax rates will be able to apply the excess credit to reduce their tax liability on non-dividend income. The credit will not give rise to cash refunds where it exceeds tax otherwise payable. Imputation credits will not extend to non-resident shareholders. Because of the changes, some renegotiation of Australia's double taxation treaties could be involved. It is intended that the 49 per cent company tax rate first apply to company tax collections in 1987-88-that is, relevant to company incomes for the 1986-87 income year-and that imputation credits first apply to dividends paid in 1987-88. On the basis indicated, the annual cost to revenue of these measures could be approximately $250m from 1988-89. I will be interested to hear honourable members opposite refer to small business, medium business and large business now because they denied the shareholders of this country this reform for 30 years and they subjected their dividends to double taxation for 30 years. They had no appreciation of the needs of investment in the community and no appreciation of the need to raise equity in the community. Again they have been exposed for failing even to consider the necessary and fundamental reforms to which they are supposedly committed. So the small business lobbies, the medium business lobbies and the large business lobbies can weigh the value of the Opposition's rhetoric on these issues and make the appropriate judgment that, as usual, it is worthless. POVERTY TRAPS As part of the reform package, the Government has recognised that certain social security arrangements presently provide little incentive for pensioners and beneficiaries to earn extra income. Accordingly, the Government will take a number of steps to alleviate the problems caused by these poverty traps. First, from 1 November 1986, the amount of private income that a pensioner may earn before his or her pension is reduced under the income test will be increased by $10 per week for single pensioners and by $20 per week for pensioner couples. This increases the amount single pensioners can earn each week without affecting the pension from $30 to $40, and for couples, from $50 to $70. As a result the pension payment received by all of the 450,000 recipients who currently receive a part-rate pension will increase by up to $5 per week. Those pensioners earning in the range $30 to $40 per week may continue to face a small tax liability, but will no longer be subject to the 50c in the dollar income test as well. Secondly, the Government will abolish the separate income test on rent assistance. This test at the moment leads to the withdrawal of 50c in rent assistance for the first and each subsequent $1 of income earned. The inclusion of rent assistance in the general income test will reduce the marginal rate of income withdrawal faced by some 700,000 pensioners and beneficiaries receiving rent assistance, in most cases from 50 per cent to zero. A benefit of up to $15 per week will flow to some 300,000 pensioners with non-pension income in private rental accommodation. Thirdly, the Government proposes to further assist pensioners with children. At present, the weekly income a pensioner may earn without reduction of pension is increased by $6 for each child. This allowance is to rise to $12 per child. The measure will increase the pension of all part-rate pensioners with children by up to $3 per week for each child. All three measures will be introduced from the first pension and benefit payday in November 1986 as the tax reform measures begin to take effect. The effects of the three measures I have announced may be illustrated by the case of a supporting parent or pensioner with two children living in rental accommodation. At present, if such a pensioner earned $100 a week of private income, the social security pension plus rent assistance is reduced by $44. From November next year, this pensioner would lose only $18 in reduced benefits for a total gain of $26 per week. The full year effect on outlays of the measures is estimated at about $215m. Net full year costs will be around $185m as some part of the outlays will be clawed back in personal income tax in later years. THE INCOME TAX RATE SCALE Mr Speaker, as I said at the outset, our major objective has been to substantially lighten the heavy weight of high marginal tax rates on honest taxpayers and to restore fairness to the operation of the taxation system. That is what we set out to do. With this reform package, that is what we will achieve. The new tax schedules I will announce shortly have been framed with a number of factors in mind. First, they represent the fulfilment of the Government's commitment to provide tax cuts from September 1986, equivalent to a 2 per cent wage increase, as part of its agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for continued wage restraint. In addition, the tax cuts take account of the distributional impact of the reform measures that I have outlined. These impact most heavily upon higher income earners; that is, the reform measures are highly progressive. While that, of itself, does not establish a case for providing greater relief at such income levels, I come back to the point that reductions in the higher marginal rates have been, and remain, a prime objective of tax reform. It is the high rates of personal income tax which have provided a major incentive for people to avoid and evade their tax and which involve the most severe disincentive to work, save and invest. But few of the people in the top bracket have paid the 60c in the dollar asked of them. They have arranged their affairs to evade, avoid or minimise that liability. Instead their share of the burden has been carried by ordinary middle income Australians. It must be clearly understood that the measures I have announced today will impact most heavily upon high income avoiders and evaders. Those people will very definitely be worse off because of the Government's actions. At the same time, when this package is implemented the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will no longer be seeking to collect in income tax more than half the income of any citizen. The tax cuts that I will now detail have been timed to take effect as the extra revenue from our tax reform measures comes on stream. On top of that, the Government fully recognises that the making of these tax cuts imposes very substantial constraints on future government spending proposals. The following changes will be made to the personal income tax rate scale from 1 September 1986: The tax free threshold will be increased from $4,595 to $5,100, and the $12,500 threshold will be increased to $12,600; the 25 per cent marginal rate will be reduced to 24 per cent; the 30 per cent marginal rate will be reduced to 29 per cent; the 46 per cent rate will be reduced to 43 per cent; the 48 per cent rate will be reduced to 46 per cent; and the 60 per cent rate will be reduced to 55 per cent. From 1 July 1987, by which time the revenue yield of the income tax base broadening measures will have built up significantly, the Government will complete the reform of the scales by making further reductions in the higher marginal rates. Specifically; the 43 and 46 per cent rates will be reduced to 40 per cent; and the 55 per cent rate will be reduced to 49 per cent. With the alignment of the top personal tax rate and the company tax rate at 49 per cent from 1987-88, the special tax on excess profit retentions by private companies-the so-called Division 7 tax-will be unnecessary and will be removed, a further plus for small and medium business. Further details of these tax cuts, and their impact on various categories of taxpayers, are included in the attachments. CONCLUSIONS What I have announced today are far-reaching genuine, and substantial tax reforms. They achieve the fundamental objectives we set ourselves at the outset of this ambitious endeavour, namely: To significantly reduce marginal tax rates; to curtail tax avoidance and evasion and restore fairness to the tax system; and to gear our tax system for economic growth by providing the greater rewards for initiative, removing distorting shelters and ending the double taxation of dividends. The Government's tax reform exercise is completed. We will, however, continue to act where necessary to stamp out any avoidance and evasion practices that develop. Furthermore, the package I have announced today commits the Government to unprecedented fiscal responsibility over the years ahead. In bringing down this package, the Government has confronted the issue of tax reform. We have been willing to consult with the people of Australia. We have been willing seriously and responsibly to consider the issues involved and we have been willing to take the hard decisions. These decisions are essential to secure the future economic well-being of the nation. They are essential if we are to recover respect and integrity for the taxation system. They are essential if all Australians are to be treated with fairness and equity. The Government is confident that the people of Australia will recognise that these significant measures are taken in the best interests of the nation and for the greater good of every individual Australia. The attachments to the speech will be tabled subsequently. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I think it should be said at the outset of the debate on the tax changes announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that nobody who has any understanding of the complexity of the Australian taxation system should pretend for a moment that the task of tax reform in Australia or, indeed, in any other complex industrial society is an easy one. I certainly make it clear at the outset that nobody on this side of the House will approach this debate in the atmosphere of pretending that there are simple, easy solutions to the task of taxation reform. The Treasurer has told us that this package represents the largest and most imaginative tax reform package that has ever been carried out in Australia's history. Government members-That is right. Mr HOWARD —`That is right', they say. It is true that the changes announced by the Treasurer tonight are by volume the largest number of changes to our taxation system that have ever been assembled under the one roof and ever announced by a Treasurer. However, the test of whether these changes by the Treasurer to the taxation system deserve the title of fundamental reform is not measured by the number of changes that have been made but by their quality. I put to the House that the Treasurer's statement fails the test of fundamental reform, according to the criteria laid down not only by the Opposition but also by the Treasurer. This taxation package falls a long way short of the bold vision of tax reform to which he attached himself only seven or eight months ago. The Treasurer would have us believe that this is the last chapter in the saga of taxation reform undertaken by him, but everybody on this side of the House knows, and everyone sitting behind the Treasurer also knows, that between now and the final introduction of the legislation there will be further major changes because over the years the track record of this Government on reform and changes of this kind has been of constant change, bobbing and weaving. We all remember the Treasurer saying a few months ago that if we did not have option C, we would tear the heart out of the taxation package. They were the words of the Treasurer. He said that he was not a shrinking violet, that he was not somebody who would disappear at the first whiff of grapeshot. Of course, he was not going to do that. What we now have is a very scaled down version of what the Treasurer originally wanted. The taxation package has not addressed the fundamental change that is needed to our taxation system. The fundamental change that is needed to our taxation system is to reduce the excessive reliance on personal income tax of a direct kind as a source of revenue. That is a view that I have held for five years. It is a view that the Treasurer holds but which he could get through his own Cabinet. It is a view that any student of the taxation system in Australia knows to be a fact. We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and from the Treasurer about consistency on the question of taxation. Let us try this for consistency. On 16 February 1983 the Prime Minister said: `Let me make one point, so that even our opponents can understand it, and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax.' Let me make one thing clear beyond the powers of distortion of honourable members opposite so that even our opponents can understand it, that is that in both Houses of this Parliament the Coalition will vote against the imposition of this capital gains tax. It remains the policy, as announced by my predecessor and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), that we will seek to repeal this capital gains tax on the re-election of a coalition government. Let me say that clearly. I notice that the only one who cheers, of course, is that person who is really in tune with the centre ground of Australian politics and that is the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I do not see all the Treasurer's mates from the New South Wales Right throwing their hats into the air. Do honourable members know why? They are dead against the capital gains tax. The Treasurer was dead against it at the Sydney Town Hall three years ago when he said that if a capital gains tax were introduced, it would destroy the Government's electoral prospects. I make it perfectly clear that the Opposition has consistently opposed the introduction of a capital gains tax. We campaigned on it during the last election campaign and I simply reaffirm it on behalf of the Opposition. I make that position perfectly clear on behalf of the coalition. Judged not only by our policy, but also by the criterion that has been laid down by the Treasurer, this is not a credible or coherent tax reform package. It fails the test of both those criteria. We heard sentence after sentence from the Treasurer about tax avoidance. Every page of his speech said that the Government would wipe out the rorts and the ramps, and yet there was not one reference to the major area of tax avoidance in Australia at present, and that is the cash economy. Until the Government does something about reducing the excessive reliance on direct personal tax, it will not only be unable to tackle the cash economy, but also, by some of these measures today, it will, in fact, increase reliance on and resort by people to the cash economy. The Treasurer should not imagine that the fringe benefit changes that he has announced today will not encourage more people to go into the cash economy. They certainly will, and a number of the other changes that he has announced will have exactly the same effect. Let me go through some of the details of the package that has been announced by the Treasurer. Naturally, in the time available it is not possible to make a comprehensive response to all of them. We welcome the reductions in marginal rates of tax and also the steps towards relieving the double taxation of dividends. Let me remind the Treasurer-- Mr Griffiths —How would you pay for them? Mr HOWARD —I say to the honourable member for Maribyrnong: Hang on; do not get too excited; all in good time. I remind the Treasurer that a start towards relieving the double taxation of dividends was made in 1982. One of the first acts of the Hawke Government when it got into power was to put that proposal on the back burner. The Government now thinks it is a terrific idea and it is parading itself as being the friend of small business for doing it. It is a bit like its opposition to the special deduction for self-employed superannuation. That was said in 1980 to be a bankrolling of our financial supporters. The Government in the last Budget increased that deduction from $1,200 to $1,500-another initiative that it has introduced! Let me make it perfectly clear that we welcome those steps. We would have financed those changes in a different manner. I go back to what was said in our taxation policy statement before the last election. We have said all along that the Governmnent has paid insufficient regard to expenditure restraint and expenditure reduction in this whole taxation reform exercise. I also repeat the commitment which is contained in that taxation policy towards a greater dependence on indirect taxation and a lessening of our excessive reliance on direct personal taxation as a source of revenue. Honourable members opposite may ask me what alternative approach we would take to funding those measures. It is based upon our well-known approach in those areas. I have indicated to the House the attitude of the Opposition towards the introduction of a capital gains tax and our commitments on that-made recently and foreshadowed during the election campaign-are reaffirmed today. The Treasurer would have us believe, and we were led to believe before the tax package was announced, that the rationalisation of the wholesale taxation system would be revenue neutral. I simply remind the House that the rationalisation of the wholesale tax system will increase indirect tax revenue by about $125m. That ought to be kept in mind by those who simply see it as being a rationalisation of the wholesale taxation system. By far one of the most controversial aspects of the taxation package announced by the Treasurer is the proposals that he has introduced in the fringe benefit area. Let me say on behalf of the Opposition that, when these proposals were first mooted in the White Paper, we described them as a discriminatory jackbooted approach to the problem of fringe benefits, and the form in which they have emerged today does not require us to alter that description one iota. They represent in the eyes of many a de facto tax on employment and a de facto payroll tax. They will have an anti-employment effect and a particularly severe effect on the operations of many small businesses throughout Australia. It is simply a cop-out to the trade union movement for the Government to impose this tax on so many private sector employers around Australia. It will not have much success in explaining to the general public that it will be able to treat people in public sector employment in precisely the same way as it treats people in private sector employment. The Government will hear over the weeks and months ahead a great deal more about this fringe benefits proposal. It is going to understand that its proposals for changes in that area will reach far beyond the areas of the Australian economy and the Australian society than it ever imagined. One could be forgiven for being a trifle cynical when one turns to the paragraph dealing with the gold tax. We are going to have an inquiry into the gold tax, and it is going to report in six months time. I wonder what will have happened between now and the end of the `six months time'. Honourable members opposite are laughing in their embarrassment. We might almost call it the Western Australian election paragraph. I say to the voters of Western Australia right here and now that that is the most cynical element of the taxation White Paper. Every voter in Western Australia ought to be on notice now that Burke and Hawke got together. Brian said to Bob: `Can you put it off until after the election?' Bob said: `When is the election going to be?' Brian said: `It is going to be on such and such a date.' Bob said: `Oh, I know. We will have an inquiry. We will do something original. We will have an inquiry and we will put off the tax until after the election has been held'. Either the Labor Party is in favour of the tax or against it. Without question, that is the most cynical exercise that I have ever seen it engaged in. As we move on, and once again applying the test of consistency, looking back at what the Government and the Opposition have said in the past, I note that there is a total absence from this statement by the Treasurer of any reference to the impact of these taxation changes on Australian families. Where is the reference to the need to improve the lot of the single income family with young children? There is no such reference at all in this statement. It is supposed to be the most comprehensive taxation reform package that we have seen since Federation, but the single income family with young children, or, for that matter, the double income family with young children, does not rate a word. Not a word is contained in the statement about the impact of these taxation changes on Australian families. Is there any reference to the need for income splitting? Is there any reference to the provision of tax deductibility for child care expenses in recognition that now almost 50 per cent of married women in Australia with dependent children are part of the work force? Is there any reference in the Treasurer's speech to the need to facilitate a choice amongst middle and lower income Australian families with young children as to whether they will be single or double income families? Of course there is not. There are plenty of references to tax avoidance and tax evasion but there is no reference at all to the need to provide a more sympathetic taxation system as far as Australian families are concerned. But it is not only Australian families who, I think, will feel neglected by many elements of the Treasurer's speech. I also believe that the combined effect of the proposals contained in the speech, despite the attempts by the Treasurer to soften the blow in a number of areas, will be greeted with a great deal of trepidation and gloom within the length and breadth of rural Australia. The effect of these proposals, particularly the imposition of a capital gains tax, will be felt. It is all very well for the Treasurer to say that it will yield only $25m after five years. One may well ask: If it going to yield only $25m after five years, why on earth go to the trouble of imposing it? It is just some kind of blind ideological hang-up that the Government has about the introduction of a capital gains tax. It is not only the revenue yield from a capital gains tax that is important; it is also the depressing effect that it will have on investment expectations and on small business and farmers throughout Australia. That effect will be felt, and it will be resented throughout the rural community. It is no good talking about how the Government has taken out all the nasty parts. Take the example of group of people who are getting a return of about 2 or 3 per cent of their investment. They are seeing their markets around the world disappearing in front of their eyes. They are facing the greatest cost burdens that the farmers of Australia have faced since Federation. The Government says to them: `You ought to be happy and you ought to break out into applause because it is not quite as bad as you thought it was going to be'. If honourable members opposite think that it will satisfy the farmers and the rural community in Australia, I think they have another think coming. The rural community in Australia is a wake up to the sort of con trick that is represented by that, just as it has been a wake up to the costs that are imposed on it by the Government's rotten centralised wage fixation system which takes absolutely no account of the difficulties of different industries throughout Australia; and just as they are a wake up to the way in which the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have got together over the Mudginberri dispute and are denying individual Australians the right to make a decision that benefits their own destiny. An area of the Government's announcement that will also be approached with a great deal of trepidation throughout the rural community is of course its attack which parades under that great catchcry of getting rid of the Pitt Street farmers, or should I say the Pitt Street-Collins Street farmers. The Government would have us believe that every person in Australia who sets off losses on farm income against income in another area is a Pitt Street farmer. The reality is that there are tens of thousands of farmers in Australia who have to get non-farm income to survive, and that is the reason why there has been such an extensive resort to this offsetting of income. True it is that the quarantining measures are not quite as severe as was canvassed in the White Paper, but the reality is that these proposals will have an effect on many bona fide farmers who have had to get off their farms merely to get income from other sources simply to survive and keep their families going. Anybody who understands the plight of rural Australia at present will know that everything I have said on that subject is absolutely correct. Let me also say this of Pitt Street farmers and of the ideological descriptions that are used in relation to people who invest in rural Australia. Undoubtedly there are tax advantages in it. I know that and everybody in the Parliament knows that. But what we have to do is net out the costs and losses in things like this, and we have to ask ourselves whether Australia would have been a better place had we not had the huge investment in rural Australia by many of these people over the last 10 or 20 years. There are many people, not just those interested in preserving these benefits, who believe that implementation of the proposals advanced by the Government will have a devastating effect on land values throughout rural Australia. It will be on the head of this Government and this Treasurer that, on top of the misery of disappearing markets only two years out of the worst drought we have had since Federation and all the other costs problems that those in rural Australia have to suffer at present, the Hawke-Keating Government has visited on them a measure which will have a devastating effect on their land values. If the Government wants to live with that and if its Ministers want to go round the farms and country areas of Australia and argue their case, they are welcome. I can promise on behalf of the coalition that there will be speaker after speaker to match them on every platform throughout rural Australia, because they do no understand, they have never understood, the farmers and primary producers of Australia, and by this speech today they demonstrate that they never will. The cynicism and the contradictions of the Government do not end there. We have the proposition that negative gearing is wrong and that more than a limited amount of non-farm income cannot be set off against farm income, yet in another part of the statement the Government is facilitating the exact opposite. It is going to make it easier-and I do not object to this-for petroleum and mining companies to merge their losses and their profits from different sources of endeavour. In other words, it is going to facilitate group taxation in that area, yet in relation to farmers and those who invest in property through negative gearing it is going to do the exact opposite. Mr Hunt —Why do they hate the farmers? Mr HOWARD —That represents a valid question. Why are those opposite so insensitive towards Australian farmers? The contradictions, the cynicism and the blind subservience to ideology simply do not end there. As one goes through the statement made by the Treasurer one finds that there is not a commitment to the fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system, that is, to reduce our excessive reliance on direct personal taxation. The Treasurer, by his statements at the Tax Summit and in his speeches in the lead-up to the Tax Summit, has demonstrated that he knows that is the great and fundamental reform of the taxation system that needs to be made. Another area where I think the Treasurer has demonstrated that he simply does not understand is the proposal to introduce a foreign tax credits system. When I was Treasurer in 1978 I proposed, on advice I then received, the introduction of that system, and I put it out for public discussion. I had a large number of representations. I cannot recall when, in the time I was Treasurer, I had a greater volume of representations from the total cross-section of the Australian business community than I had on that particular issue. The uniform plea that I had from Australian business on that issue was that if I introduced a foreign tax credit system I would hamper economic investment and expansion of Australian enterprise in the area of the Association of South East Asian Nations and in South East Asia. With great respect to the Treasurer-and I do not say this with any sense of rhetoric-comparisons with the United Kingdom and the United States on this issue simply are not relevant. It is of enormous long term importance to Australia strategically, economically and politically that we multiply our links with the South East Asian area. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to his great credit, has spent a lot of time extolling the virtues of a new vision, of a new relationship between Australia and China. I say to the Prime Minister: `If you introduce a foreign tax credit system you will do more to damage the potential economic relationship between Australia and China and you will do more to damage investment by Australian companies in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia'. Mr Duncan —No, you are wrong. Mr HOWARD —Frankly those countries are more important to our foreign policy than many of the countries with which the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) is currently pre-occupied. I genuinely ask the Treasurer to reconsider that particular proposal. It seems clever. It seems smart. It seems the right thing to do. It is all done in the name of anti-avoidance. But what it will do is deny the availability of many of the tax breaks and tax incentives in these developing countries to people who are prepared to invest their dollars. I should feel comfortable that I am totally wrong. I am assured by the former South Australian Attorney-General, the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan), who really is a whiz when it comes to these sorts of investment decisions, that everything is absolutely right and I need not have any worries. I have to say to the honourable member that I, many on this side of the House, the Australian business community and people on the ground in these countries are very worried about a proposal that has the potential to deny to them the tax incentives and inducements available in these countries to encourage overseas investment. I think it will be a great shame if Australia falls behind in that and does not take every advantage to diversify and multiply her economic as well as her political links with those countries. As I indicated at the outset of this statement, given all the detail and the enormous number of subjects that have been canvassed in the Treasurer's statement, it is not possible in the short time I have had it to give a comprehensive reply to each and every detail, but of course we are going to have plenty of opportunity over the weeks ahead. We are scuttling and running tonight. The Parliament is not sitting tomorrow. We are not sitting next week. Well may those opposite scuttle and run tonight after the pathetic performance of their Prime Minister at Question Time. But we will be coming back and those opposite will be hearing a great deal more from us about this taxation package. I simply conclude on the point on which I commenced: This statement may contain the largest number of announcements and the largest number of changes to the Australian taxation system that a Treasurer has announced for many years, but according to not only our criteria but also his own criteria this is not a comprehensive reform of the Australian taxation system. In our view, if fully implemented, it will do lasting damage to many sections of rural Australia and to many sections of the small business community. Most damming of all, the taxation package that the Treasurer has just announced not only fails the criteria laid down by the Opposition and by other people in the community it also fails the criteria that he himself laid down with such bold language only a few months ago. According to his own test, which is the most important test of all, the Treasurer has failed to deliver fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Earlier today the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced a number of significant initiatives, as part of the Government's tax reform package, that will rationalise the structure and broaden the scope of the present wholesale sales tax system. This is the main Bill in a series of 11 Bills that will amend the sales tax law to give effect to those rationalisation and base broadening measures. At this stage it would perhaps be useful to honourable members if I were to outline briefly the changes to be made by these Bills. First, the wholesale sales tax base is to be broadened, principally with the intention of reducing anomalies by subjecting to tax certain goods that are presently exempt. Secondly, the rate of sales tax payable on records and sound and video tapes, a number of household and personal care items and certain other goods is to be substantially reduced. Finally, several classification anomalies and inconsistencies that presently exist in the sales tax law are to be rectified. The Bills will also effect some rationalisation in the present multiple rate structure of the wholesale sales tax by reducing from four to three the number of rates that apply to various goods. The Bills will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced in the 1985-86 Budget Speech, to provide an exemption from sales tax for horses imported into Australia after 20 August 1985. The opportunity is also being taken to make several technical changes and to correct certain drafting errors associated with amendments of the sales tax law enacted earlier this year. Taken together, these measures are estimated to produce a net revenue gain in 1985-86 of $75m and $110m in a full year. I turn now to discuss in detail the changes to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act proposed by this Bill. BASE BROADENING MEASURES The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act is a key element in the legislative structure of the wholesale sales tax. Its first Schedule describes all classes of goods that are exempt from the tax. It also contains five further schedules that specify goods or classes of goods that are taxable at the rates specified in the sales tax Acts. Goods that are not described in any of those six schedules are taxable at the general rate of tax. That rate is presently 20 per cent. Confectionery is presently taxable at the 20 per cent general rate. This Bill will specifically include confectionery in the third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The effect of this, together with certain changes to the rates Acts that I propose to introduce shortly, will be to reduce the rate of tax payable on confectionery items from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. There is, however, a wide range of goods that are non-staple food items and close substitutes for taxable confectionery that is presently exempt from sales tax. These goods, that might generically be described as snack foods, include potato crisps, nuts, ice creams, flavoured ice blocks and most biscuits. These goods are often used in substitution for confectionery and compete for sales in the market place with it. In order to remove inequities in taxation treatment between confectionery and snack foods, the Government has decided to bring snack foods within the sales tax base. These goods will be taxed at the same rate-that is, 10 per cent-that will after today apply to confectionery. I turn now to the other base broadening measures in this Bill. Goods that are ordinarily used for household purposes are presently subject to tax at the rate of 7.5 per cent. Examples of these goods, that are included in the third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, are refrigerators, washing machines and portable cooking appliances. There are, however, a number of other similar goods such as domestic stoves and ranges and water heating and storage equipment that are specifically exempt from sales tax by reason of their inclusion in the first Schedule to that Act. This Bill will bring the sales tax treatment of all these household goods into line by incorporating them in the existing third Schedule. I will shortly introduce further Bills to set the rate of tax for goods in this Schedule at 10 per cent. Various goods presently exempt from sales tax will, by virtue of the changes proposed in this Bill, also become taxable at the proposed rate of 10 per cent by reason of their inclusion in the third Schedule. These include wrapping materials, bags and fastening materials for domestic or household use, water filtering and sterilising equipment and books of maps. HIGH RATE GOODS The second Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act specifies goods that are presently taxable at the highest rate of 32.5 per cent. Many of the goods covered by the second Schedule are everyday household or personal care items. Other goods in that Schedule, such as totalisators, are more akin to computers that are taxable at the lower 20 per cent rate. Consistent with the Government's broad objective of rationalising the wholesale sales tax system, this Bill will remove a range of these goods from the second Schedule. As the goods to be omitted will no longer be specified in any schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act they will generally fall to be taxed at the lower rate of 20 per cent. Some goods will, however, remain in the second Schedule and fall to be taxed at the rate of 30 per cent-a reduction of 2.5 percentage points. Among the goods that will in future be taxed at the 30 per cent rate are jewellery, furs and fur garments, cosmetics, television and radio receivers, video recorders, photographic equipment, watches, clocks and gambling and amusement machines. ANOMALIES AND INCONSISTENCIES The need to specify in the law and in some detail the various goods and classes of goods that are subject to sales tax at differing rates has led to anomalies arising from time to time as new and changed products come onto the market. Unless corrected, the existence of such anomalies involves particular goods, et cetera, being taxed at higher rates than broadly comparable products or close substitutes. For example, while tea as ordinarily understood is exempt from sales tax, herbal teas are taxable. Anomalies of this kind have, by governments past and present, regularly been addressed by amending legislation. In yet other cases, goods which ought in logic to be taxable are exempt, often because of drafting defects or oversights in specifying the category of goods to be exempt or taxable. For example, ships and vessels designed for use for private purposes such as pleasure or recreation are generally taxable. If however, a ship or vessel is purchased to be used for private transport or accommodation, it is exempt from tax. The Bill will correct these and a number of other anomalies, details of which are contained in the explanatory memorandum. IMPORTED HORSES As part of the Government's 1985-86 Budget, the Treasurer announced several measures to assist the Australian horse racing industry. This Bill will give effect to the decision to exempt from sales tax horses imported into Australia after 20 August 1985. Finally, I take this opportunity to announce the Government's decision to exempt from sales tax earth stations, designed to receive the household and community broadcasting satellite services, that are purchased after today for domestic use to receive that service. This proposal is not contained in this Bill. However, the Government proposes to move an amendment during the Committee stage of debate on the Bill to give effect to its decision. ANTI-AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS The amendments of the sales tax law that I have just outlined for honourable members will come into effect from midnight tonight. Sadly, there are still those in the community who may, between the time when these measures were announced by the Treasurer and midnight tonight, enter into transactions in order to avoid sales tax liabilities resulting from classification and rate changes which would clearly arise after midnight. Against that possibility, I mention that anit-avoidance provisions designed to protect the revenue from such last minute transactions are included in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which I will introduce shortly. An explanatory memorandum containing detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill is being circulated to honourable members, I do not, therefore, propose to further address the matters covered by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bills presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.10) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. Under the present structure of the sales tax legislation, each of the Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos 1-9) has a complementary taxing Act. These taxing Acts impose the sales tax and prescribe the rates of tax payable in respect of goods. The rate depends on the particular Schedule, if any, of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, that the goods may be listed in. These nine Bills will amend the sales tax Acts to rationalise the wholesale sales tax rate structure by reducing the number of rate categories from four to three. The specific changes are as follows. Goods that continue to be covered by the Second Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act will, under these Bills, be subject to tax at the new rate of 30 per cent. As I mentioned in my second reading speech on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill goods including jewellery, furs, cosmetics and certain electronic equipment will be in this category. At the same time, the Bills will increase the rate of tax payable on goods covered by the third Schedule to that Act from 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent. Finally, the Bills will reimpose tax at the existing rates on goods covered by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules to that Act, as well as goods that are subject to tax at the general rate. Details of these Bills are also set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the last Bill in this series of 11 Bills. This Bill will amend several sales tax statutes to make a number of technical changes and correct certain drafting errors that have been identified in connection with anti-avoidance amendments of the sales tax law enacted earlier this year. In this area, the amendments proposed by this Bill are, without exception, not substantive in nature. The Bill will also make consequential changes to the sales tax regulations to `mirror' changes, associated with the imposition of tax at the 10 per cent rate on biscuits and ice cream products, that are to be made by the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985. As I mentioned earlier, when introducing the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985, this Bill contains an anti-avoidance provision that will strike down last minute transactions carried out by persons in an attempt to avoid a liability for sales tax that would arise out of the amendments of the sales tax law being made by these Bills. The explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members also contains detailed explanations of the technical aspects of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.14) —This Bill is the first in a package of four Bills. It will amend the various taxation laws in several respects. The Bill proposes amendments of the income tax law to give effect to the Government's decisions to counter the use of non-leveraged finance leases and similar arrangements to achieve tax benefits. It will introduce statutory loan back rules that employer sponsored superannuation funds will be required to follow to secure relevant tax concessions. This Bill will also give effect to a number of the Government's 1985-86 Budget proposals. Among these is the increase in two superannuation related monetary limits that apply for income tax purposes. Further, it will authorise income tax deductions for gifts made to the Australian Academy of the Humanities and to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The Bill will amend the income tax law to allow a deduction of up to $1,000 per election for expenses incurred by candidates contesting elections to local government or to the Australian Captial Territory House of Assembly. One of the three measures this Government has announced to assist the horse racing industry-the exemption from income tax of the income of animal racing clubs-will be given effect by this Bill. For persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security, unemployment sickness or special benefits, the Bill will increase the income threshold below which they will not be required to pay tax. As is customary at Budget time, this Bill will also provide the basis for calculation of provisional tax for the 1985-86 year of income. Also included in the Bill are the amendments to give effect to the measure announced on 17 July 1985 to replace the existing concessional expenditure rebate for eligible expenditure exceeding $2,000 with a rebate for net medical expenses exceeding $1,000. The Bill will also amend the Taxation Administration Act to provide for co-operation with the States and the Territories in the administration of their revenue laws. The secrecy provisions of various taxation laws administered by the Commission of Taxation are to be amended to cover persons such as those from country performing duties while on attachment to the Australian Taxation Office. Finally, the Bill will make a number or minor technical amendments of the taxation laws. I now turn to outline in more detail the more significant measures contained in the Bill. Non-leveraged Finance Leasing and Similar Arrangements Measures announced on 15 May and 16 December 1984 to treat, for income tax purposes, certain non-leveraged finance leases and similar arrangements as though they were loans by the lessor to enable the lessee or user to acquire the leased property are to be implemented by this Bill. Under the arrangements in question, the lessor passes on to a lessee such as a tax exempt body, in the form or lower lease rentals, some of the tax benefits that would be available to the body if it owned the property and were subject to tax. At the same time, the tax exempt body assumes most of the risks and benefits associated with ownership of the leased property. By amendments proposed in the Bill, the lessor will be denied income tax deduction in respect of capital expenditure on property that is the subject of such an arrangement. Instead, the lease payment made to the lessor will be treated as consisting of non-taxable repayments of principal and taxable repayments of principal and taxable payments of interest. Deductions for interest on moneys borrowed to fund the captial expenditure will not be affected. These measures will mean that the tax advantages, and therefore substantial revenue losses, associated with the use of these arrangements will be removed. In more detail, the measures are to apply where plant, equipment or other property is leased under a finance lease either to a government or tax exempt government authority or to a person who uses the property outside Australia to produce income that is not subject to Australian income tax. They will also apply where such property, although not leased is the subject of an arragement having the hallmarks of a finance lease. The amending legislation contains tests as to whether an arrangement is a finance lease or similar arrangement. These tests are based on those developed for accounting and commercial purposes and are aimed at determining whether all, or substantially all, of the risks and benefits associated with ownership of the subject property are transferred from the lessor to the lessee. It is estimated that the measures will result in a tax saving in excess of $100m in 1985-86 and even larger amounts in subsequent years. Statutory Loan-back Rules This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 11 March 1985, to introduce statutory rules to apply to certain investments by employer sponsored superannuation funds. That decision reflects the Government's concern that excessive investment by a superannuation fund in the sponsoring employer's business may mean in the event of the failure of that business, that employees lose not only their jobs but also their superannuation entitlements. This concern was shared by the Commonwealth Task Force on Occupational Superannuation, the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. The basic rule contained in the Bill adopts the recommendation of the Commonwealth Task Force. This is that not more than 10 per cent of the assets, measured at cost, of an employer sponsored superannuation fund should consist of equities in, or loans to, the employer or associated persons or entities. For funds established after 11 March 1985, that basic rule is first to apply for the 1985-86 year of income. For funds in existence at 11 March 1985, a special transitional rule will apply over the 10-year period ending with the 1994-95 year of income. The special transitional rule will limit employer investment by such a fund to the greater of 10 per cent of the fund's assets or the level of investment as at 11 March 1985. That rule will allow those funds in existence at 11 March 1985, that would otherwise breach the 10 per cent investment restriction, to comply with the basic rule by way of natural growth, so avoiding significant refinancing problems for some businesses. In announcing the Government's decision to introduce statutory loan-back rules for employer sponsored superannuation funds, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated that the consequences of non-compliance would be that the investment income of the fund would be taxed at the rate of 60 per cent, that employer contributions would not be deductible and that member contributions would be neither deductible nor rebatable. The no rebate consequence for member contributions is no longer relevant following the Government's decision to abolish the concessional expenditure rebate. The no deduction consequence for both employer and member contributions will, however, remain. On further consideration the Government has decided that the announced penalty tax rate of 60 per cent on the investment income of non-complying funds is inappropriate. Having regard to the non-deductibility of contributions and to the fact that payments to members-either in the form of pensions or lump sum termination payments-will be subject to tax, it has been decided that a more appropriate rate of tax is 30 per cent. That rate is being imposed by another Bill that I will introduce shortly. The new rules are not there for revenue raising purposes but are designed to protect members' benefits by encouraging superannuation funds to restrict the level of their investments in sponsoring employers.The amendments should therefore have little effect on the revenue. Superannuation Contributions The Bill will give effect to a 1985-86 Budget proposal to increase from $1,200 to $1,500 the maximum annual income tax deduction allowable for contributions to approved superannuation funds by self-employed persons or employees not covered by employer-funded schemes. The increase is to apply for the 1985-86 and subsequent income years. The estimated revenue cost of this measure is nil in 1985-86, $14m in 1986-87 and $10m in 1987-88. Lump Sum Termination Payments The Bill will also increase the amount of lump sum superannuation and kindred payments relating to the period after 30 June 1983 that is taxed at the concessional rate of not more than 15 per cent. Under the existing law, the first $50,000 of such payments made to a person aged 55 or more qualifies for the 15 per cent rate of tax. As announced in the 1985-86 Budget, that limit is being increased to $55,000 for the 1985-86 and subsequent income years. This particular measure will cost an estimated $500,000 in 1985-86, increasing to $8m per annum in future years when relevant payments are wholly attributable to the period after 30 June 1983. Concessional Expenditure Rebate and Medical Expenses Rebate The draft White Paper on tax reform canvassed the abolition of the concessional expenditure rebate and its replacement with a rebate for medical expenses. On 17 July 1985 the Treasurer announced that the Government had decided to proceed with this proposal in relation to the 1985-86 and subsequent income years. This Bill will give effect to that decision. As indicated at that time, only about 6 per cent of taxpayers incur sufficient expenses to benefit from the concessional expenditure rebate. It was also noted that most of the items under the rebate already receive substantial government assistance in other ways and that it was therefore inappropriate to provide assistance to a small section of the community by way of a tax rebate. However, the Government also recognised a continuing need for some assistance to those incurring high unreimbursed medical expenses and has therefore decided to introduce a new medical expense rebate for net outgoings exceeding $1,000. This rebate will apply to the existing range of medical expenses which form part of the concessional expenditure rebate, including payments to medical practitioners, nurses, hospitals and chemists in respect of an illness or operation and payments for dental and optical treatment. The decision to abolish the concessional rebate requires some consequential amendments, one of which I particularly draw to the attention of honourable members. Under existing arrangements the first $250 of the net amount of self-education expenses necessarily incurred in connection with a prescribed course of education is absorbed by the concessional expenditure rebate provisions, leaving the general deduction provision of the income tax law, where it has application, to allow a deduction only for the balance of such expenditure. Provisions in this Bill will ensure that, with the abolition of the concessional expenditure rebate, a taxpayer's entitlement to a deduction for relevant self-education expenses will continue to fall for consideration under the general deduction provision of the income tax law only to the extent that such expenses exceed $250. The net gain to revenue from these measures is estimated at $15m for 1985-86 and $60m in 1986-87 and subsequent years. Animal Racing Clubs The Treasurer in his Budget Speech foreshadowed three measures designed to assist the horse racing industry. This Bill will give effect to one of those measures by amending the income tax law to exempt from income tax the income derived by animal racing clubs. The exemption will apply primarily to horse and greyhound racing clubs. Consistent with the exemption currently applying to clubs conducting athletic sports, it will not apply to clubs the activities of which are predominantly social in nature or are carried on for the purposes of profit or gain to individual members. The exemption is to apply for the 1985-86 and subsequent years of income. The estimated revenue cost of this measure is nil in 1985-86 and $1m for a full year. Local Government Election Expenses This Bill will implement the Budget proposal to allow, in 1985-86 and subsequent income years, a deduction of up to $1,000 for expenditure incurred in contesting local government elections. The deduction will also be available to candidates for the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The present income tax law includes in assessable income the amount of any election expenditure that has been allowed as a deduction to a candidate for this Parliament or a State parliament and which is reimbursed or paid on the candidate's behalf. Similar provisions are included in this Bill in relation to candidates for local government elections. However, because of the $1,000 ceiling proposed, the provisions in this Bill will effectively ensure that relevant payments will be included in a candidate's assessable income only to the extent that they exceed the amount of total expenditure incurred in relation to a particular election which has not been allowed as a deduction. The Budget announcement on this matter indicated that the allowance of a deduction for election expenses would be subject to verification of the expenditure. Provisions to this effect are not contained in this Bill but will be taken up in the context of the substantiation rules the Treasurer announced in his statement on tax reform. It is estimated that the cost of this measure will be nil in 1985-86 and $2m in a full year. Social Security Beneficiary Rebates As announced in the Budget Speech, the maximum rebates of tax and the taxable income levels at which the rebates begin to shade-out for taxpayers in receipt of social security unemployment, sickness or special benefits, are to be increased with effect from 1 July 1985. The rebates will continue to ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security benefits do not have to pay tax. For married beneficiaries the maximum rebate will be increased from $75 to $220 and no tax will be payable in 1985-86 on taxable incomes up to $8,795. For other beneficiaries the maximum rebate will increase from $50 to $170 and no tax will be payable on taxable incomes up to $5,275. The rebates will shade out above those income levels, resulting in some rebate being available until the 1985-86 taxable income exceeds $10,555 for married beneficiaries and $6,635 for other beneficiaries. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated as nil for 1985-86 and $9m for a full year. Gifts The Bill will amend the gift provisions of the income tax law to give effect to the decision announced in the 1985-86 Budget to allow deductions for gifts made after 20 August 1985 to the Australian Academy of the Humanities and to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated at nil for 1985-86 and less than $200,000 in a full year. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Dr BLEWETT —I turn to provisional tax for 1985-86. As provisional tax is part of the pay as you earn system and is designed to collect tax on income other than salary and wage income within the year in which the income is derived, it is generally accepted that the amount of provisional tax charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. Incomes for 1985-86 are expected to be higher than for 1984-85 and, due to the changes to the personal income tax rate scale that applied from 1 November 1984, effective rates of tax for 1985-86 will be lower than for last year. Accordingly, as in past years, it is proposed to vary the basis of calculating provisional tax for 1985-86 to be notified in assessment notices to issue this year. This Bill provides for 1985-86 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1984-85 taxable income increased by 11 per cent and applying the lower rates of tax for 1985-86. Also reflected in the provisional tax calculation will be the Medicare levy of one per cent. The removal of the ceiling on the maximum amount of levy payable by a taxpayer or by a married couple and the increased low income thresholds to apply for levy purposes in 1985-86 will be taken into account. Generally rebates and credits will be allowed in the provisional tax calculation at the levels allowed in 1984-85 assessments. However, the concessional expenditure rebate allowed to a taxpayer in 1984-85 will not be allowed in the provisional tax calculation. This rebate is to be removed effective for 1985-86 and subsequent years. Taxpayers will continue to have the right to `self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1985-86 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates in appropriate circumstances. Co-operation between Commonwealth, State and Territory Revenue Authorities Measures announced on 20 December 1983 to assist the States and the Northern Territory to counter avoidance and evasion of State and Territory taxes are contained in the Bill. The Commissioner of Taxation is to be empowered, on request by a State or the Northern Territory revenue authority, to authorise a Commonwealth, State or Northern Territory taxation officer to conduct in the Australian Capital Territory an investigation for the purposes of a State or Northern Territory taxation law. For that purpose, the authorised officer will have investigation powers similar to those a Commonwealth taxation officer has for Commonwealth purposes. The Commissioner will also be able to require persons to furnish information or produce documents that are relevant to such an investigation. State and Northern Territory taxation officers will be under the obligation to maintain secrecy in relation to information obtained while undertaking investigations in the Australian Capital Territory. The Commissioner will further be authorised to provide Commonwealth taxation information to State and Territory taxation officers to enable them to administer their laws, if those laws provide reciprocal rights for the Commissioner. For the purposes of these co-operative measures, the Bill provides that, in proceedings relating to Federal taxation laws, an appropriately certified true copy of, or extract from, an original document that is obtained under a State, Territory or Commonwealth taxation law will generally be admissible as evidence as if it were the original document. To ensure that these measures are fully effective, it will be necessary for the States and the Northern Territory to introduce complementary legislation. The practical application of co-operation will require some Australian Taxation Office resources, but the additional administrative costs should be offset by the revenue yield from reciprocal State and Territory co-operation. Secrecy Provisions Under the taxation secrecy provisions taxation officers are, except in carrying out their duties or in other specified circumstances, prohibited from disclosing confidential taxation information. That prohibition extends to all other persons appointed or employed by the Commonwealth. The income tax secrecy provisions were amended last year to ensure their application to persons such as those from overseas countries working in the Taxation Office under exchange arrangements. These persons are neither appointed nor employed by the Commonwealth. The secrecy provisions of the various other laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation are, by this Bill, to be amended in a similar fashion. The amendments will have no effect on the revenue. Broad explanations designed to give a guide to the provisions of the Bill are contained in part A of an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members. A clause-by-clause explanation of each provision of the Bill contained in part B of the explanatory memorandum will be made available to honourable members in the next few days. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is an annual measure which formally imposes personal income tax rates for the current financial year. The rates imposed by this Bill are those declared for the 1985-86 financial year in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982. The rates for 1985-86 reflect, for the full year, the significant cuts in personal income tax which were announced in the 1984-85 Budget and have applied since 1 November 1984. The full year effect of those tax cuts will result in a reduction in tax payable, on equivalent taxable incomes, in 1985-86 assessments as compared with 1984-85 assessments. A five-step tax scale applies. At the lower end of the scale for resident taxpayers, no tax is payable on taxable incomes up to $4,595. On taxable incomes in the range of $4,596 to $12,500 the rate is 25 per cent. In the range $12,501 to $19,500 the rate is 30 per cent and increases to 46 per cent in the range $19,501 to $28,000, to 48 per cent in the range $28,001 to $35,000 and to 60 per cent on income in excess of $35,000. These general rates also apply to non-residents who receive Australian social security and repatriation pensions that are taxable in Australia, or who were residents at any time during the income year. For all other non-resident taxpayers, the standard rate of 30 per cent applies to incomes up to $19,500 and the general rates apply to income above that level. The rate of 46 per cent or higher continues to apply to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. Similarly, the $417 income threshold at which tax is payable by resident minors on that income and the associated shading-in arrangements remain unchanged. The full year effect of the tax scale will be reflected in provisional tax payable for 1985-86, which is also formally imposed by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose income tax for 1985-86 on the 1984-85 taxable income of companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes. It also imposes tax on the current year taxable income of superannuation funds, ineligible approved deposit funds and trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries. The rates of tax are also declared by the Bill. Except for the imposition of income tax at the rate of 30 per cent on the investment income or employer-sponsored superannuation funds that fail to meet the loan-back rules, the rates are the same as for 1984-85. The provisions of the Bill follow the format of other years and details of the various rates are set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Medicare Levy Bill 1985 will declare the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1985-86 and, until the Parliament otherwise provides, for 1986-87. The basic rate will be one per cent of taxable income. The Bill reflects the removal of the ceiling on the amount of levy payable, and contains the income threshold levels below which people with low incomes will not be called on to pay any levy. In addition, it contains rules for reducing the levy otherwise payable by veterans, war widows, Defence Force personnel and certain other prescribed persons who are exempt from the levy for part of a year, or who are required to pay levy because they have dependants eligible for Medicare benefits. From 1 July 1985, there will be no ceiling on the amount of levy payable by an individual or a married couple. In order to continue to shelter low income earners from the levy, the income thresholds at which levy becomes payable are to be increased from 1 July 1985. For 1985-86, individuals with taxable incomes of $7,526 or less, and married couples or sole parents with family incomes of $12,504 or less, will be exempt from the Medicare levy. The income threshold for married couples and sole parents will increase by a further $1,530 for each dependent child or student. For example, a married couple with two dependent children will pay no levy until their combined taxable incomes exceed $15,564. The estimated cost of the increased low income thresholds is $10m in 1985-86 and $15m in a full year. The gain to revenue from the removal of the ceiling is $7m in 1985-86 and $12m in a full year. New tax instalment schedules to reflect the changes to the Medicare levy arrangements are being prepared and will be released as soon as possible to enable employers to incorporate the changes in their payroll procedures before 1 November. These new schedules will also reflect the change in the scale of deductions to be made from second job income of more than $7,000-$134 per week-details of which were contained in Statement No. 4 to the Budget Papers. Explanations of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 237th report of the Committee, relating to the Finance minute on the Committee's 225th report which was entitled `Stratplan-Department of Social Security ADP re-equipment program-First report.' I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —The report which I am presenting today contains the Government's response, in the form of the Department of Finance minute, to the Committee's first report on Stratplan, report 225. It reports considerable progress by the Department of Social Security on the installation of computer equipment and on the provision of initial services to departmental staff through this computer network. However, several matters have been dealt with in the Committee's first report to which satisfactory responses have not been provided in the Department of Finance minute. Since it is almost 12 months since the Committee last reported to Parliament on Stratplan's progress, the Committee is not proposing to defer tabling of the Finance minute pending further and more satisfactory advice from the responsible departments and agencies. Instead, the Committee has decided to proceed with tabling the Department of Finance minute while noting these unsatisfactory responses and indicating the action the Committee is taking on them. There are principal matters which remain of concern to the Committee. The first is project costs and benefits. During the first phase of its inquiry the Committee was unable to obtain clear and confident information about Stratplan's current projected total cost, including all attributable staff costs. The latter would appear to be a substantial component of total project costs and one area where unanticipated system development and support needs have resulted in considerable cost escalation. The Committee recommended in its report that a review of total project costs be undertaken and requested a submission on this matter as soon as the review was completed. It is still awaiting that submission. The Committee was also presented with mutable information about the benefits asserted to result from Stratplan and, in particular, the cost savings resulting from staff savings. The Committee does not refute that considerable benefits should flow from Stratplan in the form of improved client service, greater system reliability, and more rapid implementation of government initiatives. However, the Committee was concerned that the cost effectiveness of Stratplan should be comprehensively reviewed so that cost savings in the form of staff savings, reductions in overpayments, and any other asserted efficiency improvements are fully characterised and quantified. The Committee is still awaiting advice on the results of the review of the project's cost effectiveness which it requested in its report. The second principal matter of concern is that of project financial management. The Committee was informed, during its public hearings, that an on-line computer-based financial management system for Stratplan was under development. It considered that the completion of this system was vital to satisfactory budgetary control and the cost effective implementation of Stratplan. The response from the Department of Social Security does not state that the financial management system has been completed. In addition, the Department has indicated considerable difficulties in providing the Committee with current information on the precise costs incurred to date for Stratplan. The Committee is seeking prompt advice from the Department as to why the system has not been completed and when it will be. The third matter is that of implementation strategy and contingency planning. In this regard the Committee made several recommendations in the 225th report which presumed a phased introduction of Stratplan products whereby they would be tested and proven in New South Wales before being introduced elsewhere on a State by State basis. The response from the Department of Social Security indicated that this original implementation strategy has been changed and that Stratplan products will now be implemented concurrently in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. No reasons have as yet been given for this change. The Committee is seeking advice on the reasons for this alteration. It is also requesting further advice from the Department of Social Security on the progress of the contingency plans currently being developed by the Department but which the Committee recommended be completed before implementation proceeded beyond New South Wales. The fourth matter of concern is the use of contract analysts and programmers. The Department of Social Security has made extensive use of contract staff in the development and implementation of Stratplan systems. This has been justified in terms of providing access to specialised expertise not otherwise available, greater project management flexibility and a reduction in development times. However, the use of contract staff has involved a considerable labour cost premium and may unduly compromise the development of the internal expertise necessary to support the long term maintenance of Stratplan systems. The Committee will be reviewing the overall cost effectiveness of employing contract analysts and programmers in Stratplan's continued implementation. It will be pursuing these and other outstanding matters through further submissions and hearings during the next phase of its monitoring and report on Stratplan. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(8.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is necessary to rectify a discrepancy in the boundaries of an area of Aboriginal land described in Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as `Petermann'. The discrepancy, which was only recently drawn to this Government's attention, concerns a small area of land on the eastern boundary of the Petermann land. The area involved is a narrow strip of land about nine kilometres long by some 220 metres wide with a total area of about two square kilometres. In summary, the problem arose in this way: The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 included in Schedule 1 description of the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve. In accordance with that Act, title to the land was granted to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust in 1978. The deed of grant described the land by reference to a compiled plan prepared on the basis of the description in Schedule 1 to the Act. A later deed of grant to that land, containing the same description, was registered by the Registrar-General of the Northern Territory and was deemed to have taken effect from September 1978. Land adjoining and to the east of the Petermann land was vested in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in 1977. The Proclamation of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park contained a description of the boundaries of the land in the park. The recent amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which added a description of Uluru to Schedule 1 of the Act, followed the 1977 proclamation description. That proclamation encroached upon the Petermann land as described in Schedule 1 of the Act and the deeds of grant. The misdescription can be traced back to 1958 when land which became the national park was excised from the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve, and the revised reserve boundaries were separately described. As I have indicated, parts of the common boundaries were inconsistently described. This Bill will rectify the discrepancy and remove any possible confusion in respect of the description of the Petermann land. The Bill will effect the change in two ways. First, it will make a minor variation to the description of the boundaries of land granted to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust, ensuring that the description of the land does not overlap with any part of the Uluru land. Second, it will confirm the validity of the 1977 proclamation of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park, notwithstanding that the proclamation included a description of land which included a small area of land described in the deed of grant to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. There is Aboriginal support for this action. I understand that on 17 September this year the Director of Legal Services with the Central Land Council met with the relevant Aboriginals in Central Australia. Those people agreed to the action being taken in respect of the Petermann land. The net result of this legislation will not be to deprive Aboriginals of land. This Bill will merely ensure that the common boundaries of two adjacent blocks of Aboriginal land are correctly described and it is clear from what I have said that this is no more than a means of rectifying a minor technical irregularity in the description of the area of the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the fourth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.25) —I shall not take up much further time; I just failed to conclude my remarks by the time the House moved into grievance matters. I just want to address myself to the amendments that we shall move in Committee. They refer to mini-refineries. At present, the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act provides as a condition for the establishment of a mini-refinery in the future a certain litreage per day, which is associated entirely with the production at Dalby. We feel that if we are to encourage exploration and the development of oil fields in the future, we should recognise, firstly, that they are likely to be small and, secondly, the condition upon their development could well be the effect of a subsidy that might be available under this scheme towards the pricing of the product out of the refinery. If a refinery did not fit into the conditions of the Bill and it produced under the flow of Roma, that would mean, as far as I can see, that it would be denied any assistance under the scheme. Therefore, in the amendment, we are suggesting that we do not concern ourselves with the actual production associated with Roma, but that we leave the sum to be fixed by regulation. As I say, we believe that it is very important that we do this so that we give some impetus and encouragement to the development of the oil industry in Australia. As mentioned earlier, Australia is about 70 per cent self-sufficient, or a little better, but that is likely to decrease in view of our finite reserves. We must encourage at all stages what must be small developments. So I just flag the fact that those amendments to clause 3 will be moved in Committee. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(8.27) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1985. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to amend the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme that was announced by the Government on 7 September and 26 October 1984. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme basically provides for the payment of a subsidy on the cost of transporting certain petroleum products from coastal refineries to consumers in country areas and to fishing vessels which are fuelled at sea. This is extremely important for the fisherman in the Northern Territory, in the Gulf of Carpentaria and that area. Two major areas that this Bill addresses for amendment are: The introduction of administrative reforms to control the potential for abuse by claimants of the subsidy by enabling the scheme formulated under the Act to contain provisions designed to ensure that the petroleum products for which the subsidy has been claimed have actually been delivered, and that the persons claiming the subsidy are, indeed, bona fide claimants. There have been some stories about petrol and goods being delivered to some people who are not really eligible for them. It also includes the extension of the subsidy scheme to petroleum products coming from inland mini-refineries. I believe that these mini-refineries may be something which will develop in Australian oilfields which have yet to be discovered. I believe that there is a lot of oil in Australia just waiting there, and I am quite certain that these mini-refineries will be built very close to these particular oilfields. The administrative reforms are to implement changes resulting from the Government's review of administrative arrrangements for controlling potential abuse of the scheme with regard to the petroleum products at safe anchorage locations for the fishing industry. Some of the conditions which distributors will be asked to comply with to ensure safe anchorage when delivering petroleum products are as follows: The distributor's vessel must be capable of transporting a minimum quantity of fuel; the vessel's carrying tanks must have the facility to enable the measurement of fuels by means of a dip so that the quantities can be checked; the vessels must have metering devices capable of accurately measuring the quantity of product which will be discharged; and the registered distributor must keep and retain records for two years and furnish details of each voyage with his claim for a subsidy. The Bill also provides for the payment of subsidy on the sale of petroleum products produced at these inland mini-refineries and sold at the location of the refineries. Some of the points to be included are as follows: Subsidy will be paid only to those mini-refineries which have a refining capacity of a maximum of 238,500 litres, or about 1,500 barrels, per day. The rate of subsidy paid on the product produced at mini-refineries will be the same as that payable if those products were transported from coastal refineries. While we are talking about coastal refineries I must mention the British Petroleum Co. of Australia Ltd refinery at Hastings, which has been closed down because of the cartel to which BP belongs and the rationalisation which it is implementing within the petrol retailing and wholesaling business. BP has gone into an arrangement with the other oil companies. I think at this very moment it is exchanging with Mobil Oil Australia Ltd sites within Victoria for the exclusive franchise of its products in Western Australia. Mobil is actually offering its lessees a contract, if one can call it that, with the following conditions: If the present lessee of the service station wants to stay on at his service station he has two options. Either he must sign with Mobil for nine years or he may purchase the site. Mobil has said that he may purchase the site but it will not tell him for how much it will sell it to him. If he says that he will purchase the site and accepts the price, he cannot later during the process of finalising the contract change his mind and say that he will lease his site from Mobil. If Mobil tells him that the site is worth $500,000, which he may not be able to afford, he does not know this until he has agreed not to take a nine-year lease with Mobil. If he then decides to take up a lease for nine years, he has to pay Mobil the goodwill which it estimates for his business. Mobil is actually forcing small business people out of their livelihoods. The big multinational companies are forcing these people out of the industry. They are taking over the industry. They are opening up petrol stations which have, as an adjunct to their petrol sales, milk bar facilities and the one stop shop that such companies are moving into. It is putting out of business many small business people in the milk bar or corner shop industry. It is a disgrace that these big multinational companies, can, through their monopoly position, take over businesses and ruin the livelihoods of many people within Australia. Mr McGauran —Will you please table evidence-figures-statistics? Mr CHYNOWETH —It is amazing that when members of the Australian Labor Party support small business some members of the Opposition-not all of them-stick up for huge multinational companies such as the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd, Mobil and BP. One cannot name an Australian company among them. We used to have Ampol Petroleum Ltd and we used to have the Commonwealth Oil Refineries which was taken over by BP many years ago. It was an Australian refinery and has been taken over and lost somewhere within this huge conglomerate. All of these things are affecting small business people within our community. We are trying to look after the jobs that they provide. Years ago a person could go to a service station and there would be a mechanic, someone pulling petrol and someone behind the counter in the shop. What do we find now? A person has to front up to some stainless steel concrete mess and fill up his own car. He then goes into the shop and pays his money to a person behind the counter. All this has been brought about by multinational greed on a huge scale. This Bill also provides for another subsidy that will be paid retrospectively to the commencement of production in the mini-refinery. There is one existing mini-refinery at Roma. The commencement date is effectively 1 January 1984. Prior to that date legal opinion from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel suggested that the Act did not preclude subsidy from being paid on the sale of eligible petroleum products produced at that refinery. The amendments incorporate proposals contained in a submission made to the review by the Northern Australian fishing industry task force in March 1984. The amendments are aimed at guaranteeing that petroleum products, for which the subsidy is claimed, have actually been delivered and also that the person or persons claiming the subsidy are actually legitimate claimants. Honourable members should note that the measures contained in this Bill have no real direct financial implications. The provisions relating to the extension of the subsidy to the products from inland mini-refineries have the effect of validating subsidy payments already made. The Opposition will move two amendments to the Bill. We will not oppose those amendments. This is something that will assist people in remote areas. It is something that is looking to the future, something that our Opposition colleagues never did. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.38) —I am pleased to speak on the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1985 which proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 to implement the legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme announced by the Government on 7 September and 26 October 1984. We can all recall when the freight subsidy scheme was introduced. I think at the time I voted by myself. I will digress for just a moment. I said: `How can we introduce a freight subsidy scheme?' Of course I wanted to help the farmers and to help the people out in the rural and remote areas. Mr Slipper —And Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —And Tasmania too, but I found to my dismay that there was always a relevant city price. The word `relevant' is interesting. It means the price at that particular time. I said: `Fine, if it is going to be 1c a litre above the relevant city price that will be good for the farmers and it will be good for the people in the remote areas'. But unfortunately the relevant city price has been destroyed. That is the reason why there is so much discontent in Australia with the ordinary people who can read and who can travel around and see a bowser. They are not stupid like the manager of Ampol Petroleum Ltd who had the audacity to say on AM one morning: `Half of Sydney is paying 44c a litre, the other half of Sydney is paying 55c a litre.' The people were asking why. Of course they would. I am trying to work out the difference in the cost per gallon. If the price were calculated in cents per gallon, they would absolutely die at the difference. He said: `Because certain people in one part of Sydney are getting a special price, that is good. That is what they call competition'. But the unfortunate thing is that the Prices Surveillance Authority set a maximum wholesale price in every capital city. One of my friends, a very diligent friend incidentally, travelled all over Australia. I said to him: `For a bit of fun tell me the price of petrol at every pump at every place you pull up for petrol'. Not one price was the same. Of course they should not be; we do not want collusion and under the trade practices legislation anybody can charge what he likes. But unfortunately the difference on some occasions was absolutely beyond comprehension. I am not going to run down oil companies and refineries and say- Mr O'Neil —Please, please! Mr GOODLUCK —No, I am not going to, because they employ a lot of people in Australia. They provide jobs and finance. That helps the economy. Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —My friends opposite may be concerned about prices and about small businessmen, but what we have to realise is that the oil industry is ever changing; it changes from day to day. The oil companies are very expert at running their markets, in moving from left to right, up the straight, or however we like to term it. Therefore, we have to realise that they have a job to do and they need support. When the Fraser Government introduced import parity pricing-- Mr Slipper —Shameful day. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I will just explain something to the honourable member. A lot of people do not realise this. Import parity pricing was introduced at a time of world shortage when we needed more exploration and more alternatives. We do not want to be dependent on the Arabs or other countries. If we can do it in Australia, we need to do it. We need to be self-sufficient. So, begrudgingly I went along with it because, if it is done on a fair basis for everybody in Australia, it is good. But the oil companies have a wonderful ability to drop the price when they feel like it, and when people in Tasmania see that the price is 14c a litre cheaper in Sydney they ask why-and rightly so. When we introduced import parity pricing we hoped that we would get to self-sufficiency. We are about 70 per cent self-sufficient now and we need to be up another 30 per cent. Therefore, we need to support the explorers and the oil companies, but they have to realise that we are not all fools. If they are going to drop prices in certain parts of Australia to the disadvantage of others, the consumers will not go along with it. That is one of the reasons why the farmers are so uptight. They see a petrol price war in Sydney. They see that the price is 14c a litre cheaper than they are buying it to put into their cars and tractors and they get upset. I do not believe everything I read, of course, but the Australian Financial Review said today that the farmers are in a terrible plight. I hope that they are not. Mr McGauran —They are. Mr GOODLUCK —My friend says that they are and I believe him. Mr Slipper —And they are being destroyed by the Labor Government. Mr GOODLUCK —The Labor Government made a very bad mistake. Paul Keating stood up at that table over there- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Mr GOODLUCK —I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker; the Treasurer of this country stood up and he said that there was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump. He was alleging that the Fraser Government took taxes from the people by stealth. He said during that election campaign that he would reduce the price of petrol by 1.6c a litre when he got into government. But he did not do it. I know that the dollar created a problem. When oil is imported and the dollar is not of the same value as it was previously, we have to pay more for it. I understand that, but what about the consumers-the farmers and the ordinary people out there? The third biggest investment that a person makes in his lifetime, after his wife and house, is his motor car. Most people love their motor cars. Some have two, some have three. We all know that having a motor car is a very costly affair. Mr Lloyd —Children or motor cars, Bruce? Mr GOODLUCK —Everything is expensive, but I mean cars. Mr Robert Brown —What model do you drive? Mr GOODLUCK —I change my model like I change my suit. Mr McGauran —But not your wife? Mr GOODLUCK —No, not my wife. Cars are a very important ingredient in the economy of the family. They are very expensive. When the price of fuel goes up it has an adverse effect on the family economy. When it goes up by nearly $5 a week-that is what it is at the moment; it is up by $5 a week from what it was two years ago-it has an adverse effect on the economy. If the young people up in the gallery go to buy a motor car they know that its initial cost will be quite high; they will need to have repairs done on it; they will need to pay registration. Some of them will then find it very difficult to use the motor car because fuel is so expensive. Fuel is an important ingredient in the economy of Australia. When people read that its price varies so much from pump to pump they get a bit disillusioned. It is useless oil companies and the Australian Institute of Petroleum writing to me and telling me about the market. I know all about the market. I know that it has to be competitive. I know that it has to make a profit. I know that it may have an excess in one area and that it has a big market. The people of Australia are travelling now. They do not understand-the farmers do not understand-when there is a 15c price difference in fuel in certain areas. It is useless the oil companies saying to me that one can buy liquefied pertroleum gas, for example, in Victoria for 23c a litre when in Tasmania it is 36c a litre. That was one of the reasons we went to import parity pricing. We had to tell the people of Australia that they have to change, that they have to look for alternatives such as LPG on which motor cars will drive economically and efficiently. LPG is used in nearly every motor car in South Korea. All the taxis in Japan use LPG. Where does it come from? It comes from Australia. We need to do something about it. We need to tell people: `You can have an alternative. Look for alternatives'. Motor vehicle manufacturers need to leave options open. They have diffs, gear boxes, upholstery and everything else, but they do not have LPG. The Datsun company brought out a car. But as it was driven specifically on LPG people shied away from it. We need to talk about the dual system. As I have said on many occasions, the oil industry needs looking at in a sensible way for the sake of everybody within it. As for the poor fellows in their service stations who were mentioned previously, I agree and I disagree. We are all subject to change. The world will not stop still for the small bloke in the service station. We have three different types who sell us petrol today. We have the little bloke who owns his own site and who is dependent on a few repairs and a bit of petrol. He can put the price up and down. We have the lessee type and we have the franchise type, or whatever one terms it, who is owned by the oil company. Of course, the oil companies own most of the lessee and franchise types. The lessee gets a percentage of the price of the petrol that goes through the pumps. They are ever-changing. They are looking for better profits. I agree that the individuals have to be thought about a little. It is useless talking about key money now. After the leases run out some of these people have to pay X amount of dollars to maintain their businesses. They have to be considered in a sensible way. Regrettably, the oil companies made the rules earlier. They went from solo marketing to every street corner. They were the ones who spent their money on building service stations everywhere. But the individuals who go into those businesses mortgage their homes. They have families. They work hard to make a decent, respectable living and they have to be given a fair go. There are many things I would like to say about the oil industry but I think I have said enough tonight. Mr Smith —Keep going. Tell us about Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —We in Tasmania get penalised. The argument is freight. It is just not true. They say it is because Tasmania is a small market. They say it is the roster system. What a lot of rot for every service station to stay open in Tasmania on a cold winter's night for the benefit of a few silly travellers! It would be great for the travellers, would it not? But it would not be great for the people in those small businesses. There has to be a bit of common sense in this industry. The oil companies have to realise that we are all not damned fools. The explorers have to get on with the job. We want to support them and make certain that the oil industry is going to be good for everybody in Australia. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.50) —At the outset I would like to thank my colleagues, who at the last moment have given me the opportunity to say a few words on this very important piece of legislation. A large number of members on this side of the house wish to participate in this debate. Many of them have given way to allow me to say a few words. Without wanting to incur the wrath of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the chamber, I pay tribute to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who has just concluded his speech. The honourable member is extremely genuine about this matter. He has a very good record of putting the case for small business and for people in the remote parts of Australia. I must concur with many of the sentiments he put about the price differential between metropolitan and country areas. I thank him for his participation in this debate. My colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has adequately covered the provisions of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill. I just point out that the decision in this year's Budget to rebate fully from 1 November 1985 the diesel fuel excise for farming, fishing and forestry users who are presently eligible for partial rebate was a positive move. The cost to revenue of this decision will be $24m in 1985-86 and $35m in a full year. Fuel is a major cost for primary producers, and action on this question was a major issue at the farm cost meeting between the Government and the National Farmers Federation earlier this year. At the moment these users get a rebate of 7.619c per litre for diesel fuel but are required to pay excise of 2.4c per litre. The full rebate of diesel excise will contribute to improving the competitiveness of farmers and fishermen who presently face a depressed outlook for any commodity. The costs of these producers have risen faster than prices received, particularly in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. As a representative of a rural area, I certainly hope to get costs down even further. I hope that the taxation package introduced this afternoon by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will go some way to alleviating the costs and assisting the man on the land. Probably the leading tuna and prawn industries in Australia are located in my electorate at Port Lincoln. I think it is very important to point out that the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme provides for the payment of a subsidy on the cost of transporting certain petroleum products from coastal refineries to consumers in country areas and to fishing vessels which are fuelled at sea. At present the scheme provides that country consumers and fishing vessel operators should pay no more than 5.2c per litre of the cost of transporting eligible petroleum products to their country location or ship refuelling zone. This Bill proposes to strengthen the administration of the freight subsidy scheme, especially in its application to claimants for subsidy at safe anchorage locations, and to provide for payment of the freight subsidy on petroleum products produced at inland mini-refineries. The administrative reforms to the scheme are the result of a review of administration of the scheme at safe anchorage locations for the fishing industry which was initiated by the Government in November 1983. On 7 September 1984 the Government announced the introduction of a number of changes resulting from that review designed to strengthen the administration of the scheme as it applies to the fishing industry and to control the potential for abuse by claimants under the scheme. I think this extremely constructive scheme will assist in the safe refuelling at sea of prawn and tuna vessels, which do so much not only for the economy of South Australia but for Australia in general. I certainly hope that the hard-working tuna and prawn fishermen of Port Lincoln are well aware of this measure. There are present many obviously genuine representatives from the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia who really have a bipartisan approach to this matter. I am sure that they are appalled by the high cost of fuel in country areas. I mention to the House, particularly for the benefit of those honourable members who come from metropolitan areas, that country residents have to endure high additional freight costs because of higher fuel prices. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released figures on the variations in the prices of food in my electorate of Grey. In some towns in my electorate, for example, Ceduna, food can cost up to 10 per cent more than it costs in Adelaide. People living in Leigh Creek pay 15 per cent more for food than people in Adelaide, people in Port Lincoln pay 11 per cent more and people in the iron triangle-Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie-pay up to 8 per cent more. This is the obvious result of freight costs. Of course, in some South Australian areas the price of fuel can be 15c a litre more than in the metropolitan area. As the honourable member for Franklin quite correctly pointed out, people in remote areas may get the same salaries as those in metropolitan areas but are certainly at a big disadvantage because they virtually have to subsidise those people who live in the cities, who have all the trappings of modern day life. People in the country areas have to go without some of the things that people in the metropolitan areas take for granted. What can the Federal Government do about this? Why is there such a variation in petrol prices, in particular between city and country areas? Why does the Government not do something about this? That is not a bad question. The Commonwealth Government's legislative authority to control retail prices, including petrol prices, is very limited. The constitutional authority to control retail petroleum product prices lies primarily with the States. However, the Government has created the Prices Surveillance Authority to ensure that the wholesale price of a range of important commodities, including wholesale petroleum product prices, are fair and reasonable. The Authority sets maximum wholesale prices for petroleum products for each capital city in Australia. Retail prices of petrol are generally determined by the refining companies, distributors and agents. Differences between metropolitan and country prices occur because of two main factors. It costs more to supply consumers in remote areas-for example, freight costs are higher-and wholesaling and retailing costs are also higher in areas with smaller sales volumes. However, the basic differences are compounded by the existence of discounting. Nowhere is this more explicit than in Adelaide, where at times petrol prices can be as low as 45c or 46c a litre, whereas in my city, the beautiful city of Whyalla, the lowest it can be is 59.8c a litre. Discounting in metropolitan retail outlets does take place. Discounting of petrol prices at both the retail and wholesale levels typically occurs in high volume outlets in areas of high competition, especially near sources of bulk supply such as refineries and particularly in periods of excess supply or refinery underutilisation. Discounting does not usually occur in the more remote areas. For instance, in Coober Pedy, which is something like 200 kilometres north of Whyalla, petrol is cheaper than in the industrial areas of Port Pirie, Whyalla, and Port Augusta. So it is not surprising that large differences occur in petrol prices between city and country areas from time to time. The Government operates the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, which subsidises costs in excess of 5.2c per litre for transporting petroleum products to country areas. The answer would be for the Federal Government to take over the control of prices from the States. In other words, if the States were prepared to give the Federal Government control over pricing, we could certainly lower the price of petrol. This is something that I have advocated. I have taken up this point with the Federal Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). He supports the scheme. Unfortunately, the problem lies in getting Queensland and some of the more conservative States to hand over their rights to the Federal Government. I think it is important, particularly in this debate, to talk about the price of fuel. This does not help people in country areas, but many people believe that we pay extremely high prices for petrol. I point out that in comparison with other countries, including those which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, petrol rates per litre in Australia are very low. I will cite some figures in relation to the price of a litre of petrol in other countries. In Austria, the figure is 88c a litre; Canada, 58c; the Federal Republic of Germany, 78c; France, 96c; Greece, 61c; and in Italy it is 100c a litre. In Japan it costs 87c a litre; the Netherlands, 89c; New Zealand, 71c a litre; Norway, 85c; Spain, 80c; Sweden, 82c; Turkey, 66c; Great Britain, 90c; Argentina, 67; India, 83c; Malaysia, 65c; Malta, 80c; the Philippines, 66c; Singapore, 97c; South Africa, 57c; and in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the price is 69c a litre. Honourable members will note that Australia, with its average price of 56c a litre throughout the country has fairly low prices in comparison with the OECD and other countries. Mr Barry Jones —In April we had the cheapest petrol in the world. Mr O'NEIL —As my good friend and colleague the Minister for Science points out, in April we had the cheapest petrol in the world. Mr Snow —That is all very well for metropolitan users. Mr O'NEIL —That is all very well, as my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro points out, for metropolitan users. However, for country users it is still extraordinarily high. I would like to see a positive contribution in this debate. If honourable members opposite-I refer to members such as the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and, of course, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar)-joined with us in taking a bipartisan approach to getting some of the conservative States to hand over price control to the Federal Government, we could certainly have price control throughout this country. The price of fuel could then be lowered in those areas where it was nesessary and imperative. I plead with honourable members opposite to support honourable members on this side of the House in trying to get the States to hand over the control of prices to the Federal Government so that the price of fuel can be controlled in this country. Therefore, country people who are extremely disadvantaged will not have to carry the burden as they do at present. I will leave it on the basis that honourable members opposite, particularly those who represent country electorates, will support me in calling for price control to be handled specifically and only by the Federal Government, so that we can bring down the price of fuel. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.04) —In following the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), I feel obliged at once, firstly, to lay to rest the greatest furphy which the Government is guilty of promoting and, secondly, to pick up the challenge that he has thrown at the feet of the Opposition. I am able to do both simultaneously. The greatest furphy propagated by the honourable member for Grey and his colleagues is that prices and price surveillance are the root problems in regard to high fuel costs in Australia today. The real problem, and it is an inescapable problem which no member of the Government will address, is the level of taxation by both State and Federal governments. Up to 70 per cent of the price- Mr O'Neil —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just point out that the honourable member for Franklin was honest- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —Price is not so much the problem as the level of taxation. Up to 70 per cent of the price consumers pay for each litre of fuel goes to either the State or Federal governments. We all know that there are problems in pricing and retailing. The answer to that is simply deregulation of the fuel industry. No government can hide behind the skirts of pricing. Unless this Government is prepared to reduce the level and burden of Federal taxation, we are delving into the realms of the ridiculous if we believe we can reduce the burden on consumers, particularly primary producers who have a very high reliance on fuel in the production of their income. The honourable member for Grey and his colleagues come into this House and talk about the multinational companies and offences under the Trade Practices Act which see the setting of a common price for people in one area. All of us understand that there are errors or mistakes or licences taken by either retailers or producers. None of us runs away from that. Deregulation is the best method of tackling those problems. But I have yet to hear one member of the Government put forward to this House one way of reducing significantly the cost of fuel. It is simply a question of taxation. Therefore, I pick up the challenge put forward by the honourable member for Grey when he asked this chamber: What can we do about the price of fuel? Firstly, we need to deregulate the petroleum industry. Secondly, we must abandon fuel parity pricing. Thirdly, we must reduce the level of taxation on fuel by way of that automatic six-monthly excise that this Government introduced in its 1983 Budget. The purpose of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill before the Parliament this evening is twofold. Firstly, it introduces administrative reforms to control potential abuse of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme and, secondly, it extends the scheme to sales of product from inland mini-refineries. It seems to me that this evening's debate is almost totally an exercise in futility given that in the May mini-Budget of this year the Government completely and utterly gutted the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. It was made almost completely inoperable. There is something of an element of Alice in Wonderland about the debate tonight. We are discussing reforms to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme when it hardly exists any longer. The responsibility for that lies with the Government which in the May mini-Budget of this year so cut back its operation as to make it almost useless to consumers in country areas. It may well be that the scheme operates to some extent at least for people in areas such as Port Lincoln, within the electorate of the honourable member for Grey. But for most country people, particularly in the eastern States, the scheme has meant an increase in fuel costs of 4c a litre. Would the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) or any country members of the Government here this evening deny that that scheme has been rendered inoperative and that the cost of fuel since May has increased some 4c? Let us look now at world parity pricing. When it was introduced in the mid to late 1970s its purpose was clearly set out and I believe had been largely successful. Its aim was twofold: Firstly, it was to ensure a proper return to explorers on their high investment. Without a guaranteed return the explorers would simply have taken their bat and ball and gone to the Gulf of Mexico. Let nobody deny that the Government at the time had no choice but to ensure that the producers could obtain the same return for investment in Bass Strait, the North West Shelf and inland oil exploration as they would have for investment in other parts of the world. Secondly, we had to encourage a sense of conservation. The realisation that fuel was almost as cheap as water had passed. On both those objectives we have been remarkably successful, but that was nearly a decade ago. I do not believe that world parity pricing serves the best interests of this country and, by extension, its people, its primary producers, any longer. I therefore believe that we must abandon fuel parity pricing, but it is difficult to imagine this Government undertaking that major decision. It is quite prepared to come into this chamber as late as today and introduce a whole range of taxation measures dealing with capital gains taxes, fringe benefits and associated measures, all of which will disadvantage those in the private sector. Those measures will hit at initiative, risk taking and entrepreneurs. When it comes to introducing a measure which will actually return money in a direct way to every person in this country who drives a vehicle, or every primary producer who needs fuel in the production of his goods, the Government will not do it. It has the courage when it is taking money from the private sector, but it does not have the courage when it means returning money to the private sector. As I mentioned earlier, in the Budget of August 1983 the Government introduced an automatic six-monthly increase in fuel excise in line with movements in the consumer price index. For many people throughout Australia that is receding into the dim distant past. But the Government will never forget that measure because every six months its coffers swell. There is no longer any need to spell out in either a mini-Budget or the traditional Budget in August of every year the increases in excise on fuel. That is done by stealth and, for the most part without the public being aware. It now amounts to almost 10c a litre. Leaving aside the artificial world parity pricing formula we have in this country which, incidentally, is expressed in American dollars according to the price of Saudi Arabian light crude, the devaluation and the formula expressed in American dollars meant a bonus of hundreds of millions of dollars, almost a billion dollars, to this Government. Earlier this year after the devaluation we argued that that formula, which artificially kept the price of world parity high, ought to be altered. We have now come a step further and said that world parity pricing is not appropriate to Australia. Even if one accepts, like every member of the Government appears to, that we ought to have world parity pricing-I and my colleagues do not-the Government should not have this artificial formula which gives a price of fuel much higher than the world market price. Of course it is a bonanza to a high spending government, but it means that our consumers and primary producers are severely disadvantaged. In the 14 May 1985 mini-Budget we saw that the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme was largely destroyed. As I have said, for this House now to be discussing and passing legislation which reforms that scheme is, frankly, an exercise in stupidity as well as futility. Unless that scheme is restored to its previous operations or an even more efficient scheme is set up, we will find that country consumers are paying an even higher price for their fuel than at present. One of the real cuts in that mini-Budget of 14 May, among many others that hit the rural sector, was the destruction of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. That device was set up by the previous coalition Government to ease in a small way the cost burden of living in areas remote from the major metropolitan cities. The decision has meant already that fuel prices have increased in country areas by up to and over 4c a litre. I believe that that decision and the contribution of the Government to destroy the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme means that the Government is ignoring the very serious deterioration in farm terms of trade. We have heard a number of Government speakers pay lip service to the cost burden on primary producers, but when there is a measure before this Parliament by which they can actively and constructively assist in reducing that cost burden, they run for shelter. There is not one amongst them who will break that Caucus pledge which binds them to abide by the decision of the Minister. Government members have spoken of pricing and multinationals. The Government and this Parliament can attack and solve the problems in the petroleum industry, but it will require a government, with the exhortation of the Opposition, that is prepared to reduce the level of government taxation. There is no indication whatsoever that this Government will reduce the level of taxation. The Opposition, on the other hand, has put forward a policy which would abandon fuel parity pricing. The National Party's policy is to introduce deregulation of the petroleum industry and reduce the level of taxation on fuel. That would assist every consumer in this country, particularly the primary producers, who are suffering under a welter of government induced charges and costs, and who are so important to the export potential of this country. It has been said many times and it deserves to be said again: This country has long relied on the primary producer for much of its export earnings and, by extension, its standard of living. If this Government ignores any longer the potential of the primary producers and the wealth they can bring this country, our standard of living will decline even more sharply. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government have come into this House this afternoon and introduced a capital gains tax and prohibited negative gearing provisions in taxation. This can only further hurt the primary producers of this country. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(9.18) —Any one listening to this debate could be forgiven for not really being very clear on what it is all about. I do not say that in connection with those honourable members who have spoken so admirably from this side of the House. Let me say, in fairness, that from the Opposition speakers, there have been a few gems. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) made a few sensible observations. There have been occasions in this House in the past when the honourable member for Franklin has made some remarkably clever decisions. One which I remember distinctly was the occasion when he accepted the compelling nature of the arguments that had been presented by the Government-he joined the Government-in connection with a particular issue. That was a great credit to him. He is a man of conscience and commitment and I appreciate the honesty and integrity with which he made some very compelling and important observations tonight, particularly about the way in which the transnational oil companies operate in Australia in connection with distribution. I would like to be able to say the same thing about the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and his contribution. I will make a few observations in connection with the honourable member for Gippsland as I proceed, but let me first put this debate into context. We need to understand, as does every one who listens to this debate, that this Bill will amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Acts 1965 to give effect to the Government's decisions announced on 7 September and 26 October last year to all the provisions of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. There are two adjustments to be made by the legislation. Mr McGauran —It is a dead scheme. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Gippsland has already made his contribution to the debate. I was not very impressed by it, neither was anyone else. What I am trying to do, for the benefit of Opposition members who may follow in this debate, is at least to set the scene. Mr McGauran —Taxes? Mr ROBERT BROWN —If the honourable member for Gippsland stays quiet and listens, he will learn. Mr McGauran —From whom? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Do not get so excited. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would make the observation that while the honourable member for Gippsland was speaking, my colleague the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) said: `This man is hysterical'. It was not my comment. It was the natural response of one of my discerning colleagues about the nature of the contribution. Some comments by the honourable member for Gippsland were sensible, and if he had developed them further I would be giving him more credit that I am at present. But let me proceed. The two provisions in this legislation relate first to the introduction of various administrative reforms to control the potential for abuse by claimants for subsidy. In all honesty, who would complain at that? Mr McGauran —Nobody. The scheme does not exist. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am pleased that the honourable member would not argue about it because the shadow Minister who lead for the Opposition, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), made it perfectly clear that the Opposition recognised and accepted that there had been abuses of this scheme. We are concerned to ensure, as we are in all questions of public policy, that provisions designed to ensure a much better operation of the type of private operations that exist throughout Australia will not be abused by the manipulators. We know well enough the extent to which people in this national community will take advantage of the opportunity to manipulate circumstances for their own benefit, whether their centre of control is in Australia or elsewhere. Far too frequently, and unfortunately, the centre of control is elsewhere. Those centres of control do not always find themselves in some sort of commonality in regard to their concerns, objectives and aspirations. I am not saying that happens on all occasions but there are occasions when they conflict with those of the average Australian community. Secondly, this legislation extends the subsidy scheme to sales of petroleum products produced at inland mini-refineries. There is only one at present and that is at Roma. In connection with the output from that refinery, the honourable member for Dawson has indicated the terms of an amendment which the Opposition will move later in the Committee stage. I think the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has indicated already that the Government sees some sense in that proposal and that it will be accepted. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme has been in operation since 1 July 1978 and the particularly important provision in the legislation is that it provides for the payment of a subsidy which is related to the cost of freighting eligible petroleum products to country locations. We know that this has been extended to the fuelling of fishing vessels off-shore in areas which are known as safe anchorages, as they have been classified and identified. The eligible products included under the provisions of the legislation are motor spirit, distillate, aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel. The subsidy levels are equal to the difference between the actual freight cost and a maximum consumer-paid contribution. The consumer-paid contribution was increased, as we know, from 1.2c per litre to 5.2c per litre from 21 May 1985. The initial announcement about that was made in the May economic statement, which was presented in this chamber by the Treasurer, the Hon. Paul Keating, member for Blaxland. Mr Chynoweth —The world's greatest Treasurer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am reminded by the honourable member for Dunkley that the Treasurer to whom I have referred was identified by an international financial magazine as the world's greatest Treasurer. I interpolate that I would like to take this opportunity to make special mention of that very important statement made earlier today by the national Treasurer in connection with taxation. The consumer-paid contribution is indexed each year in line with increases in the consumer price index with the purpose of maintaining in real terms the consumer contribution to freight costs. A total of $20.6m is being provided for the scheme in the current financial year as a result of the Budget the Treasurer brought down. This compares with expenditure of $130.2m in 1984-85. Those changes indicate the Government's concern to ensure not only that important programs and policies of this kind are continued, but also that where necessary appropriate amendments or variations are introduced. It was most important that those changes should be applied because the vast majority of petroleum product users live and work in areas where freight costs are less than 1.2c per litre. Thus they are not affected by the change, which increased the differential to 5.2c per litre. Of those affected, the great majority found that the price of petrol at the pump increased by less than 2c per litre as a result of the change because that was the actual level of subsidy which then applied in most places. It was only in very remote locations that the price increased by the maximum of 4c per litre. I draw the attention of members of the Opposition to the Auditor-General's report. I imagine that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) would be an authority on that report and I know that his thinking has been very much influenced by its content-the compelling arguments and conclusions reached. I am glad to see that the honourable member is nodding in agreement because that confirms my belief that he has understood the significance of that report. The Auditor-General's report found that the complexity of the scheme and the difficulties in developing suitable operating procedures for verifying claims had left the scheme open to deliberate abuse. The honourable member for Gippsland is aware of that. He nods in agreement; he understands. The Auditor-General also found that artificial schemes had been designed and operated specifically to attract the subsidy. I know that that sort of thing goes on, as do all honourable members, whatever political party they belong to. They all know that, unfortunately, there are in the community people who like to take advantage of public policies and programs which are designed to assist and encourage individual initiative and individual entrepreneurs in any area, whether it is on the land, in the mines, on fishing vessels, in factories and workshops or in transport companies. Public policies are not designed to impose penalty and burdens. Public policies, particularly when they are put in place by Labor governments, are designed to assist and to encourage. They are designed to overcome obstacles, to overcome the sorts of problems that so many operators in the private sector experience. Mr McGauran —Why kill the scheme? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The scheme has not been killed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has already spoken. Mr ROBERT BROWN —He has indeed and, as I have said, without a great deal of conviction. The honourable member for Gippsland asks: Why kill the scheme? The scheme has not been killed and he knows-as I know-that very significant sections of the Australian rural community and the Australian fishing industry are benefiting from this scheme at present. It does the honourable member, his perception and his judgment no credit at all to say that the scheme has been killed because he knows differently. If the honourable member represents people who are currently benefiting from this scheme they will now be making judgment on the judgment which the honourable member has made. He must realise the implications of that. The Government was determined that this rise in the ceiling of the consumer-paid margin should not be exploited by unscrupulous dealers to raise the price of fuel by the maximum of 4c per litre in those places which do not justify it. The Government has kept a close watch on price increases at the pump, as it needs to. As I have said, the honourable member for Dawson, who led for the Opposition, admitted that the Opposition knows of the false claims that were being made for payment of the subsidy. He also referred, quite correctly, to the role of jobbers in the market. Not only are jobbers connected with the operation of this scheme but there are jobbers in the urban, metropolitan areas as well. They are not tied to any particular distribution network but they are able to take advantage of gluts which occur and they are able to charge prices which are significantly different from the prices which are being charged by others who are permanently integrated into the market. Frequently, as a result of the operation of jobbers, those permanently in the market suffer significant disability, disadvantage and great damage. I know that as far as the consumer is concerned the jobbers may be fulfilling a useful purpose because they make it possible for the person who fills his tank to buy petrol at a lower price. However, it is necessary for some rationality to be contained within the market and the industry and to ensure that the jobbers are not causing the damage which they so frequently cause. That is a matter for the industry. The ordinary retailer, the fellow who operates the bowser, puts in long hours. He often starts his outlet with great hopes and great ambitions about the opportunity he has of building up his own business. But far too frequenlty such people are being sent to the wall by not only unscrupulous operators but also, unfortunately, some significant operators in the industry. I refer to the transnationals. I do not want to make too much of that matter because even the large oil cartels, the large oil corporations, obviously fulfil an extremely important role not only in our national economy but also in the world economy, in terms of exploration, production and distribution. I do not need to spell out the fact that there is a great deal of disquiet. You are aware of the great deal of disquiet that exists within the community about the way transnationals operate. Even on your side- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I certainly will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the honourable member for Deakin, who is sitting at the table representing the Opposition at present. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) referred to one of his friends whom he asked to check the price of petrol at the pump at all the service stations he came to when he was touring around. He came back with an incredible array of prices. Mr Beale —Do you think the oil companies are cartels? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I do not know whether the honourable member for Deakin will now justify, excuse and defend that. Mr Beale —What is wrong with an incredible array of prices? It is fantastic. It shows there is no cartel. Mr ROBERT BROWN —That is typical. Mr Beale —It shows there is no cartel. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Rubbish! It is an indication of the operation of the cartel, you goat. The honourable member defends competition. That is okay if competition is constructive and if it achieves its purposes, that is, to instil some vitality into the industry and to make sure that the consumer benefits. Surely the honourable member for Deakin will not suggest to me or to the honourable member for Franklin that the prices represented at the pump are a result of competition in the industry. Surely the honourable member for Fisher is not going to endorse that? If the honourable members opposite endorse that sort of comment they will make themeselves look ridiculous. Apart from some members of the Opposition, no one in this community would endorse such rubbish. Honourable members opposite know it is a cartel. The honourable member for Franklin drew attention to that when he was speaking. If the honourable member for Deakin wants to defend private enterprise, I will go along with him if he will defend legitimate private enterprise. But he should expect me to support him or to endorse the nonsense he talks about true competition when we know that those artificial, contrived, manipulated prices result from- Mr Beale —You said yourself that the prices were all different. Mr ROBERT BROWN —They were different. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Deakin, who purports to be a pillar of the private sector, really understands the way in which the private sector operates. For him to be misled into believing that price variations of that kind represent hectic competition in the industry is an absolute absurdity. We are about 70 per cent self-sufficient in the production and distribution of petrol. Oil is fundamentally important. as I have said before, not only to the national economy but also to the international economy. So many changes in international relationships, trading relationships, prices, exchange rates, the balance of payments, world debt and world inflation have had as their source those two major oil hikes during the 1970s. It would not be appropriate for this Government, or for any other government, to lose sight of some of those essential facts. This is extremely important legislation. I know it will be important to those in the rural community and those in the fishing industry who will be affected by it. The Government has been extremely conscientious in its approach to this question in an attempt to build rational decisions and rational policies into the programs that exist. We have continued the program that we inherited and we have introduced some variations to it. In the remaining minutes that are available to me I refer to the matter of deregulation, which the honourable member for Gippsland mentioned. I want to make the comment that for the Opposition deregulation is simply a euphemism for some of those things I was talking about. It wants deregulation because it wants the Government and the public sector to step outside completely. In the words of Adam Smith, to keep the ring, to allow the private sector to operate as it wishes, to allow it to manipulate the markets, to manipulate prices and to contrive agreements, arrangements and understandings. There is only one authority which is able to provide adequate, sufficient and informed regulation, and that is government. When honourable members opposite want deregulation we know what they are after. They are after open slather by the private sector. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.38) —As the Minister for Science, the Hon. Barry Jones of Pick-a-Box fame, claimed in his second reading speech, the Bill proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 to implement certain legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. The Minister was eloquent, as he always has been. When I was at school I saw him on television overcome all opposition as Australia's leading quiz king. In those days I admired him, but I assure the House that that was before I suspected he may have harboured socialist tendencies. I do remember one spirited exchange between the Minister and Bob Dyer over the pronunciation of the word `controversy'. I do not know who won, but the Minister certainly raised one over this Bill and over the effect of the Government's fuel taxing actions on the people of Australia. My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has indicated in a very effective way just how shallow, inadequate and hopeless the attitude of the Australian Labor Party is in this matter. The Bill before the House exposes once and for all the Government's absolute hatred of country people and its determination to penalise those people who live outside capital cities. The Government's pretention of representing the nation as a whole is blown completely apart by this fraudulent Bill. Some people might suggest that it is almost a machinery Bill, and in some ways it is. It seeks to alter matters associated with the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme or such little part of the scheme as remains after it was torn to pieces and ripped asunder by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his May economic statement. The Opposition shadow Minister, SenatorDurack, in the Senate confirmed the Treasurer had virtually abolished the scheme four months ago. All that remains is a shell, completely lacking in substance. The Treasurer's first attack resulted in the possibility of some expenditure cuts at the price of enormous fuel cost increases to rural people as well as restricting the scheme's area of application and consequent bureaucratic costs. While some respectable economic arguments could be advanced against the principle of subsidies, the Government's anti-rural motives were the driving force both behind the economic statement and this legislation. The fuel industry is in an economic strait-jacket. It is over-regulated and overtaxed. The subsidy was originally given as a form of compensation to offset partly the heavy Federal and State Labor Government taxes already placed on fuel. About 50 per cent of the bowser fuel price is tax of one kind or another. The amendments seek to introduce registration conditions which will even further restrict the scheme and introduce a statutory declaration to inhibit false claims. The registration conditions may inhibit some abuses and penalty provisions may restrict some false claims. The people of Australia cannot have any confidence any more that the proposed alterations in law will make the scheme more effective because of its very complexity and inadequate claim investigation and verification. The rural people of Australia do not want handouts. They do not want to be propped up or falsely supported by this or any other government. What they want, what they need and what they deserve is a fair go. Mr Goodluck —A fair go. Mr SLIPPER —A fair go, as the honourable member for Franklin indicates quite correctly. We in the National Party will always ensure fair treatment for all people in this country, whether from the city or from rural areas. The Queensland National Party is the only party in that State which seeks to represent all people in the community. We believe that there can be no future for any political party which fails to seek to meet the needs of all Australians. Indeed, it is obvious that the people of Queensland, support us because we have 42 members in the State House after the tragic death of Water Resources Minister John Goleby, while Labor has a mere 31 members. The Labor Party has been rejected by the people of Queensland over and over again since 1957. The latest opinion polls show continuing strong support for the Nationals while Labor is backed by some 6 per cent fewer people than at the last election in October 1983. In view of this, it is amazing that the Labor Party is bringing in all of this anti-rural legislation for the wrong motives. What we need in this country and what we on this side of the House want and demand is a reduction in the size of government, a reduction in the size of the bureaucracy and more deregulation. The Queensland National Party, which I am proud to represent in his place, forms the only State Government of any political colour which does not impose a State fuel tax. For this reason, fuel in my electorate of Fisher in recent times has varied from 46c a litre up to 54c a litre compared with a price of 65c a litre and 72c a litre in Labor governed New South Wales and Western Australia respectively. Federal Labor taxes could well take the price of petrol in other places even higher. The original petroleum products freight subsidy scheme made provision that the subsidy would apply when the existing consumer-paid margin for freight costs exceeded 1.2c per litre. The May economic statement took $116m from country people by increasing the maximum consumer-paid differential by 4c per litre from 21 May 1985; that is, the existing consumer-paid margin for freight costs was increased from a maximum of 1.2c per litre to 5.2c per litre. The Government has not been able to identify financial implications, as the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) mentioned, as a result of the proposed amendments; and, in the words of Senator Durack, the shadow Minister, what a shambles! This Bill also seeks to legalise payments made to the Roma oil refinery from 1984 and to provide for possible payments to this and other mini-refineries in the future. Prior to the May economic statement, payments were made without authority to the Roma refinery, and therefore there was a need to validate payments previously made. Since the May economic statement, Roma is no longer eligible because of the increase in the consumer-paid margin before the scheme becomes applicable. No one is denying that there were problems in the Northern Territory fishing industry, and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts reviewed the scheme's administration in 1984. The main points of that review were: Firstly, there were continuing administration problems, backed up by information from both administrative and industry sources; secondly, large oil companies indicated that continuing abuse of the scheme by some operators had a disrupting effect on the market; and thirdly, widespread and substantial discounting of petrol and diesel in some areas indicated that there could have been some substance to the allegations. The Committee suggested that there should be a review of the scheme, but the Government, succumbing once again to its anti-rural bias, has declined the opportunity to confront the problems and has, instead, ignored them by attempting to abolish the practical application of the scheme by stealth. Justification has been advanced by some for the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme because of the way that the Hawke Labor Government and its predecessor have ripped off the community, including the rural sector, through excessive fuel tax. The people of Australia condemn the Hawke Labor Government over and over again because of the way in which it has forced up the price of fuel, the way in which that Government is trying to tax the motorists the farmers and the graziers of Australia out of existence. But justice will occur. I am absolutely convinced that the people of Australia will put the Hawke Labor Government out of existence at the next election. If there were a free market in oil and no tax rip-off, there would be no need for any subsidy. The Fisher Divisional Council of the National Party, which participated in my selection-honourable members on both sides of the House would agree that those people were very discerning-quite correctly identified the problem some time ago when it carried the following resolution: That this Council utterly condemns the import parity pricing system of the Hawke Socialist Government and its predecessor because of the crazy manner in which Australian oil prices continue to spiral upwards whilst: 1. international oil prices drop; 2. the Australian dollar continues to plummet under Labor's mismanagement of the Australian economy; and 3. the Government fuel tax grab rises with the price of fuel. What we need in this country is more free enterprise, and a free market in oil-and I am very pleased to see members of the National Party stand up and be counted for the people of Australia, those living in cities and those in rural areas-so that prices paid by Australians reflect the cost of production and usual profit. What we do not need is for the Labor Party to seek to reduce its deficit by slugging users of fuel. We know what a spendthrift government we have. We know that, on the Government's own figures, it will overspend by $4.9 billion this year. That means that it will spend $4,900m more than it takes from the taxpayers. As I mentioned when speaking to an earlier Bill, honourable members should imagine what their bank manager would say if, when he rang them up and stated: `You are overdrawn', they replied: `I have gone into deficit budgeting'. He would very quickly bring that situation to an abrupt and appropriate end. The people of Australia are sick and tired of being slugged by this Government. The people of Australia are sick and tired of being used by this Government. They are sick and tired of a situation in which the Government spends, spends, spends and then wants to rip-off ever-increasing amounts of money from the users of fuel. It simply is not good enough. We in the National Party are not prepared, in any circumstances, to let this Labor Party go on doing this to the people of Australia. We all remember-the Minister for Science who is at the table will also remember this-that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised to reduce fuel prices by 3c per litre. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is an excellent member, constantly presents to this House petitions requesting that the price of fuel be reduced by 3c per litre in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise. Mr Hicks —The Prime Minister is no expert. Mr SLIPPER —He is no expert, as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling has mentioned. The promise of the Prime Minister in the great charade at the Sydney Opera House in 1983 that the price of fuel would be reduced by 3c a litre was absolutely worthless. In reality, the Labor Government has increased fuel prices by more than 10c a litre-not 5c, 6c, 7c, 8c or 9c but 10c a litre. Mr Goodluck —Shame! Mr SLIPPER —It is a shame, as the honourable member for Franklin has indicated. This Government has increased fuel prices by 10c per litre in just two years. Fortunately for the people of Australia, it will not be the Government for very much longer; so we will have to worry about this for only a short time. But it has increased the price by 10c per litre when it said that it would reduce it by 3c a litre. What would the situation in Australia be if the Government had said that they were going merely to stabilise the price? Perhaps it would have gone up by 15c or 20c per litre; who knows? Their solution to everything is tax, tax, tax. The National Party is a party of low tax. We are a party that believes in a fair go for all Australians. The provision of the subsidy amounted to at least a partial refund of the exorbitant level of fuel tax being paid by consumers. With the May economic statement and this Bill, the Government now appears to be arbitrarily selecting sectors of the Australian community as sacrificial offerings in an attempt to pull down the Budget deficit a little and in an attempt-one which will fail-to make itself look a little better. Rural consumers in particular and our citizens generally are once again being placed on the thin edge of the fuel tax axe, and they have now been given the chop by Labor. The fuel subsidy reduction makes a mockery of the claims of the Hawke Government during the election campaign that it would seriously consider the problem of rising farm costs. Its solution is to put country people and the small businesses of Australia into bankruptcy. The people of Fisher-those living in the urban areas and those living in the rural areas-are, in my opinion, totally disillusioned with Labor's empty promises. This Bill before the House is another Labor nail in the rural sector's coffin. The people of Australia are in revolt over Labor's constant fuel price increases. I advise the House of the strong opposition of my electorate to Labor's increasing the price of fuel over and over again. I congratulate Mrs Barbara Treloar of D'Aguilar near Woodford and Miss Nancy Lee of Ravensbourne, the co-ordinators of the anti-fuel tax campaign in the Federal electorate of Fisher. They have collected almost 2,000 signatures opposing Labor's moves. It is interesting to note that Woodford in England was Sir Winston Churchill's constituency. I feel honoured that an area of the same name is included in my electorate. Mr Goodluck —There is a resemblance between you. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member very much. Woodford was good for Sir Winston Churchill and so far it has certainly been good for me. I appreciated a letter published in the Near North Coast News, based in Caboolture, from Mrs Treloar and Miss Lee thanking me for my support and for my opposition to Labor's fuel price increases. Mr Conquest —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I very much appreciate the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler, who is an excellent member. The more people I talk to in his electorate, the more I hear what a wonderful job he is doing. This Bill seeks to continue the Government's attempts to pretend that this subsidy scheme is still in existence after its emasculation by the Treasurer earlier this year. The scheme is in fact dead and buried; the scheme is finished. The Labor Party Government of Australia seeks to fool country voters but fails dismally. This is proven because election after election these voters come out to the polling booths and vote against the Hawke socialists in ever-increasing numbers. The odd few remnants left opposite who happen to be rural members will be swept from office after the next election. I mentioned earlier that the fuel industry is in an economic strait-jacket and that it is over-regulated and over-taxed. The Bill does not deregulate; it does not abolish fuel tax; it does not help country people and it does not help city people. This Bill is an absolute disaster for Australia. I oppose the Government's approach and support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Technology and Commerce)(9.57) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have already spoken for their contribution. Because the hour is late and we have got some pressing business to get through, I will not speak at any length. I just want to say that I may have inadvertently misled my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) by interjection. He was quoting petrol prices and I interjected that in April Australia had the cheapest petrol prices. I should have said in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or the Western world, but I think I probably said `the world' which would not be correct, considering the lower prices in the Arab oil states. We have had a particularly interesting debate, especially from some of the younger members of the National Party of Australia, which confirms that something very interesting is happening in the National Party. The young Turks are expounding free market heresies which are deeply upsetting to the older pork barrelling rural socialists. This may reflect the extreme pressure that the National Party old guard is coming under from the National Farmers Federation, and obviously the young Turks are seeing which way to jump. At this stage, because time is so pressing, I will say no more than that and wish the Bill a speedy passage and an even almost instantaneous passage through the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.58) —I move: Clause 3, sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), proposed new sub-section 5 (8), definition of `Mini-refinery', omit `238,500 litres of petroleum daily', substitute `a quantity of petroleum daily which is the prescribed quantity for the purposes of this section'. I refer honourable members to the speech I made during the debate on the second reading. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(9.59) —The Government will accept the amendment which will have the effect that the figure now shown in the Bill will be prescribed by regulation. However, I should make it clear that the figure stated represents the maximum output of mini-refineries to which we will pay the subsidy. The question of the treatment of a refinery producing in excess of that figure will need to be considered in light of advice from the Prices Surveillance Authority. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I have received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education in place of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following works be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of Commonwealth office buildings at Parramatta, Fremantle, Wollongong, Dubbo, Rockhampton, Cairns and Mackay using instalment purchase procedures. In 1983 this Government introduced its instalment purchase program which was intended then to achieve two main objectives: Firstly, to increase the level of ownership of Commonwealth office accommodation requirements and, secondly, to stimulate what was then a very depressed building and construction industry. Because of budgetary considerations the program was based on these buildings being financed by the private sector. To expedite the program the design and construction phases were to be largely the responsibility of the developer selected for individual projects. The cost of instalments were seen as being largely offset by reductions in the Commonwealth rent vote. The instalment purchase method is a new process for delivery of Commonwealth works and assets. There was no established methodology and the status of projects in terms of the Public Works Committee Act was uncertain. These aspects have been the subject of close consultation since inception between the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, which is responsible for the whole program, and the Australian Government Solicitor. At the time the projects were included in the program the legal advice was that they were not subject to the Public Works Committee Act. One of the major problems for the Australian Government Solicitor in providing legal advice as the program has developed has been the fact that there is no standard form of contract, each project is unique, and the form of the contract is critical to a decision on whether an instalment purchase project is a work as defined in the Act. On the 9th of this month the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services formally received legal advice that the instalment purchase project at Parramatta was within the definition of a public work as included in the Public Works Committee Act 1969. At this time the Parramatta project and a number of other projects were at an advanced stage of negotiations with respective developers. As the process is based on a fixed price contract the negotiations with the developer include provision for price escalation for delays in finalising the contract. If the projects were now referred to the Public Works Committee a delay of some weeks would occur before parliamentary approval could be forthcoming and consequently the final cost of the projects would escalate significantly. For the Parramatta project alone the escalation is currently some $200,000 per week of delay in signing the contract. Because of the cost implications it has been necessary for the Government to consider whether the penalty for delaying these contracts is sufficient to seek exemption of these projects under section 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act. After consultation with the Public Works Committee earlier today it has now been decided to proceed in this manner. In considering this approach the Public Works Committee has requested that the ministerial statement I am making include a statement outlining the Committee's viewpoint in regard to this action. I am very pleased to do so. I intend to read the Committee's statement which it provided to me today in full. This formal viewpoint which the Committee wishes to place on record is as follows: On Friday, 13 September, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services wrote to the Committee stating that the Attorney-General's Department advised that the proposal for office accommodation for the Commonwealth at Parramatta was a project which does come within the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act. On Wednesday last the Committee was provided with a briefing paper by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services setting out details of the Commonwealth's instalment purchase program for a series of new office buildings which was introduced in 1983. The Committee is aware that previous interpretations of the legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department were that instalment purchase projects were not `public works'. At a meeting of the Committee this morning the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and the Minister for Housing and Construction explained the position and suggested that in view of the current state of negotiations with individual developers and the potential cost implications to the Commonwealth if the projects were delayed the most appropriate course of action would be for the Government to seek exemption from the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, on the grounds of urgency. The Committee has recognised the Government's predicament but at the same time is conscious of its statutory responsibilities to Parliament and of the established principles of reporting on public works. The Committee acknowledges that it is intended to refer two office accommodation future projects (Newcastle and Sydney) as part of new procedures being developed and which are not affected by the current situation. The Committee accepts that there is nothing insidious to engage in instalment purchase. In fact, it helps reduce the Government's rental payments which have risen dramatically in recent years. In summary, whilst having reservations on the Parramatta project in respect of a number of matters such as car parking, which the Committee conveyed to Ministers this morning, the Committee is prepared to accept the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government is placed and its need to seek approval of the Parliament for exempting specified projects from referral to the Public Works Committee. In saying this, the Committee emphasises that this position should in no way be construed as giving tacit approval to the proposals, about which we have been told very little. It should also be recorded that this action by the Government absolves the Committee from any subsequent criticism which may result from the implementation of the proposal or the completed development. We certainly were not involved or consulted at any stage in the development of the proposal. That completes the quotation from the Committee which the Government undertook to put before the House in seeking the urgency exemption. Amendments to the Public Works Committee Act to ensure that the matter and method of handling instalment purchase are clearly defined and are being considered to ensure the removal of any remaining ambiguity in the Act. The broad estimated costs of these projects, including construction, financing and other related costs are: Parramatta, $110m to $115m; Fremantle, $15.6m; Wollongong, $16.5m; Dubbo, $8.1m; Rockhampton, $8.1m; Cairns, $7.5m; and Mackay, $6.3m. Should the House agree to support this motion, negotiations can continue expeditiously towards formalising contracts for these works. In commending the motion to the House, I would like to thank all members of the Public Works Committee for the expeditious consideration that they have given to this matter. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.11) —I would like to offer a brief comment more or less in my capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee, which was heavily involved in this matter. I think it would be fair to say that the Committee was a little discomfited by being confronted with a problem of such a unique character requiring action at such short notice. However, on consideration of all the circumstances, recognising the situation in which the Government found itself, acting on advice from the Attorney-General's Department which would have encouraged anybody to so move, in view of the fact that benefit would accrue to the taxpayer in respect of a saving in escalating costs and bearing in mind that some of the projects listed have actually been started, it would seem to have been less than charitable not to respond to the special circumstances. Whilst the Committee elected, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) pointed out, to offer a disclaimer, in the ultimate it saw that the situation would be best served by permitting the House the opportunity to resolve the issue. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.13) —On Tuesday, 17 September, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) made a speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 in which he referred particularly to me and a subject which had been canvassed in a debate I participated in last week. In that speech the honourable member referred to me as `the honourable member for Moncrieff who, of course represents the Gold Goast-the blue rinse set, the millionaires club'. He went on to talk about a matter relevant to the western suburbs of Sydney. The inference of his speech is that I represent an area which has particular advantage in terms of income and he represents an area which does not, and that therefore my comments were unworthy. I rise to put a number of things on the record so that this House, the Government and particularly the honourable member for Chifley might better understand the facts of the electorate I represent and the problems that it faces, because I would not want to think that the Government is under the same misapprehension as the honourable member. In particular, in a couple of minutes I will ask for some undertakings to be given by the Minister who is given the opportunity to reply to this debate. Every member of this House has been issued with a booklet called `Comparisons of 1981 Census Characteristics', which contains a break-up by Commonwealth electoral divisions based on 1984 boundaries. The booklet was issued by the Legislative Research Service of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. I want to run quickly through some of the salient statistics which indicate such things as income and standard of living in my electorate and in the electorate of Chifley. For example, that booklet reveals that the number of constituents with an income of below $8,000 is 36.7 per cent in the case of Moncrieff and only 26.5 per cent in the case of Chifley. Moncrieff ranks in the bottom one-third of electorates in terms of income, whereas Chifley ranks in the top one-third. Only 8.4 per cent of the population of Moncrieff enjoy an income of over $26,000. Exactly the same percentage applies to the people represented by the honourable member for Chifley. Lest it should be thought that this indicates something in terms of population characteristics, the booklet goes on to indicate that the median family income is $10,953 in the case of Moncrieff and $13,318 in the case of Chifley. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mrs SULLIVAN —The amount is $13,318. Going from lowest to highest, Moncrieff ranks 39th and Chifley 102nd, so Chifley is certainly not a deprived area in terms of family income. Again, lest it should be thought that what I am saying is a misrepresentation because of pensioners, I wish to point out another salient figure. Six per cent of the population of Moncrieff is made up of single parent families while the figure for Chifley is 9.8 per cent. Going from the smallest to the highest, Moncrieff ranks 122nd out of 148 electorates and Chifley ranks 148th. One would think that that, given the problems of the standards of living of single income families, would have put Chifley in a special income position, but taken in conjunction with the other statistics I have already given we see that it does not average out that way at all. I point out just one other figure that shows a parity between the two. The percentage of population not in the labour force is 58.7 per cent in the case of Moncrieff and 58.5 per cent-almost the same-in the case of Chifley. So the income factor cannot be attributed to retirees. When we compare the standards of living of people in these two electorates on the basis of households we find that the number of households living in separate houses is 82.5 per cent in the case of Moncrieff and 92 per cent in the case of Chifley. The significance of that, of course, is that Moncrieff is more likely to have two families bringing an income into one household, thus rebutting any easy-but fake-explanation as to how so many households in Chifley can achieve the same income as households in Moncrieff. In fact, on average, more people are contributing to a household income in Moncrieff to get the same outcome as people in Chifley. The number of people either living in their own homes or purchasing their own homes amounts to 68.9 per cent in the case of Moncrieff and 66.3 per cent in the case of Chifley. Going from lowest to highest, their relative rankings are 50th and 69th, both in the bottom one-third of the Australian average. However, when we come to actual household commitments we find that people paying a monthly mortgage in excess of $250 a month represent 46.2 per cent in the case of Moncrieff as against only 34.1 per cent in the case of Chifley. Going from the lowest to highest, Chifley ranks 73rd and Moncrieff 124th, almost at the very top. I raise this matter not just for the sake of pointing out a list of statistics but to point out that there are problems in the electorate of Moncrieff, in particular in relation to youth, which I do not have time to elaborate on now. However, there are two applications before this Government for special assistance to unemployed and homeless youth in the electorate of Moncrieff which need urgent support. I would hate to think that the Government was approaching these excellent, worthy and most deserving cases in the same bigoted frame of mind as the honourable member for Chifley. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.18) —The first record of sugar manufacture in Australia was in New South Wales in 1823. The industry was established in southern Queensland in the 1860s and in the tropics in the 1870s. From the turn of the century to this day the sugar industry has occupied a dominant position in Australia's tropics from the standpoint of agriculture and manufacturing. Sugar cane is Queensland's second most important rural industry, with a gross value of production of $499m in 1983-84. Australia is the world's fourth largest sugar exporter. Australia has always fulfilled its quota and quality obligations under various international marketing arrangements to which it has been a party. As a result, the Australian sugar industry has earned a reputation as a reliable producer and supplier of quality raw sugar. Queensland produces 94 per cent of our raw sugar. The balance is produced in New South Wales. Over 95 per cent of sugar cane production occurs on owner-operated family farms, with about 5 per cent produced on plantations owned and operated by proprietary milling companies. Most of the cane is produced on farms of between 30 and 100 hectares. There are about 6,600 cane farms, of which 6,000 are in Queensland. In the 1984 season the industry produced 3.55 million tonnes of 94 n.t. sugar from its 33 sugar mills. This sugar was produced from 25.5 million tonnes of cane harvested from an area of 312,000 hectares. A hectare of land yields about 80 tonnes of cane which, in turn, yields about 11 tonnes of raw sugar. The total value of assets employed in the industry by cane growers and sugar millers in cane farms, transport facilities and mills, exceeds $6 billion. A sugar industry report recently commissioned by the Federal and Queensland governments has estimated that in 1984 over $4 billion worth of national output was associated directly and indirectly with the sugar industry. World sugar prices collapsed in 1981 to record lows and are not expected to increase substantially due to several factors. Until recently Australian producers to some extent were shielded against the sharp international downturn due to negotiated long term price contracts. However, with the collapse of negotiations to establish a new international sugar agreement in July 1984, the current depressed international prices will have serious consequences for the Australian sugar industry. The reasons for the low world price for sugar include a high level of world stocks, currently at about 40 per cent of annual consumption, the agricultural protectionist policies of the European Economic Community and the wider availability of alternative sweetners. As a result of a collapse in world prices for sugar, Australia's sugar industry is teetering on the brink of a major disaster. Not only are hundreds of cane farmers facing bankruptcy, but also the crisis is already having an effect on local business and employment. There has been a loss of business confidence. The crisis has created a potential loss of local government revenue and consequent implications for community and district infrastructure. The worsening crisis is threatening the very livelihood of towns and shires which traditionally relied on sugar cane farming to maintain the local economy. Land which is no longer needed for sugar cane production has limited alternative economic opportunities. The sugar industry is regarded as the most highly socialised rural industry in Australia, with the production of raw sugar, the price of refined sugar and imports of sugar to Australia controlled by either, or both, the Federal and State governments. The problems of the sugar industry crisis are not just confined to sugar cane growers. Tens of thousands of Australians earn their livelihood directly or indirectly from the sugar industry. The collapse of the sugar industry will affect not only those people directly involved in the industry but also the people who live in the sugar towns which are highly dependent upon the industry for survival. Unemployment will increase. Investment in the areas will be low so that unemployment levels will remain high. Tens of thousands of Australians are realising that their future and the future of their children is at stake. They are depending on the Federal Government and the Queensland Government to provide immediately a package of financial aid and other measures to rescue the great Australian sugar industry from calamity. Sugar industry representatives fear, with justification, that the Queensland Government is playing politics at their expense. How long must cane farmers, their families and the tens of thousands of Australians dependent upon the sugar industry for their livelihood, tolerate the Queensland Government playing politics at their expense? Federal Cabinet will meet in Townsville next week. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will meet with sugar industry representatives and other members of the community. North Queenslanders will have the opportunity of talking with their Prime Minister. The Minister for Primary Industry will be able to tell north Queenslanders the present state of his negotiations with the Queensland Government on the 100-day committee report. The people of north Queensland trust and admire the Hawke Government. In their hour of need they ask for assistance in equal measures from the Federal and State governments. In return for this support, I am confident that the sugar industry will diligently endeavour to put right its affairs and resolutely address itself to the world market situation. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.22) —Tonight I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very interesting paper produced by the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University. I think it is particularly appropriate to mention it tonight in light of the rotten deal that the rural sector has received in regard to the third instalment of the Budget announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In this paper Dr Paul O'Mara discusses the contribution of the farm sector to annual variations in the gross domestic product. In fact, he points out that the importance of the farm sector is growing as far as GDP is concerned. While the paper relies on an empirical model, the conclusions make fascinating reading. Furthermore, the conclusions highlight what country people have been saying for years. No doubt those honourable members who have bothered to listen to people in the country have heard it often. Many is the time I have heard older people from both sides of the political fence say that when things go well in the country everyone benefits, and when they do not, the cities feel the pinch too. How many other members have heard it? Maybe now we have some real evidence to back that experienced judgment. In this excellent paper Dr O'Mara, who is now working for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, discusses the linkages between the farm sector and the main economy. His findings should be heeded. The summary of the main conclusions gives a clear message-that is, the ups and downs of farming, rather than having less effect on the overall economy, may in fact be increasing. In other words, cities are not too remote to feel a rural recession. We now have some empirical evidence to support the importance of the fortunes of primary industry for all Australia. In his summary, Dr O'Mara states in part: There is considerable evidence that the relative contribution of the farm sector to annual changes in non-farm output has not declined over this period and may even have increased. This is despite the fact that the relative contribution of the farm sector to the absolute values of variables such as GDP, employment and exports has declined substantially over the period. Further on Dr O'Mara states: There is some evidence, however, that the overall importance of this channel of influence has tended to increase in the 1970s, reflecting the greater volatility of farm prices since the early 1970s. In his conclusion Dr O'Mara states: Finally, the results presented in the present paper could be interpreted as implying that a satisfactory and consistent treatment of the farm sector in Australian macroeconomic models has become more, rather than less, important over time. I emphasise that last point `more, rather than less, important over time'. I trust that all honourable members will remember this. Those 100,000 farmers who marched already know it. It is time that the rest of Australia woke up to it. The treatment of the farm sector by this Government, especially tonight, has been one of the great disappointments of this Labor Government. Blind Freddie could tell us something is wrong on the farm. This year we have seen unprecedented numbers of farmers marching in an orderly manner in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra. Over 100,000 farmers have demonstrated their concern. Believe me, farmers would not be doing this unless there was something fundamentally wrong. Farmers do not take three days off and drive hundreds of kilometres just to have a picnic. Let us look at some of the effects of tonight's announcement of the third instalment of a Budget on the farm sector. We have seen a capital gains tax. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has gone to great pains to say that it is not a death duty, but it is. It means that if a farm is handed on to a member of the family who then sells it, he is slugged with a capital gains tax. There is no doubt about it. It is a death duty by another name. If we look further at it we see the business of eliminating off-farm income being offset against losses. But how do most farmers start these days? They start as shearers and take jobs off the farm. Quite a few of them are fortunate enough to marry school teachers who help them to buy a farm. This is the way that people get into agriculture. I suggest to honourable members that the paper that Dr O'Mara has produced should be heeded by all members of the House because it shows what we have been trying to tell the Government for ages-that the farm sector is important and that, when things are going down on the farm, the rest of Australia will feel it. It is not just a question of ignoring farming. It is increasing in its importance for Australia. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.28) —Dr Charles Rowley, who died yesterday, was a pioneer in changing the attitudes of white Australians to Aborigines. He had a combination of qualities which inspired respect-fine scholarship, a strong sense of justice, determination and boundless common sense. He led the struggle for land rights for Aborigines through his rigorous analysis of the history of injustice to Aborigines and his quiet but tenacious advocacy of humane, equitable policies. Charles Rowley grew up in central New South Wales towns where his father was a mounted policeman and gold warden. Scholarships enabled him to attend high school and Sydney University. After over a decade as a secondary school teacher he enlisted in 1942 and was discharged as a lieutenant colonel in 1946. He served with that unorthodox military unit of visionaries and pragmatists, of poets and agricultural scientists, the Directorate of Research. The Australian School of Pacific Administration, of which he became principal in 1951, was a practical decendant of the Directorate. His book The New Guinea Villages exemplifies his approach of teaching field officers to view with informed compassion the process of social change going on amongst the people with whom they worked. In 1964 he was appointed director of the Aboriginal research project of what became the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences. His own three volumes, The Destruction of Aboriginal Society, Outcasts of White Australia and The Remote Aborigines are a monument to his capacity to cut across disciplinary boundaries, take the best intellectual tools and data, apply his own sharp common sense and industry and produce pioneering work of sustained high quality. The community is still catching up with the mass of material contained in those 1,200 pages. He transferred the calm, direct courteousness of his speech to his prose; but there is also a passion for justice that gives power to his writing. His accurate statement of the facts of history is more shocking than any rhetoric. As the foundation Professor of Politics at the University of Papua New Guinea he taught many of those now holding senior positions in parliament and the public service. His humanism and intellectual rigor were just right for Papua New Guinea on the eve of independence. On returning to Australia in 1974 he became Executive Director of the Academy. In 1975 the Whitlam Government also appointed him as Chairman of the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, which was given the responsibility and opportunity of buying back land for dispossessed Aborigines. His 1978 book A Matter of Justice broke through the complexity and prevarication of official policy of the time to make a clear statement of the requirements for justice for Aborigines. One of his most penetrating insights was into the inconsistency in the treatment of the indigenous people and their land in Australia and Papua New Guinea. He said in an address after receiving an honorary doctorate from the Australian National University in 1983: The British annexation of land as Crown land legally pauperised Aboriginal clans . . . no law recognised Aboriginal ownership of land. In contrast . . . the original promise to the Papuans-`your lands will be reserved unto you'-was, in general, kept. Charles Rowley was a reasonable man; wise and honest, passionate and tenacious in the struggle for justice, but also unpretentious and self-effacing. He was universally respected by colleagues and generations of students. His spirit will live on in his writing and the affection of those who knew him. Our heartfelt sympathy goes to his wife, Irene, and his son, Brian. We who mourn him can celebrate him best by rededicating ourselves to achieve justice for Aborigines. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.32) —This evening I want to express my very great concern about the unemployed youth of Australia. Mr Simmons —What about the assets test? Mr NEHL —The assets test will keep. We will come back to that some other time. I want to state the fact that in the electorate of Cowper in the age group between 15 and 19 years unemployment has jumped by 20 per cent just in the last 12 months to June. I want to refer to a pledge made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which, I believe, is one of the cruellest things that has ever been done to the youth of this country. As appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 15 July 1985, the Prime Minister claimed that he would wipe out unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds and virtually eliminate unemployment for 18 and 19-year-olds. Obviously; if that could be achieved it would be marvellous. Frankly, if it can be achieved I will be the first to salute and applaud the Prime Minister for achieving it. If we look at act two of the Budget, which was the August part of the Budget in its three parts, and examine just what the situation is in relation to youth we see that for youth, including apprenticeship training and the new traineeship schemes, an additional $25.6m was allocated. At the same time job creation, including the community employment program, was down by $174.9m. That means that in reality the funds available for the youth of this country are down by $122.3m. That is far too much. The funds being provided to technical and further education are down. The number of teaching hours available for training youth are down very much as well. With this highly commendable ambition, just how is the Hawke Government going to achieve that promise and wipe out unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds and virtually eliminate unemployment for 18 and 19-year-olds? I believe that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has given us the secret of this. On page five of his Budget Speech he said: 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. At first glance that seems highly commendable too. But really it would appear that keeping the kids at school is the secret plan to wipe out artificially unemployment for the youngsters. I cannot agree with that. The cost in 1985-86 will be $35m; in 1986-87, $86m; in 1987-88, $170m; and in 1988-89, $251m. That is a great deal of money. I would be the first to acclaim the fact that it would be wonderful to have more educated Australians. People, and young people in particular, are the most important resource of this country, and training for employment is vital. But where are the jobs? If we keep the kids in school with the aim of getting rid of unemployment, we have to provide jobs. I suspect that the Labor Government plans to keep the children at school as a smokescreen to reduce unemployment artificially so that it can continue to praise itself. My colleagues and the rest of Australia know the sort of praise that is given. We have heard phrases such as the world's best Treasurer, and words such as `great' and `stunning'. Even in the Budget Speech the Treasurer referred to the historic trilogy. It takes more than self-praise and blowing one's own trumpet to achieve a satisfactory result in ending unemployment. I conclude by saying that if this is how Labor will wipe out unemployment for 16- and 17-year-olds, it should reconsider. We should be planning to provide jobs, not just to push aside the kids and baby-sit them in schools. It is a question of providing real jobs, not just keeping them out of circulation. Even though it is cheaper to keep the kids at school-it costs only $23.05 a week in secondary school fees, whereas the dole is $45 a week-I appeal to the Government to provide jobs. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.37) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the success and dedication of a group in my electorate which assists disabled people within the Wanneroo Shire and enables them to undertake craft therapy and social activities in a welcoming environment outside their own homes. I made brief mention of this group, the Creative and Therapy Activities Association, in the course of my maiden speech in this House, indicating at that time that it was seeking government financial assistance but did not easily fit into any of the existing funding categories. The group, commonly called CATA, has grown out of a scheme set up in 1979 by the welfare section of the Wanneroo Shire Council's health department. Its aim is to improve the quality of life for those who are housebound through age, disability, accident or illness, and for their caring partners. Its objective is to provide a stepping stone from being housebound to being involved in the community. CATA is the least restrictive alternative for disabled people. It is multidiagnostic, covering 34 different disabilities, including arthritis, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, agoraphobia and speech impairment. It caters for both men and women from 20 to 90 years of age and provides its members with access to a wide range of therapy and activities such as arts, crafts, table games, swimming, riding and sulky driving. At this stage I outline the history of CATA's formation. Commencing in August 1979, when 13 people met once a fortnight in the home of an arts and craft therapist, CATA has progressed steadily to a membership in excess of 120 people who are able to be involved in activities at least four times a week at venues in either Warwick or Yanchep. My colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) assisted the group to obtain a community employment program grant in late 1983, and subsequently a full time co-ordinator was appointed for a 12-month period. Earlier this year, on cessation of the CEP grant, the Wanneroo Shire generously contributed interim funding for a two- or three-month period in recognition of the value of the service provided by CATA to the disabled residents of the Shire. At that time also I joined the honourable member for Moore and our State Labor colleagues in the northern metropolitan corridor in an earnest personal appeal to the Western Australian Minister for Health for the provision of some funds to this unique group. Happily, after due consideration of the merits of our request, the Minister was able to allocate short term one-off assistance of $10,000 pending finalisation of the home and community care program guidelines this year. I am pleased that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has undertaken to attend the official opening of CATA's open week at the Dorchester Hall in Warwick tomorrow night. The Minister is no stranger to the operation and achievements of this group, having visited it previously to view its activities and discuss a request for funds. On this occasion, the Minister will have the opportunity of inspecting an impressive display of arts and crafts, including examples of painting, basket weaving and chocolate making. CATA provides an excellent example of community effort, dedication and co-operation. It continues to exist today by virtue of the combined endeavour and good will of local, State and Federal government representatives together with the hard work and commitment of a host of willing volunteers. The members of the group are especially deserving of praise for their continued enthusiasm in the face of great difficulty and adversity. The philosophy underlying this group's success and motivation is summed up in its newsletter Stepping Stone: We are supports, not crutches: We are self-help, not dependency. We are a group, not an institution. We care, not smother, and We help, but are not used. CATA has brought an essential service and facility to the disabled people in my electorate. It deserves the certainty which assured government funding provides. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.43) —The tax package which has been introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this House this evening is, as we all know, a savage attack on the wealth creators in our economy, the business sector and our primary producers; there is no doubt about that. But tonight I want to talk about one specific aspect of this new tax package, and that is the way the Treasurer and the Government have singled out the State of South Australia for particularly discriminatory and harsh action. Mrs Sullivan —Bannon will lose the next election. Mr DOWNER —Exactly. Obviously the Government is totally unconcerned about the future of the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, and his enfeebled Government, and this tax package is without any doubt the last nail in the Bannon Government's coffin. The Premier of Western Australia, at least to give him some credit, has a minuscule degree of influence over the Federal Government in being successful in getting the gold tax deferred for at least six months, but no such deal has been negotiated by the ineffectual and incompetent South Australian Government led by the Premier, Mr Bannon. I would like to go through one or two specific areas where this tax package particularly discriminates against the State of South Australia. In the first place the tax on fringe benefits will have an extraordinarily negative effect on my State. Honourable members will be aware that the State of South Australia is the heartland of Australia's automotive manufacturing industry. They will also be aware that the fringe benefits tax will have a particularly severe effect on the motor vehicle industry, and practically every motor vehicle manufacturer in Australia has been making that point ever since the White Paper was introduced, and indeed even the vehicle builders union has made that very same point. The motor vehicle industry is central to the South Australian economy; it is one of the industries that will suffer because of this package. Between 50 and 60 per cent of General Motors-Holden's cars are company cars, around 40 per cent of Mitsubishi's cars are company cars. The result of the tax on fringe benefits inevitably will be a reduction in demand for those cars and inevitably will lead to a loss of jobs in those industries. That ultimately means a loss of jobs in the State of South Australia. One could turn to the measure that has been taken in relation to taxation on entertainment. This measure obviously will hit the restaurant industry in every single part of Australia, but I do not want to dwell on that. One aspect of entertainment that is relevant to South Australia that will be hit is the wine industry-that long suffering industry which was promised no specific wine tax by the Australian Labor Party during the 1983 election campaign, but was subsequently hit with a 10 per cent wine tax. The people living and working in districts such as the Southern Vales of South Australia and Langhorne Creek, all of whom are in my electorate, are the ones who will suffer as a result of the taxation measures taken against business entertainment. They will suffer because they have had a 10 per cent wine tax and now once again the wine industry will suffer a reduction in demand as a result of these measures. One could also add that the tax deductions taken away from business for other forms of entertainment will inevitably lead to less demand from business for seats for Mr Bannon's famous Grand Prix, which is to be held in Adelaide. No doubt there will also be a reduction in business demand for the casino. All these specific measures are seemingly designed to discriminate against South Australia. If one can put it another way, these measures prove that the Premier of South Australia and his Government are completely ineffectual in influencing a Labor government in Canberra. The only satisfactory result for South Australia in the months ahead will be to turf out the Bannon Government and replace it with a Liberal government led by the distinguished Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Olsen. The Bannon Government has brought South Australia to its knees with a 47 1/2 per cent increase in State taxes since Bannon was elected. Interest rates in the State are higher than ever and unemployment has gone up by 6,000 people and inflation by 7 1/2 per cent. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.47) —Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the new traineeship programs which are being introduced by the Federal Government as part of the new package for youth known as Priority One. What I want to discuss briefly this evening are some other aspects of the package which seem to me to be just as significant as the traineeships and equally vital to the ultimate goal of expanding the options available to young people in Australia. It is generally agreed that young people have a far better chance of finding and retaining employment if they have completed their secondary education and obtained some job-oriented qualifications. There are two basic issues for government to confront in this area. The first is that some families and young people may simply not be able to afford to stay at school past the minimum leaving age or go on to study at technical colleges or universities. The second is that some young people may find the option of leaving school more attractive financially, even if their chances of finding employment are slim. The first of these problems has been very positively addressed by the Government in the Priority One youth package. The maximum benefit payable under the secondary allowance scheme-SAS-will be increased from $23.05 to $35 a week in 1986. This is an increase of more than 50 per cent. In addition, the income test applied under the scheme will be eased. In 1986 the level of adjusted family income at which the maximum allowance is paid will go up by 5 per cent from $14,281 to $14,995. Another point of great significance is that levels of student assistance and income test levels will be indexed in future to ensure that the level of assistance will be maintained over a period. I know that this move will be warmly welcomed by parents and students who have been arguing the case for years. There will also be changes affecting levels of assistance paid to tertiary students next year. Maximum benefit for the tertiary education assistance scheme will be raised from $44.51 to $47.50 a week for students living at home and from $68.67 to $73.28 for those living away from home. The income test will be eased in the same way as for the payment of SAS. The basic idea behind these changes is to simplify the whole structure of youth allowances, remove inequities and give young people some real encouragement to stay at school or college. This brings me to the second problem, which has also been thoroughly tackled in the Priority One youth package. The increases in student allowance which I have just been outlining are only the first step in removing the gap between the amount paid to young people who leave school without a job and those who stay at school. Over the next few years, we will be gradually moving towards the stage where we have a single age-related scheme for young people, whether they are students or unemployed. This will obviously provide a very strong incentive for further study, both at secondary and tertiary levels. Students and parents will obviously want to take all these changes into account before making decisions about the 1986 academic year and beyond. I want to finish by telling the House about how parents, teachers and young people can find out about all the details of eligibility and payment rates which I have not had time to explain this evening. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has just informed me that application forms and publicity material will be distributed to all secondary schools in the very near future. To ensure that as many students as possible benefit from the increased allowances, information will also be sent to education authorities and interest groups. The Commonwealth Department of Education will be pleased to send representatives to school careers nights, meetings of school guidance officers or any other meetings with people who have regular contact with students and their parents. In addition, an information card will be sent to people receiving family allowance benefits for children turning 16, and a leaflet in various community languages will be distributed in the appropriate places. I close by joining other members of this House in welcoming all the measures contained in the Priority One package, and by saying that I am looking forward to meeting with various groups of parents, students and youth workers in the electorate of Brand to discuss the new proposals. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.51) —I was forced into speaking in the adjournment debate tonight by the speech delivered by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I support what the honourable member for Mayo said about the absolute failure of the Premier of South Australia to protect his State from what has been an erosion of its rights and privileges under the tax package which has been delivered today. The honourable member for Mayo touched on the dilemma that faces the motor vehicle industry and the dilemma that the wine industry may well face. I am even more acutely affected than the honourable member by that erosion as I represent both the Clare Valley and the Barossa Valley in this House and, as a result, am the envy of a number of honourable members. It is not only the wine industry to which I want to draw the House's attention tonight. That has been more than adequately covered by the honourable member for Mayo. I draw the House's attention to the attack on South Australia that is contained on page 15 of the Statement entitled `Reform of the Australian Taxation System'. Under the heading `Water Conservation' the Treasurer (Mr Keating) took the liberty of stating: The Government has decided to replace the immediate deduction currently allowed for expenditure by primary producers on conserving or conveying water with a write-off in equal instalments over 5 years. The opportunity to write-off irrigation and water conveyancing has been a major influence in the electorate of Wakefield and in South Australia. Everyone knows that South Australians get the drainage water left over from the eastern States but few people appreciate the major factor that this write-off provision has been in cleaning up South Australia's water. Few people appreciate that the established irrigation areas in South Australia-government irrigation areas-have historically been irrigated by a flood irrigation technique. This opportunity to upgrade irrigation techniques has done more than anything else to improve water quality in South Australia. Instead of primary producers choosing to irrigate by the extravagant flood irrigation technique, they have chosen the alternatives of drip irrigation and low throw microjet irrigation to apportion water not to each acre but to each tree. So each tree gets the water it will use. Primary producers have been encouraged to do this by using the existing facility which has just been denied them by the Treasurer's package. This will be disastrous. The Government's decision to install a major evaporation works at Noora, just out of Loxton, proved to be over-engineered when growers chose to change their irrigation technique so that they applied proportionately only the amount of water the crop needed. The drainage that once resulted from flood irrigation no longer occurred because little more than the water the plant needed was being applied. That change meant that the Noora Basin was over-engineered and it heralded a real change in water conservation in South Australia. That, of course, is now under threat. Mr Simmons —Where is your farm? Mr ANDREW —I have a farm in the irrigation area so affected and that is why I speak- Mr Howe —Are you declaring your interest? Mr ANDREW —Of course, and that is why I speak with some compassion, because I know precisely what happens to irrigation water when it is other than carefully applied. This exercise will cost the Government money because we will cease to encourage- Mr Lee —It will cost you money. Mr ANDREW —No, not at all. I have done it. I have taken advantage of it, and I know how important it is. We will now deny growers the opportunity to use this particular irrigation application technique. The alternative will be an enormous evaporation scheme which would be quite unnecessary if we encouraged individual growers in South Australia to use carefully the water that is available to them. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.56) —1985 marks the centenary of the birth of two great Australians-former Labor Prime Ministers John Curtin and Ben Chifley. I have a special interest in highlighting the significance of the birth of Ben Chifley, as this Sunday, 22 September, marks the centenary of his birth in the city of Bathurst, the oldest inland city in Australia, which is also celebrating the centenary of its declaration as a city. It is therefore important, as this event approaches, to reflect on the life of Ben Chifley. Much of his early childhood was spent living with his grandparents where he was exposed to the world of bush politics, as well as witnessing the devastation of the Depression which swept Australia in the 1890s. He returned to Bathurst where he endeavoured to catch up on a missed education. On leaving school he first worked in a local store and then a tannery before, in 1903, embarking on his career with the railway, where he worked his way up to a first class driver. The bitter experience of the great strike in 1917, and his involvement and concern with his union, took him on a path which led him to Federal politics. He won the seat of Macquarie in 1928, and in 1929 joined the Scullin Cabinet as Minister for Defence, only to lose his seat when the Government fell. He stood twice unsuccessfully for Macquarie, having to wait until 1940 before winning a seat. In these intervening years Chifley spent his energies in setting up a new party machine in the wake of Lang Labor, as well as serving as a councillor on the Abercrombie Shire and as a member of the local hospital board. He took on the position of Treasurer in Curtin's Government and on 12 July 1945 assumed the position of Prime Minister only a month before World War II ended and a week after Curtin's death. He played a leading and inspirational role in Australia's post-war reconstruction. However, difficulties appeared on the political horizon for him over the question of bank nationalisation, petrol rationing and, finally, coal strikes in 1949. Chifley's Government was ultimately defeated at the 1949 election. He continued to work hard in Opposition. In 1950 he suffered a coronary occlusion, but soon returned to politics were he threw himself, once again, into the fray by preparing for and fighting an election campaign in April 1951. His health, however, had been irreparably damaged and he died at work after suffering a heart attack on 13 June 1951. He was buried in Bathurst where thousands turned out to honour the city's most famous son. To mark the occasion, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will deliver the inaugural `Light on the Hill' Chifley Seminar Memorial Trust address at the Mitchell College of Advanced Education at Bathurst this Saturday, 21 September. It is proposed that each year a prominent Australian will be invited to Bathurst to address a similar function and to outline his or her vision for the future; in other words, to explain their light on the hill. In the words of J. B. Chifley: If I think a thing is worth fighting for, no matter what the penalty is, I will fight for the right, and truth and justice will always prevail. I try to think of the Labor movement . . . as a movement bringing something better to the people; better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective-the light on the hill-which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. Mrs Sullivan —I indicated at the end of my speech earlier that I had a particular point to make on youth unemployment in the electorate of Moncrieff. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which illustrates my case. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ELECTORATES OF MONCRIEFF AND McPHERSON-YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1. Moncrieff and McPherson-population as a percentage of Queensland's population... 8 2. Moncrieff and McPherson-15-24-year-old unemployed persons as a percentage of total Queensland 15-24-year-old unemployed persons... 12.13 3. Moncrieff and McPherson-population as a percentage of Australia's population... 1.32 4. Moncrieff and McPherson-15-24-year-old unemployed persons as a percentage of total Australian 15-24-year-old unemployed persons... 2.24 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m., Tuesday, 8 October 1985. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) recognises the crisis which exists within the sugar industry, caused by the lowest world prices in real terms; (2) recognises that Australia's return from sugar exports is expected to decline further over the next 3 years; (3) recalls that in previous crises, particular in 1966-67, the Government supported the price to canegrowers whilst the Queensland Government concentrated its support to millers, and (4) calls on the Government to accept its responsibilities to the sugar industry, and immediately implement an effective price support scheme to the industry, and share in the provision of the necessary reconstruction funding required through rural adjustment. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 September 1985. Australian National Railways Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 231 Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 232. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 229. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 230. Public Service Act-Determinations-1985-Nos. 71, 77. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1985 - No. 46-World Cup Athletics (Security Arrangements). No. 47-Seat of Government (Administration) (Amendment). No. 48-Statistics (Repeal). No. 49-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 50-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 6). No. 52-Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment). Regulations-1985-No. 24 (Bookmakers Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 86) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Which section of this Department is responsible for (a) relations with Australian defence industry, (b) relations with overseas defence industry, (c) defence industry policy and policy implementation, (d) sales of defence equipment overseas, (e) defence purchasing, and (f) the Williamstown dockyard and follow-on destroyer project management. (2) In each case, what is the chain of responsibility from the Minister to the person in charge of each section. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Relations with Australian defence industry are both formal and informal in nature, and are wide ranging. The focus of the Department's consultation with industry is the Defence Industry Committee in which senior representatives of industry, the Services and Government departments develop advice to the Minister for Defence on defence industry issues. Other consultation machinery focuses specifically on the Department's responsibilities in the aerospace industry, in munitions production and quality control. Commercial relations with industry are undertaken by officers in the Department who exercise purchasing and contracting delegations. These are located in the Capital Procurement Organisation, Defence Logistics Organisation, Office of Defence Production, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Defence Purchasing Organisation and individual Service Offices. (1) (b) Relations with overseas defence industry are focused through Defence representation overseas. Defence industry representatives known as Defence industry Attaches are located in the Australian Embassy in Washington and the High Commission in London. The Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division is responsible for the development of policy guidance conveyed through those representatives. Detailed negotiations with overseas owned companies that do business in Australia are undertaken by those who exercise the delegations outlined in 1 (a). (1) (c) This function is centralised with the Capital Procurement Organisation. The Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division is responsible for industry policy and the recently created Defence Industry Development Division for policy implementation. The Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation implement policies relating to logistics support and scientific and technical liaison with industry. The Office of Defence Production is responsible for the management of the ordnance and explosives factories, the government dockyards and aircraft factory. (1) (d) The export of defence materiel overseas is controlled under Schedule 13 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations of the Customs Act 1901. Authority to approve export of all items in the Schedule lies with the Minister for Defence, and is subject to formal agreement on a case-by-case basis with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Within the Department of Defence, the intitial contact point on export proposals covered by Schedule 13 is the Defence Industry Development Division. Defence areas consulted in policy consideration of particular proposals include: the Strategic and International Policy Division, the Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division, the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Policy, and the Supply Division. (1) (e) Defence purchasing is the responsibility of Deputy Secretary C. (1) (f) The Office of Defence Production is responsible for the management of Williamstown Dockyard. Australian Frigate project management is the responsibility of the Chief of Naval Materiel. (2) The chain of responsibility is through the Chief of the Defence Force and the Military Command or through the Secretary and the functional Divisions of the Department. (Question No. 250) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Has his attention been drawn to the final report of the Salinity Committee of the Victorian Parliament; if so, what is the response of the Government to the proposals on inter-governmental co-operation. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: My attention has been drawn to the final report of the Victorian Joint Parliamentary Salinity Committee entitled `Salt of the Earth'. The Victorian Premier has written to the Prime Minister seeking the Commonwealth's views on recommendations relating to a salinity control strategy for Victoria. There are two recommendations in the report addressed specifically to the Commonwealth. With regard to Recommendation 44 relating to the establishment of a Murray Basin Forum, the Government's view is that, while the matter might be kept under review, formal creation of the proposed forum does not appear to be justified at this stage. Opportunities already exist for the public at large, and interest groups in particular, to channel their views on river management and associated problems to the River Murray Commission, and likewise to be informed by the Commission at first hand of its response to these concerns, as well as its own plans for the future. With regard to Recommendation 45 relating to strategies for controlling salinity in northern Victoria, the Commonwealth has provided almost $11 million since 1978-79 for most of the components identified by the consultants as key elements of future control strategies. This assistance will continue under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program, subject to budgetary constraints. The honourable member will no doubt have read a joint press statement of 19 August by the Prime Minister and the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, foreshadowing a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers in November in Adelaide to discuss land and water management issues in the Murray Basin, and options for improved co-ordination in these matters. I have no doubt that the report of the Victorian Joint Parliamentary Salinity Committee will be a valuable contribution to these discussions. (Question No. 268) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) My department both produces and commissions films and videos for internal and external use, A considerable proportion of production is carried out by elements of the Department and the Defence Force. Where the demands of production are likely to be beyond departmental resources, Film Australia is contracted to produce, or assist in production of, films and videos. Internal production is carried out principally by the following functional areas: Directorate of Public Relations Office of Defence Production Defence Science and Technology Organisation Defence Training Centre RAN Training Technology Unit Army Audio Visual Unit RAAF Central Photographic Establishment (3) A large number of videos are made in my Department for short term training purposes only and production records are not available. The information contained in the following table is confined to films and videos the cost of production of which exceeded one thousand dollars. Title Production Cost $ Public Relations North West Cape... 16,317 Battlefield Pilot... 9,842 Recruiting You're on Your Way... 2,412 So You're Thinking of being an Army Apprentice... 32,000 Australian Defence Force Academy... 20,000 A Career in Todays Army... 17,000 Keep Them Flying... 23,200 Research and Development and Trials Wind Generator... 2,617 Laser Guided Bomb... 5,377 Project WINNIN Launcher Trials... 2,198 Project HOVEROC... 3,864 Doppler Navigation Trainer... 8,352 A NOMAD for All Seasons... 13,700 Defence Training Centre (Film Australia) PNG-The Local Scene... 1,197 Work Skill Australia... 6,710 Equal Employment Opportunities... 1,265 Director of Trials (18 sequences)... 27,000 Army Audio Visual Unit Queen's Birthday Parade... 3,845 Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence... 1,445 Reserve Demolitions... 8,302 War Admin. Part 1-Combat Zone... 156,577 War Admin. Part 2-Communications Zone... 156,354 Joint Force Operations... 9,620 Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps on the Field... 108,766 Blueprint for Theory Instruction... 29,949 Blueprint for Equipment Instruction... 42,990 Blueprint for Drill... 58,820 Blueprint for Weapons... 40,600 (4) Film and video production equipment held by my Department comprises a range of cameras (including closed circuit), videos, sound recorders, monitors, projectors and ancilliary equipment. Film and video equipment is used for training, public relations and promotion purposes. (5) Twenty-two officers are employed full time on film and video production. Their designation and salary are listed in the following table: DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS Designation Salary $ Producer... 30,239 Film Director Grade 2... 27,448 Cameraman Grade 2... 22,377 Sound Recordest... 21,693 Army Audio Visual Unit Major... 31,526 Clerk Class 6... 25,000 Film Director Grade 1... 22,918 Technical Assistant Grade 2... 18,197 Tradesman Radio... 17,260 Warrant Officer Grade 2... 25,956 Sergeant... 21,390 Corporal... 19,719 Private... 17,852 RAN Training Technology Unit Lieutenant Commander... 31,526 Lieutenant... 27,000 Chief Petty Officer... 24,000 Leading Seaman (two)... 38,000 Able Seaman (two)... 36,000 RAAF Central Photographic Establishment Sergeant... 22,760 Leading Aircraftman... 19,530 (Question No. 287) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that Australia Council funding, through its Community Arts Board, to the Arts Council has been severely reduced, both federally and to some State Divisions. (2) Does this represent a deliberate change of policy towards the Arts Council; if so, what is the reason for the change. (3) Has the decision meant that some country areas are now being denied access to arts programs which have been provided in the past through Arts Council touring programs. (4) What action has been or will be taken to ensure that people living outside the major metropolitan centres of Australia have access to as wide a range of arts programs as possible. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council has informed me that: (1) Grants for 1984/85 by the Community Arts Board to the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Victoria Divisions of the Arts Council were each reduced by 20%. Grants by the Board to the other State Divisions were increased by 6.5%. The Arts Council of the Northern Territory received the same amount of funding as the previous year. The Arts Council of Australia, Federal Division, was allocated $120,000 in 1983/84 and $5,000 in 1984/85, reflecting a significant variation in the structure and operations of the Division which now no longer operates as a permanent Secretariat at the National level. (2) Yes. The decision allows the Community Arts Board to assess applications under its programs of assistance and gives it greater flexibility in the allocation of funds. As well, since 1983, intra-State touring has been regarded as predominantly a State/Territory responsibility rather than a Federal responsibility. (3) and (4) While Community Arts Board criteria under the new funding arrangements for State Arts Councils do not include support for intra-State touring, the Council continues to offer support for intra-State tours which satisfy the criteria of the Touring and Access Fund established in 1983. The Fund supports projects which enable communities in more remote areas to have access to the performing arts and which at the same time encourage interaction between touring artists and the communities they visit. In 1984/85 the Australia Council allocated $810,000 for the Touring and Access Fund of which $304,974 (20 grants) was allocated to intra-State tours. (Question No. 383) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The table below details the information required, correct as at 24 June 1985. (a) STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AUSTRALIA COUNCIL (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Assoc. Prof D. R. Horne, A O (Chairman)... 1.1.1985 3 years Ms E. A. Churcher (Deputy Chairman)... 4.7.1984 to 9.5.86 Mr M. Crosby... 4.7.1984 3 years Mr C. Dixon... 4.7.1984 to 7.9.86 Mr P. J. Galvin... 27.1.1983 During the pleasure of the Governor- General Ms D. Gribble... 4.7.1984 3 years Ms J. Kott... 3.8.1982 to 30.6.85 Mrs D. M. Large> 26.8.1982 to 30.6.85 Mr E. O'Neill... 4.7.1984 3 years Mr J. M. Pinder... 4.7.1984 3 years Dr M. T. Radic... 4.7.1984 3 years Mr A. Steel, A M... 4.7.1984 3 years Mr I. Templeman... 26.8.1982 to 30.6.85 Ms H. Williams... 11.5.1984 During the pleasure of the Governor- General Dr D. Yerbury A M (ex officio)... 14.6.1984 4 years (1) (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 16,433 -Part-time Deputy Chairman... 9,052 Part-time Member... 4,604 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 125 95 ABORIGINAL ARTS BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Mr C. Dixon (Chairman)... 8.9.1983 3 years Mr E. Bani... 8.9.1983 3 years Mr C. Cook... 21.3.1984 2 years Mr J. Davis, M B E... 8.9.1983 2 years Mr J. Everett... 8.9.1984 3 years Ms G. Fletcher (Thancoupie)... 8.9.1983 3 years Mr C. Godjuwa... 13.1.1984 3 years Mr A. Mullett... 8.9.1984 3 years Mrs K. Walker, M B E... 8.9.1983 2 years Mr P. Yu... 8.9.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 COMMUNITY ARTS BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Ms B. Manning, O A M (Chairman)... 10.5.1983 3 years Ms J. A. Beahan... 10.8.1984 3 years Mrs J. Blocksidge... 10.8.1983 3 years Ms P. J. Caswell... 27.6.1984 3 years Mr J. Jones... 7.7.1983 3 years Ms S. Norrie... 8.6.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 CRAFTS BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Mr D. Green (Chairman)... 10.8.1983 2 years Mr T. Arthur... 19.7.1982 3 years Mr R. K. M. Forster... 19.7.1982 3 years Ms S. Harris... 19.7.1982 3 years Ms M. Johnson, O A M... 8.3.1984 3 years Ms E. King... 10.8.1983 3 years Ms L. Tune... 10.8.1983 3 years Mr D. Wright... 10.8.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 DESIGN ARTS BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Mr J. Andrews, A O (Chairman)... 9.3.1984 to 30.6.85 Ms S. Browne... 9.3.1984 3 years Mr M. Bryce... 9.3.1985 3 years Mr P. Cox... 9.3.1984 to 30.6.85 Ms J. Faulkner... 9.3.1984 2 years Mr B. McNeill... 9.3.1985 3 years Mr P. Miller, A M... 9.3.1984 3 years Mr K. J. Wilby... 4.4.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 LITERATURE BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Ms R. N. Wighton (Chairman)... 8.8.1984 3 years Rev E. Campion... 19.7.1982 3 years Mrs J. Fitzhardinge... 19.7.1982 3 years Mr K. Gallasch... 1.1.1983 3 years Ms H. Garner... 27.4.1985 3 years Ms W. Jenkins 8.6.1984 3 years Mr A. Loukakis... 27.4.1985 3 years Mr M. Webster... 10.5.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) Part-time... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 MUSIC BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Prof D. Tunley (Chairman)... 10.8.1983 2 years Ms J. Bailey... 12.3.1985 1 year Mr J. Christiansen... 19.7.1982 3 years Mr B. Conyngham... 19.7.1982 3 years Mr J. Curro... 10.8.1983 3 years Ms L. Edmiston... 10.8.1983 3 years Mrs P. Lobl... 10.8.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 THEATRE BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Ms E. Butcher, A M (Chairman)... 1.7.1984 1 year Ms S. Beal... 8.6.1984 3 years Mr M. Blaylock... 7.2.1984 3 years Mr J. McCaughey... 19.7.1982 3 years Mr B. Moreland... 10.5.1983 3 years Mr A. Ross... 10.5.1983 3 years Mr G. L. Simpson... 10.5.1983 3 years Ms C. Stock... 10.5.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 VISUAL ARTS BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Ms E. A. Churcher (Chairman)... 10.5.1983 3 years Dr M. Bonnin... 1.7.1984 1 year Ms A. Carroll... 19.7.1982 3 years Ms G. Cochrane... 1.7.1984 3 years Mr I. Howard... 8.6.1984 3 years Ms P. O'Brien... 4.5.1983 3 years Mr J. Senbergs... 1.7.1984 3 years Mr M. Symonds... 10.8.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 AUSTRALIA/NETHERLANDS COMMITTEE ON OLD DUTCH SHIPWRECKS (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Assoc. Prof J. P. S. Bach... 1.1.1973 At the Minister's pleasure Prof G. C. Bolton... 1.1.1973 . . Mr L. P. Ramondt... 1.1.1973 At the discretion of the Nether- lands Govern- ment Mr G. D. Van Der Heide... 1.1.1973 . . (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (Australian Government appointees only) $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Mr P. A. Adams (Chairman)... 15.9.1983 3 years Mr K. L. Williams (Deputy Chairman)... 26.7.1984 to 11.3.87 Ms G. P. Appleton... 22.6.1983 to 23.5.86 Mr R. Beattie... 7.3.1985 1 year Mr W. P. Gurry... 26.7.1984 3 years Mr D. J. Stratton... 22.6.1983 to 10.6.86 Ms S. E. Turkiewicz... 26.7.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 6,781 (per day) -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Dr J. T. Baker, OBE (Chairman)... 28.1.1985 3 years Dr B. W. Davis... 6.9.1984 3 years Mrs J. M. Domicelj... 28.1.1985 3 years Mr I. A. Higgins... 18.10.1984 3 years Mr A. J. M. Hopkins... 28.1.1985 3 years Dr I. McBryde... 9.7.1982 3 years Mr L. J. Wilson... 9.7.1982 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 20,283 -Part-time Member... 9,052 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 125 95 COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of Appoint- ment Vacant (Chairman)(4) . . . . Mr J. Daniell (Deputy Chairman)... 8.7.1983 3 years Mr S. Baker... 11.5.1984 3 years Ms J. Brennan... 12.12.1984 1 year Mr W. R. Constable... 13.8.1984 3 years Mr J. Flaus... 13.12.1982 3 years Mr A. Grieve... 12.12.1984 1 year Mr E. Hadenfeld... 12.12.1984 1 year Mr J. C. Manche... 12.12.1984 1 year Mr F. G. Morgan (ex officio)... 28.3.1985 to 30.6.85(5) Mr W. Rayner... 13.12.1982 3 years Mr J. Rushton... 14.5.1984 3 years Mrs M. F. Schubert... 22.7.1982 3 years Mr B. M. L. Weis... 9.2.1984 3 years Mr O. Whitbread... 13.12.1982 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) (ii) 100 80 COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr L. G. Darling, C.M.G. (Chairman)... 1.1.1985 2 years Mr M. Besen... 4.7.1984 2 years Mr T. K. Critchley, AO, CBE... 1.7.1982 3 years Mr J. D. Davies... 25.8.1983 to 30.6.86 Dr M. W. Elliott... 1.7.1982 3 years Ms J. Hick... 26.8.1982 to 30.6.85 Mr J. Mollison, AM... 24.2.1984 5 years (6) Miss L. A. Nicklin... 1.7.1982 3 years Mr R. W. Piper... 25.8.1983 to 30.6.86 Prof M. M. Plant... 4.7.1984 3 years Mrs P. Seidler... 4.7.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 9,052 -Part-time Member... 4,604 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) (ii) 100 80 COUNCIL OF THE MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr A. T. Dix, AO (Chairman)... 21.12.1983 3 years Mr P. H. Pigott, AM (Deputy Chairman)... 21.12.1983 2 years Ms M. A. Bin-Sallik... 21.12.1983 3 years Dr M. H. Cass... 21.12.1983 3 years Ms H. E. Cattalini... 16.8.1984 to 20.12.86 Dr D. F. McMichael, CBE (ex officio)... 1.2.1984 7 years (7) Dr W. D. L. Ride, AM... 21.12.1983 2 years Dr L. Ryan... 21.12.1983 3 years Mrs C. Serventy, OAM... 21.12.1983 2 years Mr J. Thompson... 21.12.1983 3 years Mr E. P. Willmot, AM... 21.12.1983 2 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 9,052 -Part-time Member... 4,604 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) (ii) 100 80 COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr M. L. West (Chairman)... 8.5.1985 3 years Dr B. I. Aldrich... 28.2.1985 3 years Mr H. Bryan, AO (ex officio)... 28.7.1980 5 years (8) The Hon Justice J. Cohen... 3.5.1984 3 years Mr M. D. Cross MP... 4.12.1983 3 years Senator R. Hill... 22.2.1985 2 years Dr D. F. McMichael, CBE... 6.9.1984 3 years Em Prof B. Watts, OBE... 22.3.1985 3 years Mrs H. M. E. Weller... 27.11.1982 3 years Prof J. P. Whyte... 3.5.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Part-time Chairman... 9,052 -Part-time Member... 4,604 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) (ii) 100 80 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Em Prof J. D. Ovington... 14.10.1983 to 13.5.90 (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) 58,318 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) (ii) 125 95 GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr G. G. Kelleher (Chairman)... 20.12.1984 5 years Dr J. T. Baker, OBE... 1.7.1982 5 years Sir Sydney Schubert... 24.7.1981 to 30.6.86 (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) -Full-time Chairman... 58,318 -Part-time Member... 6,781 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3) -Full-time Chairman... (i) 125 (ii) 95 -Part-time Member... 100 80 SUPERVISING SCIENTISTS FOR THE ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr R. M. Fry... 8.6.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per year) 62,718 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) 125 (ii) 95 (b) ADVISORY PANELS OR COUNCILS (INCLUDING STATUTORY ADVISORY BODIES) ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Mr A. J. Campbell, OBE (Chairman)... 22.10.1984 3 years Dr J. A. Scutt (Deputy Chairman)... 2.10.1984 3 years Ms P. A. Collings... 2.10.1984 3 years Mr M Easson... 2.10.1984 2 years Ms D. C. Fleming... 2.10.1984 2 years Mr P. J. Fogarty... 2.10.1984 3 years Mr C. Hollis, MP... 6.6.1984 3 years Dr S. Murray-Smith, AM... 2.10.1984 2 years Senator M. E. Reid... 22.2.1985 2 years Dr C. A. Saunders... 2.10.1984 2 years Prof C. B. Schedvin... 2.10.1984 3 years Mr N. Tanzer... 2.10.1984 2 years Sir Geoffrey Yeend, CBE... 2.10.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 211 -Part-time Member... 180 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) 100 (ii) 80 ARTBANK BOARD (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Ms S. Walker, AM (Chairman)... 13.9.1984 1 year Mr H. Kolenberg... 16.11.1983 2 1/2 years Prof R. Layton... 9.11.1984 1 year Mr G. Sturgeon (ex officio)... 1.5.1980 6 years (9) Mrs K. Walker, MBE... 24.1.1984 1 1/2 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance per overnight stay (3)... (i) 100 (ii) 80 AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1) Name Appoint- ment date Period of appoint- ment Prof G. B. Sharman (Chairman)... 1.7.1984 2 1/2 years Dr P. Bridgewater (ex officio)... 1.9.1982 N/A (10) Miss M. Cameron... 1.1.1984 3 years Dr D. J. G. Griffin... 1.1.1983 3 years Dr R. W. Johnson... 1.1.1983 3 years Dr B. Y. Main... 1.1.1984 4 years Em Prof J. D. Ovington (ex officio)... 14.10.19 to 13.5.90(11) Em Prof M. G. Pitman, OBE... 1.1.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 AUSTRALIAN IONISING RADIATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (1) Name Appoint- ment Period of Appoint- ment Em Prof. A. M. Clark, A M (Chairman)... 10.4.1984 2 years Prof R. W. Parsons (Deputy Chairman)... 1.4.1985 3 years Mr D. R. Davy... 1.4.1985 3years Dr J. A. M. Graves... 1.7.1984 3 years Dr B. Kynaston... 1.7.1984 2 years Prof. A. O. Langlands... 1.7.1984 2 years Dr K. H. Lokan... 26.2.1984 3 years Prof. J. F. Lovering... 1.7.1984 3 years Prof. J. D. Mathews... 1.4.1985 3 years Dr R. J. Petty... 1.7.1984 2 years Prof. B. M. Spicer... 1.4.1985 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 COMMITTEE ON TAXATION INCENTIVES FOR THE ARTS (1) Name Appoint- ment Period of Appoint- ment Mr F. J. Kendall (Chairman)... 1.1.1985 1 year Dr A. Bartholomai... 1.1.1983 3 years Mrs M. Betteridge... 20.3.1984 to 31.12.1985 Mr N. J. Flanagan, A. O.... 20.3.1984 to 31.12.1985 Ms M. Mackinnon... 20.3.1984 to 31.12.1985 Mr D. Thomas... 1.1.1983 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION (1) Name Appoint- ment Period of Appoint- ment Mr R. M. Fry (Chairman) (ex officio) 8.6.1984 3 years (12) Mr C. W. Duchatel... 5.3.1984 At the Minister's pleasure (1) Mr D. F. Gascoine... 9.3.1985 At the Minister's pleasure (13)Mr F. J. Gee... 15.6.1980 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Mr W. J. Gray... 11.2.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Mr J. Lawrence... 28.2.1984 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Mr J. Leggate... 23.1.1984 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Dr K. H. Lokan... 10.12.1983 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Mr T. C. Lovegrove... 21.1.1985 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Mr W. G. McGregor... 21.3.1984 At the Minister's pleasure (13) Em Prof. J. D. Ovington (ex officio) 14.10.1983 13.5.90 (11) (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... Nil...(14) -Part-time Member... Nil...(14) Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 GREAT BARRIER REEF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (1) Name Appoint- ment Period of Appoint- ment Prof. K. P. Stark (Chairman)... 4.10.1982 3 years Dr R. A. Bain... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr D. F. Bryan... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr P. B. Eccles... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr E. M. Grant... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr E. J. Hergerl... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr T. J. Hundloe... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr J. H. Izatt... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr G. G. Kellerher... 20.12.1984 5 years (15) Mr P. T. King... 4.10.1982 3 years Dr P. Mather... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr G. McKauge... 4.10.1982 3 years Mr K. J. Nielson... 4.10.1982 3 years Dr P. Saenger... 4.10.1982 3 years Dr G. W. Saunders... 4.10.1982 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee (2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay (3)... 100 80 NATIONAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR AUSTRALIA INTERIM CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (1) Name Appoint- ment Period of Appoint- ment Sir Rupert Myers, K B E F T S (Chairman)... 4.1.1984 31.12.1985 Ms E. Bourne... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr M. Elliott... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr P. Faircloth... 4.1.1984 2 years Ms A. Forward... 15.2.1984 2 years Ms D. Greene... 10.9.1984 1 1/2 years Mr D. Hill... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr A. J. M. Hopkins... 10.7.1984 1 1/2 years Mr K. Jennings... 4.1.1984 2 years Dr R. Linke... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr G. E. Littlewoode... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr P. Malone... 4.1.1984 2 years Cr J. Mooney... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr M. Overland... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr V. Parkinson... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr E. J. Phipps... 4.1.1984 2 years Sir Sydney Schubert... 4.1.1984 2 years Prof. P. Scott, O B E... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr V. Serventy, A O... 4.1.1984 2 years Mr K. E. Thompson... 25.2.1984 2 years Mr J. F. Whitehouse... 4.1.1984 2 years Major-General J. Whitelaw, A O, C B E... 4.1.1984 2 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 NATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL TREE PROGRAM (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Mr J. Haydon (Chairman)... 8.8.1984 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr G. Brown... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr B. Crack... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr D. Hill... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr J. Jack... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Dr J. J. Landsberg... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Alderman H. Marland... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr E. Nicholson... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Dr B. Pratt... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Dr G. Robertson... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr K. E. Thompson... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) Mr D. Watts... 5.6.1982 At the Minister's pleasure (16) (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 NATIONAL FILM AND SOUND ARCHIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Mrs J. Long (Chairman)... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr J. W. Malone (Deputy Chairman)... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr D. J. Hinrichsen... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr B. E. King... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr J. Kreger... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr J. J. Morris, A M... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr B. C. Robinson... 26.7.1984 1 year Ms V. M. Rubensohn... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr J. M. Rushton... 26.7.1984 1 year Ms M. Thornton... 26.7.1984 1 year Mr F. Van Straten... 26.7.1984 1 year (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT COMMITTEE (1) Name Appoint- ment Date Period of Appoint- ment Mr H. Bryan, A O (Chairman)... 1.1.1985 3 years Mr B. Clouston... 12.10.1984 1 year Mr R. Eagers... 16.4.1984 N/A (17) Miss B. Jefferis... 1.1.1985 1 year Mr A. Ketley... 1.1.1980 N/A (18) Ms J. La Scala... 18.1.1984 To 30.6.86 Ms C. Mattingley... 5.11.1984 3 years (2) REMUNERATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE $ Fee(2) (per day) -Part-time Chairman... 163 -Part-time Member... 131 Travelling allowance... (i) (ii) per overnight stay(3)... 100 80 FOOTNOTES (1) Term of current appointment as General Manager of the Australian Council. The General Manager is an ex officio member of Council when a part-time chairman is in office. (2) In accordance with the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, no salary is payable in respect of part-time appointments where the appointee is already in receipt of remuneration from the Commonwealth in respect of his or her employment or in respect of another public office held on a full-time basis. (3) The figures shown for travelling allowance are the amounts determined by the Remuneration Tribunal (Determination No. 19 of 1984) to be payable for an overnight stay away from headquarters in the case of a full-time office holder or home in the case of a part-time office holder, in (i) a capital city and (ii) other than a capital city. In many cases, in regard to the above committees, meetings are of one day's duration and do not necessitate an overnight stay. An allowance of $30 is payable for travel for part of a day involving an absence from headquarters or home of at least 10 hours, without an overnight stay. (4) Mr J. Skrzynski to take up appointment as part-time Chairman of Council on 27.6.85 for a period of 3 years. (5) Ms A. Deveson, AM to take up appointment as Director of the Australian Film and Television School on 1.7.85, for a period of 3 1/2 years. (6) Term of current appointment as Director of the Australian National Gallery. (7) Term of current appointment as Director of the Museum of Australia. (8) Term of current appointment as Director-General of the National Library of Australia. On his retirement Mr Bryan is to be succeeded by W. M. Horton as Director-General, effective 28.7.85, for a seven year term. (9) Term of current appointment as Director of Artbank. (10) No fixed term of appointment-Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna. (11) Term of current appointment as Director of National Parks and Wildlife. (12) Term of current appointment as Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. (13) The term of appointment of both members and members' organisations is at the pleasure of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in accordance with Section 18 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. (14) No sitting fees are paid. All costs associated with attendance at meetings are met by the member's organisation. (15) Term of current appointment as Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (16) This Committee comprises organisations appointed by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment for an indefinite period. Each organisation nominates a representative to attend meetings. (17) No fixed term of appointment-representative of the Attorney-General's Department. (18) No fixed term of appointment-representative of the National Library of Australia. (Question No. 443) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 26 March 1985. (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The following consultants have been engaged by the Minister and the Minister's Department since 1 April 1983. (a) Elaine Chesworth-Sydney Human Performance Laboratory (b) Dr Robert Wood-Australian Graduate School of Management-University of NSW (c) Anne Kiley-Woden College of Technical and Further Education (d) Michael Creenaune-Michael Creenaune and Associates (e) Dr Roger Collins-RR&G Collins and Associates Pty Ltd (f) Dr Robert Spillane-Consulting Psychologist (g) Amdahl Australia Pty Ltd (h) Optimum Operations Consultants (i) Bell and Howell (j) Computer Power (k) Systems Control Programming (l) ACI Computer Services (m) Computer People (n) Logica (o) Parity Computer P/L (p) Doll Martin and Associates (q) Computer Resources (r) Mr W. P. Butler (s) Ernst and Whinney, Chartered Accountants (t) Mr H. Stretton of the University of Adelaide (u) Dr C. Emerson (3) These consultants were engaged for: (a) one hour; half a day (b) two hours (c) two days (d) two days; three days (e) one and a half days (f) one and a half days (g) five days (h) seven days; seven days (i) two days (j) fifteen days (k) five weeks (l) fourteen days (m) nine and a half months (n) eleven months (o) eleven months (p) three months (q) one day (r) seven months (s) 1. eight weeks; 2. seventy hours (t) five weeks (u) one year (4) The fees payable or paid are: (a) $100; $301 (b) $100 (c) $646.49 (d) $2,205.50; $3,150 (e) $1,300 (f) $1,250 (g) $3,000 (h) $4,092; $4,481 (i) $1,300 (j) $10,792 (k) $12,620 (l) $14,000 (m) $167,300 (n) $63,800 (o) $334,500 (p) $52,770 (q) $780 (r) $32,138.36 (s) 1. $40,760; 2. $6,492 (t) $5,000 (u) paid an annual salary equivalent to a Clerical Administrative (Class 10) (5) (a) to (f) each consultant is recognised as having the necessary specialist skills to conduct the training courses required; (g) extensive knowledge of and lengthy experience with the installation used by Finance and the system procedures currently in use; (h) recognised as having the necessary specialist skills to conduct the training courses required; (i) extensive knowledge and necessary skills to conduct the training courses required; (j) recognised as having the necessary skills to advise on the optimum use of the fourth generation language FOCUS; (k) recognised data security advisers; (l) recognised as having the necessary specialist skills to conduct the training course required; (m) broad experience and necessary skills in COBOL IMS to provide programming support; (n) broad experience and necessary skills in COBOL and IMS to provide programming support; (o) broad experience and necessary skills in COBOL and IMS to provide programming support; (p) recognised corporate and information analysis advisers; (q) recognised as having the necessary skills to conduct the training course required; (r) considerable experience in the administration of programs of financial assistance to the States and Local Government; (s) recognised financial/investment advisers; (t) broad interest and experience in public administration and the role of public institutions; (u) Bachelor of Economics (Honours); Master of Economics and Doctor of Philosophy (Economics). (6) Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants by Departments were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. In all cases the guidelines for engagement have been met. With regard to ministerial consultants the appointments were considered by the Merit Panel and the provisions of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act applied. (Question No. 544) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What South African companies invest in Australia. (2) What is the leading economic activity of each of these companies. (3) Does the South African Governement maintain a trade promotion office in Australia; if so, how many staff does it employ. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Information on Australian/South African investment is collected but, for legal and commercial confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to release information about the particular companies involved. In particular, in the course of administration of the Government's foreign investment policy the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) has access to information relating to proposed investments in Australia by South African companies. Because of the commercial sensitivity attaching to the information provided to the FIRB in connection with foreign investment proposals, however, it has been longstanding practice for the Government to treat all such information in strict confidence and not to disclose details of proposals or of the parties to the proposals, except in special cirucumstances and where the parties' consent is first obtained. In these special cases, the Treasurer issues a press release on the particular proposal. Companies directly owned by South African interests which proposed to invest in Australia in the past five years and on which press releases have been issued are: Anglo American Group mining, processing and marketing of industrial minerals Pick'n Pay hypermarkets RUC Mining Contracting (Pty) Ltd manufacture and distribution of diamond impregnated industrial tools and drilling bits Freight Services Holdings Ltd Shipping services. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) also collects information on investment flows to and from South Africa. The secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act prevent release by the ABS of information identifying particular companies. The maintenance of confidentiality in respect of commercial information is essential for the efficient operation of the ABS and FIRB. (3) The South African Government maintains an office of the South African Trade Commissioner in Melbourne employing a staff of 2 officials with three administrative staff. There is also a Consulate of South Africa located in Sydney which employs four consular officers, including a Consul (Commercial) and Vice Consul (Commercial) and an administrative staff of eleven. (Question No. 841) Mr MacKellar asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) How many members are in the Australian Federal Police (AFP). (2) How many members are situated in each State and Territory and in which branches. (3) How many members are situated overseas and in which countries. (4) What are the tasks, in terms of categories, undertaken by the AFP and how many members are allocated to these tasks in each State. (5) How many members of the AFP are (a) working full or part time on (i) royal commission inquiries and (ii) the National Crime Authority and (b) currently working on investigations jointly with State Police in each State. (6) Is he satisfied that the personnel strength of the AFP is adequate to fulfil its tasks. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 2,477 members as at 30 June 1985. (2) The following recorded location of members applies to the situation as at 30 June 1985. It should be noted that the situation can change on a daily basis. EASTERN REGION (NSW) Criminal Investigations... 104 Drug Operations... 42 Intelligence Operations... 49 General Duties... 149 Executive... * Legal Services... }...46 Personnel and Services... * TOTAL... 390 (NOTE: Included within these figures are: 13 at NSW/AFP Joint Task Force 3 at Royal Commission of Inquiry into activies of Nugan Hand Group 10 at Director of Public Prosecutions 3 at NSW/AFP Parramatta Bomb Task Force 1 Part time Parramatta Bomb Task Force 5 at National Crime Authority) SOUTHERN REGION (VIC) Criminal Investigations including attachments to Director of Public Prosecutions> 86 Drug Operations including attachment to Joint Task Force... 48 Intelligence Operations... 52 General Policing and VIP Protection... 121 Executive... * Legal Services... }...31 Personnel and Services... * TOTAL... 338 (NOTE: Included within these figures are: 6 attached to Victoria Police/AFP Joint Task Force 1 attached to National Crime Authority) CENTRAL REGION (SA) Criminal Investigations... 29 Drug Operations... 11 Intelligence Operations... 11 General Policing... 29 Executive... * Personnel and Services... *...14 TOTAL... 94 WESTERN REGION (WA) Criminal Investigations... 27 Drug Operations... 8 Intelligence Operations... 7 General Policing... 54 Executive... * Personnel and Services... *...8 TOTAL... 104 NORTHERN REGION (QLD) Criminal Investigations... 48 Drug Operations... 16 Intelligence Operations... 25 General Policing... 31 Executive... Legal services... 20 Personnel and Services... TOTAL... 140 (NOTE: Included within this figure is: 2 at Director of Public Prosecutions) TASMANIA REGION (TAS) Criminal Investigations... 9 Drug Operations... 2 General Policing... 10 Executive... 1 TOTAL... 22 NORTHERN REGION (NT) Criminal Investigations... 12 Drug Operations... 5 Intelligence Operations... 4 General Policing... 21 Executive... Personnel and Services... 3 TOTAL... 45 (NOTE: Included within this figure is: 7 members attached to NT/AFP combined Drug Task Force) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS FUNCTIONS Operations Response... 55 Special Intelligence... 8 Internal Investigations... 16 Coastal Protection Unit... 24 Criminal Investigation... 27 Criminal Intelligence... 106 Co-ordinated Law Enforcement... 1 Personnel... 13 Information, Systems and Scientific Services... 70 Logistic Services... 18 Training... 88 International Operations... 42 Command Secretariat... 37 AFP Executive Support... 11 Human Resources... 2 Pool (Inoperative/Training)... 104 TOTAL... 622 A.C.T. REGION-Community Policing Criminal Investigations... 72 Drug Operations... 11 Intelligence Operations... 5 General Policing... 568 Executive... Legal services... Personnel and Services... 66 Property Office... Welfare... TOTAL... 722 (3) OVERSEAS France... 1 USA... 4 Malaysia... 2 Thailand... 3 Singapore... 1 England... 1 Indonesia... 1 Hong Kong... 1 Philippines... 1 New Zealand... 1 Pakistan... 1 Cyprus... 20 Norfolk Island... 3 Christmas Island... 5 TOTAL... 45 (4) See answer to (2) above (5) See answer to (2) above (6) There will never be enough resources to meet every criminal threat or action. The Government announced on 13 November 1984 its commitment to: (a) the immediate upgrading of the AFP computer capacity at a cost of more than $7 million; and (b) the expenditure of an additional $10 million on the recruitment of an even stronger force. This should result in staffing increases becoming available to the AFP over the next three years. (Question No. 877) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) What funds have been made available through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to combat the problem of millipedes which is currently affecting large areas of south eastern Australia. (2) What research is currently being undertaken by CSIRO into the problem of millipedes. (3) How many officers within CSIRO are currently engaged in research or work to eradicate the problem of millipedes on (a) a full time basis and (b) a part time basis and what is the location of these officers. (4) Have funds been allocated through CSIRO for officers to undertake a research program overseas into millipedes and their eradication. (5) Have officers of CSIRO identified a realistic period over which a biological agent can be captured in Portugal, specificity tested and synchronised so that its breeding cycle is re-oriented from Northern Hemisphere reproduction habits to those of the Southern Hemisphere. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A total of $104,700 has been expended by CSIRO between 1979-80 and 1983-84 in a study of the Portuguese millipede in Portugal (to which country it is native). An identical sum was contributed to the project by the South Australian Department of Agriculture. These funds were used by CSIRO to employ a millipede specialist, Dr G. H. Baker, who spent the period October 1980 to January 1983 in Portugal where a locally engaged technician was employed to assist him in his study of the biological control of the pest. A parasitic fly was identified as being worthy of close study as a possible control organism in Australia. From January 1983 to December 1983 Dr Baker was based at the Department's laboratories in Adelaide where he prepared a final report on his overseas studies, and carried out further observations on the millipede in South Australia. Departmental support terminated in December 1983, and Dr Baker has since been based at the CSIRO Division of Soils in Adelaide, and is currently studying another pest problem. However, Department support was temporarily renewed for the purpose of sending Dr Baker on a three-week return visit to Portugal in August 1984 to collect further specimens of a parasite he had discovered earlier. These were consigned to the Department which had appointed staff to carry out research on the millipede and its parasites. (2) CSIRO is not currently involved in research on the Portuguese millipede. (3) None, although Dr Baker has continued to provide advice on request from departmental officers. (4) See (1) above. (5) No, but discussions are currently in progress between CSIRO and the Department of Agriculture on the most effective way in which further research on the millipede might be undertaken. (Question No. 889) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) How many employees of Australia Post at Leightonfield Mail Exchange, New South Wales, have been off work on sick leave or workers compensation due to an `itchy rash' or similar skin trouble in each month since July 1984. (2) Were any of these employees medically examined by a dermatologist at the request of the employer; if so, what was the determination of the specialist as to the cause of the rash. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) The only cases of an `itchy rash' or similar skin trouble at the Leightonfield Mail Centre were reported in October and November 1984. Three and eleven employees respectively attended a doctor, or were off work on sick leave or had claimed, or were on employees compensation. (2) Yes. The Commonwealth Medical Officer referred six employees (one employee attended twice) for examination by specialist dermatologists who found the cause of the rash to be- in two cases, consistent with a mite bite in one case, a form of dermatitis in one case, consistent with a hive or nettle rash. In the remaining three cases, there was nothing to find and/or no evidence of mite bites. (Question No. 921) Mr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Has the Minister abrogated an agreement made in October 1984 between his predecessor and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Ian Tuxworth, on public service superannuation finance. (2) Has the Minister stated that (a) the Northern Territory will be required to fund the employer superannuation contributions from its own resources, that is, no additional financial assistance will be provided by the Commonwealth to the Territory for that purpose and (b) should the Territory decide not to pay the employer superannuation contributions, action will be taken to terminate membership of Territory employees in the Commonwealth scheme; if so, does this remain the Government's intention. (3) Will this action block access to the Grants Commission by the Territory. (4) Will the Government continue to allow the Commission its long standing independence to assess a State or Territory's needs as it sees fit. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In the light of the tight budgetary situation, the Government has decided that the Northern Territory will be required to meet the employer superannuation liability for its employees who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme from its own resources and without any additional financial assistance from the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory, however, will be required to meet only that part of the liability attributable to service with the Territory after 1 July 1984. Moreover, the Northern Territory has been treated generously relative to the States. In its May 1985 report on special assistance for the Northern Territory the Commonwealth Grants Commission found that in respect of the 1982-83 financial year the Northern Territory had received more assistance from the Commonwealth than it required to provide the same level, range and quality of services as provided in Victoria and New South Wales. The Grants Commission has also noted in its 1985 Report on Tax Sharing Relativities that it would not be practicable to incorporate the Northern Territory into the general financial assistance arrangements with the States until such time as measures were taken to bring the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory into line with those applying between the Commonwealth and the States. The Government is moving in this direction and it expects that from 1988-89 onwards the Northern Territory will be treated more or less as a State in its financial dealings with the Commonwealth. (2) Yes. The Commonwealth cannot reasonably be held responsible for the Territory's prospective superannuation liability. The cost to the Northern Territory will be small in the early years of operation of the revised arrangements and the Territory Government has ample time to arrange its affairs to enable it to meet the liability under the revised arrangements and thus avoid any disturbance of its employees' superannuation arrangements. The Territory receives large untied grants from the Commonwealth from which it can meet the liability. (3) No. (4) Yes. (Question No. 949) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: Further to his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 22 April 1985, page 1560) concerning the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, what improvements will be made to the terminal and when will these be carried out. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The scope of improvement works to the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are currently being examined by my Department in association with the Department of Housing and Construction, the airlines and other terminal tenants. The final scope of works has not yet been agreed, however, I can advise the honourable member that the following works are proposed: Extensions to the departure hall. It is intended to improve the check in facilities, relocate and consolidate the outwards immigration/customs facilities and relocate and expand the concession facilities; provision of suitable facilities for transit passengers including greater accessibility to concessions; improvements to the baggage reclaim facilities; improvements to the arrivals hall; improvements to the primary line queuing area including air conditioning. Commencement of the proposed works will depend upon availability of funds and will be subject to a Standing Committee on Public Works examination and report to Parliament. (Question No. 1008) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reception difficulties of Orange-based Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio station 2CR broadcasting through 2LG to Lithgow and district. (2) Is it in fact that 2CR is to broadcast on a new frequency in the Lithgow area through 2LG. (3) Will funds be provided to purchase the necessary components and equipment to enable the transmitting power to be increased from 200 watts to 2000 watts in order to overcome the current reception difficulties. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The inadequate coverage of ABC Radio 3 in the Lithgow area is recognised. (2) Yes. A frequency change was made on 18th May 1985 for 2LG to correct a minor interference problem to another service in the region. (3) The suggested power increase for 2LG would be unlikely to solve all the present reception difficulties. A replacement service in the FM band may be the solution, but limitation on funds and resources preclude priority consideration at this stage for the project. (Question No. 1047) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the May 1985 edition of Pacific Defence Reporter entitled `Australia's Vulnerable Sea Lines' particularly that part of the article which states that it appeared from material available either that Defence strategy does not recognise the importance of the defence of overseas trade, or that the defence of overseas trade had been placed in the `too hard basket', and that the Government in arriving at its decision on the submarine short list should not opt for cheap and unproven designs offered by companies with little or no blue-water experience. (2) Is it a fact that neutral flags are no protection for merchant shipping in times of hostilities between other nations or groups of nations. (3) Does Australia depend largely on there being free movement of maritime trade, both import and export, in order to sustain its agricultural, transport, mining and manufacturing industries. (4) Can he assure those individuals or organisations in the Australian community looking to him as their principal ministerial decision maker that he will take an active role in Cabinet discussions on the choice of a new submarine design for the RAN, given the requirment that will be placed on these vessels to ensure that Australian sea lines of communication remain open. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Relate to matters which are portfolio responsibilities of my colleague the Minister for Defence. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (Question No. 1062) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) What are the details of the program he undertook during his overseas trip in January and February 1985. (2) Who accompanied him on the trip. (3) What was the cost of his trip including the cost of those accompanying him and what is the break down of this cost by function, in each country visited. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) San Francisco-17.1.85-22.1.85 Social Science Research Centre, University of California Community Substance Abuse Services Dr R. Seymour of Haight Ashbury Clinic Director, AIDS Clinic, San Francisco General Hospital San Francisco AIDS Foundation Director of Public Health Dr S. Dietrich of Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hospital (National Haemophilia Organisation) Atlanta-23.1.85 Centre for Disease Control Centre for Infectious Diseases National Parents Resource Center for Drug Education Inc. New York-23.1.85-29.1.85 Beth Israel Hospital-individual discussions with several doctors Commissioner (AIDS and Drug Dependence) Department of Health Gay and Lesbian Health Services, Department of Health Gay Men's Health Crisis Inc. Meeting at Beth Israel Hospital with group of people working with AIDS Director, Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program Dr V. Dole, researcher in drug abuse, Rockefeller University Door Community Centre Washington-29.1.85-31.1.85 Secretary, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotic matters, Department of State National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Maryland Science Advisor, Office Assisting Secretary of Health, Rockville, Maryland Director, Sales and Marketing, and Director, Life Science Technology, Electro-Nucleonics Inc. Vice-President, Health Services, American Red Cross Society Drug Enforcement Administration Director, Division of Population, Health and Nutrition, World Bank Dr C. Turner, Special Assistant to the President for Drug Use Policy London-1.2.85-5.2.85 Consulant Adviser (Addiction) to Minister for State for Health Voluntary Sector Beds for Drug Treatment, Department of Health and Social Service Minister of State for Health Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Secretary Department of Health and Social Service Anti-Heroin Campaign Head, Drugs Branch, Home Office Addition Research Unit Deputy Editor, The Economist Opposition Health Spokesperson Hong Kong-6.2.85-7.2.85 Secretary for Health and Welfare Director, Medical and Health Services Acting Commissioner for Narcotics Government Secretariat Tai Lam Compulsory Inpatient Drug Addiction Centre Shek Kwa Chau Voluntary Inpatient Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Voluntary Outpatient Methadone Clinic (2)- Mr B. McKay Secretary Department of Health Dr R. Wells Department of Health Mr B. Bowtell Senior Private Secretary (3)- The cost of the trip was $58,428.26; however not all costs have yet been brought to account and some further costs are expected. Details of costs are: Function Paid in Australia Paid in USA Paid in UK Paid in Hong Kong $ $ $ $ Travelling allowance... 1,118.78 2,323.94 534.29 179.97 Fares... 26,208.00 . . . . . . Accommodation and Meals... . . 14,442.90 4,013.79 454.93 Cars... 21.40 2,578.77 947.01 . . Official Entertainment... 16.20 3,080.27 . . . . Press Photos... . . 617.41 . . . . Phones... . . 662.43 198.75 . . Equipment... 460.00 . . . . . . Miscellaneous (including departure tax, baggage insurance, gratuities etc.)... 569.42 . . . . . . (Question No. 1068) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: Has his Department received representations of any kind from the Human Rights Commission regarding discrimination in (a) funding of cadet units and (b) conditions of service for voluntary officers of cadets, if so, (c) what was the nature of those representations and (d) what action is being taken. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) The Honourable D. A. Lowe, Deputy Premier of Tasmania, wrote to Dr. D. Jarvis, Conciliator of the Human Rights Commission in Canberra on 15 August 1984 and 5 November 1984 concerning discrimination in the level of funding for school cadet units. The Conciliator considered the matter would be more appropriately addressed by the Secretary, Department of Defence, as it did not appear to relate to the functions of the Human Rights Commission. The issues raised by Mr Lowe were discrimination in funding for members of limited support cadet units as well as discrimination in the conditions of service for Officers of Cadets serving in those units. (d) My colleague, the Honourable John Brown, acting in his capacity as Minister Assisting, wrote to Mr Lowe informing him of the consultative processes that had occurred during the restructuring of the Australian Army Cadet Corps. (Question No. 1086) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) How many pensioners in each category of pension have had their pensions (a) suspended, (b) terminated and (c) reduced under the assets test and how many of the pensioners come from (i) each State and from (ii) metropolitan, (iii) provincial and (iv) rural areas. (2) How many appeals against (a) valuations under the assets test and (b) other aspects of the assets test have been made. (3) How many of these appeals have been successful. (4) How many requests for reviews have been made against valuations used in assets test calculations and how many have been resolved. (5) How many applications have been made for payment of pensions, and which types of pensions, under (a) the hardship provisions of the assets test and (b) the Pensioners Loans Scheme. (6) How many applications have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected and on what grounds were they rejected. (7) How many pensioners in the Electoral Division of Dawson have had their pensions (a) cancelled, (b) suspended or (c) reduced because of the assets test in each category of pension. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Not available. (b) (i) Pensions cancelled in assets test conversion of 8 March 1985 for pensions payday 21 March 1985: Pension Type NSW ACT Vic. Qld S.A. N.T. W.A. Tas. Aust. Age #... 9 584 7 818 4 893 2 636 1 705 570 27 206 Invalid #... 301 195 168 104 65 20 853 Shelt. Employment #... 1 . . . . 2 . . . . 3 Rehab. Allowance #... 2 . . 1 1 . . . . 4 Widow Class A... 103 58 71 17 21 1 271 Widow Class B/C... 151 93 96 28 21 6 395 Supp'ting Parent... 37 16 28 10 19 2 112 Total... 10 179 8 180 5 257 2 798 1 831 599 28 844 # Includes wife and spouse carer pensioners. (ii), (iii), (iv) The request classification is not available. See, however, answer to part (7). (c) (i) Pensions reduced in assets test conversion of 8 March 1985 for pensions payday 21 March 1985. Pension Type NSW ACT Vic. Qld S.A. N.T. W.A. Tas. Aust. Age #... 7 457 5 395 3 672 1 732 1 171 591 20 018 Invalid #... 565 454 271 163 151 36 1 640 Shelt. Employment #... . . . . . . 1 . . . . 1 Rehab. Allowance #... 4 . . . . 2 . . . . 6 Widow Class A... 118 79 78 17 19 4 315 Widow Class B/C... 150 104 94 23 28 10 409 Supp'ting Parent... 44 8 37 8 6 2 105 Total... 8 338 6 040 4 152 1 946 1 375 643 22 494 # Includes wife and spouse carer pensioners. (ii), (iii), (iv) The requested classification is not available. See, however, answer to part (7). (2) As at 26 July 1985, there had been 1887 appeals lodged in respect of decisions under the assets test; 1445 related to valuations of property and 442 to other matters. (3) Of 754 valuation appeals finalised by 26 July 1985, 314 had been conceded by the department and 7 upheld after a recommendation by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Of the 82 other assets test appeals finalised, 28 were conceded by the department and 8 had been upheld after a recommendation by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. (4) As at 31 May 1985, the last date for which those figures were recorded, there had been 1676 requests for review of valuations of property. About 75% of all requests for revaluation of property (including appeals) have been resolved. (5) As at 26 July 1985, 2710 applications for payment of pension under the hardship provisions of the assets test had been received. Information by type of pension is not available. 17 applications for payment under the Pensions Loan Scheme have been received. Payment under the Loan Scheme is available only to age pensioners and their spouses. (6) As at 26 July 1985, 280 claims under the hardship provisions had been granted and 2047 rejected. The grounds for rejection are not available. As at 7 August 1985, 5 claims under the Pensions Loan Scheme have been granted and 2 rejected. The 2 claims were rejected on the grounds that the claimants' liquid assets exceeded 30% of the total value of their assets. (7) Figures are not available for the number of pensions cancelled, suspended or reduced in a particular Electoral division. However, statistics by postcode districts are available for inspection at the House of Representatives Table Office. (Question No. 1100) Mr Price asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: Does the Chifley Office of the Australian Electoral Commission automatically write and/or contact those people who have been recently made Australian citizens; if not, (a) are the lists of these citizens readily available from (i) Blacktown and Penrith Councils and (ii) the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and (b) when will the Chifley Office commence writing to or contacting these citizens. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Electoral Commissioner has advised that the Australian Electoral Commission's Divisional Returning Officers currently write to newly naturalised citizens as and when information requested of local councils is supplied. In the case of the Division of Chifley, the Commission has an arrangement with the Blacktown and Penrith Councils regarding the supply of lists of people recently granted citizenship. The Divisional Returning Officer for Chifley checks those on the lists who fall within his Division against the roll and writes to those that are not enrolled enclosing claim cards and pamphlets on electoral rights and responsibilities. The Commission is arranging with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for lists of all newly naturalised citizens to be supplied to the Commission in magnetic tape form each fortnight. This information, which will be more up-to-date and complete than that received from local councils at present, will be supplied to all Divisional Returning Officers who in turn will make contact with those who are newly entitled electors. This arrangement will relieve the Commission's Divisional staff of the need to deal with individual local government authorities. (Question No. 1117) Mr Wright asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations that the present state laws on labelling of processed foods, pesticides and other hazardous chemicals, and the packaging of all consumer goods are, in general, haphazard, superficial and ineffective. (2) Is it a fact that the interstate distribution of goods requires 8 different sets of controls. (3) What action can be or is being taken to bring about a national approach to packaging and labelling of products. (4) What contribution is being made by his Department to achieve (a) appropriate consumer information standards for product packaging and labelling, (b) national recommended standards for including ingredients and nutritional values on food labelling, (c) clarification of regulations controlling deception in packaging and (d) the identification of food packers. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am aware of these claims as detailed in the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations' 1983-84 Annual Report. (2) It is true that packaging and labelling laws are enacted and administered essentially within State and Territory jurisdictions. However, good progress has been achieved in recent years towards uniformity of legislation and administration. Model legislation has been developed in several jurisdictions, including Health and Weights and Measures. (3) Packaging and Labelling of products is essentially a State and Territory responsibility. In an effort to achieve a uniform, national approach in this area, a number of Ministerial and officials bodies have been established. These include the Health Ministers Conference, Australian Transport Advisory Council, Australian Agricultural Council, Weights and Measures Ministers meetings, National Health &Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers and the Standing Committee on Packaging. The Model Food Act, as developed by the NHMRC, has been or is being adopted by the States and Territories. I am advised that a scheme is currently being developed to provide for the rapid adoption of national food standards, including labelling aspects. (4) (a) My Department is represented on the Standing Committee on Packaging and maintains close liaison with other relevant jurisdictions. The Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers has been given the responsibility of co-ordinating a uniform approach between jurisdictions. (b) Ingredient and nutritional labelling is a State and Territory responsibility. My Department maintains close liaison with the Commonwealth Department of Health and monitors the introduction of the Model Food Act and Regulations by State and Territory Governments. The Model, when introduced by all jurisdictions will achieve a uniform, national approach in this field. The Model Food Standards Regulations have recently been amended to require uniform and specific labelling with respect to food additives. (c) The Standing Committee on Packaging has developed a Model Act and Regulations on deception in packaging. Introduction is the responsibility of State/Territory Governments. (d) My Department is represented on the Standing Committee on Packaging and the Food Standards Committee of the NHMRC. It also maintains close liaison with Health jurisdictions in respect of the introduction of the Model Food Act and Regulations. The Model Food Act requires the name of the party taking responsibility for a food package to be stated on the package. (Question No. 1157) Mr Price asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following my appointment as Minister for Trade I advised my Department of the particular procedures I wished to see followed in relation to Ministerial correspondence. The bulk of correspondence is forwarded directly to the Department by my office, with an indication of the action to be taken. The Department liaises with statutory authorities under my control as necessary. On straight-forward matters I require advice from the Department within two weeks. For matters requiring extensive consultation with other Ministers and Departments, or matters affected by imminent policy decisions, I require the Department's response at the earliest date at which useful information can be provided. (2) Ministerial correspondence is recorded on a computer-based system which produces regular reports on any items for which action is either overdue or in some way incomplete. In the period 1 January to 16 May 1985 nearly 70% of correspondence was answered within two weeks. Many representations made to me during this period could not be answered until certain policy decisions had been taken by the Government. (Question No. 1162) Mr Price asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (a) Ministerial and Parliamentary Handbook, July 1983 (b) yes (b) (i) formally, 4 weeks from receipt in my Department. (2) Yes. In the period 1 January 1985 to 16 May 1985 45% of Ministerial representations were answered within 4 weeks of receipt in my Department and 76% were answered within 8 weeks. (Question No. 1166) Mr Price asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In respect of my Department, formal procedures are included in the Central Office publication `Office Manual' in which a section is devoted to communications in general and to ministerial correspondence in particular. These procedures have existed for many years and have recently been reviewed; a revised version is being prepared for issue. Within that revision is a requirement that a substantive reply to non-urgent correspondence be provided to me within one month of my Department receiving it or, if this is not possible by reason, for example, of information having to be obtained from another organisation, an interim reply is to be provided advising the correspondent that there will be a delay. At monthly intervals Departmental heads of divisions are formally advised of correspondence that they are holding and which is overdue for reply. The statistics asked for by the honourable member are not routinely extracted and are not readily accessible. However my Department advises me that, of some 3000 letters chosen at random, about 70% were finalised within a month of receipt. The Health Insurance Commission is encompassed by the departmental procedures outlined above. In respect of the ACT Health Authority, the position is as follows: (1) No formal procedures exist but it is normal practice to ensure that Ministerial letters are given a high priority at all times with the aim of providing the Minister, or the Chairman of the Authority, with a reply within one month of a letter being received by the Authority. Difficulties and delay are sometimes encountered in meeting this deadline because of the complex nature of the issues raised and the consequent need to consult with or obtain information from more than one section of the Authority. (2) A report is completed at the end of each month showing all outstanding letters and the percentage of letters that met the one month target as at 30 June 1985 was 72%. (Question No. 1187) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the recently published book entitled The Price of Affluence: Dilemmas of Contemporary Japan by Professor Hidaka and the Foreword and Afterword by La Trobe University academic, Dr Gavan McCormack, which quotes extensively from documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and drawn from the Australian Government files on Professor Hidaka's efforts to visit Australia. (2) Do these documents indicate officials speaking of Japanese academics and distinguished groups of Japanese academic, cultural and political figures who supported Professor Hidaka, being described as being on the extreme left in Japan; if so, are these attitudes and opinions currently held by the Government or its officials concerned with relations between Australia and Japan. (3) Was a Japanese police record of Professor Hidaka's opposition to the Vietnam War included in the file of information on him compiled by the Australian Government; if so, why. (4) Are Japanese police reports on the political opinions or activities of applicants for visas to Australia routinely made available to the Australian Government. (5) What role did this information play in the decision to exclude Professor Hidaka from Australia. (6) In view of the statement made in a Department of Immigration memorandum from the then Minister that, in future, the Japanese authorities, on their own initiative, have indicated that no grants will be given by the Japan Foundation until both Japanese and Australian Governments are consulted, is Australia a party to any agreements to vet politically applications for academic or cultural exchange support from the Foundations of either Government. (7) Does the record of the Hidaka affair indicate that innocent foreign individuals may be maligned, insulted and denied entry to Australia without any form of appeal or redress; if so, is this still the case. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The documents indicate that one official was reported by another official as saying that a number of the people making representations on behalf of Professor Hidaka seemed to be on the extreme left in Japan. The Government's view is that support for Professor Hidaka appears to have been fairly broadly based. (3) No. (4) No. (5) As far as I am aware Professor Hidaka's opposition to the Vietnam War was not a consideration in the decision to exclude him from Australia. (6) I have been advised that Australia is not a party to any international agreements concluded under the auspices of the Foundations of either country in relation to processing applications for academic or cultural exchange support. (7) No. Professor Hidaka and his supporters appealed to successive Ministers. This Government allowed Professor Hidaka's admission. (Question No. 1221) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Is he able to say what (a) form and (b) level of assistance are provided to New Zealand dairy farmers (i) directly by the New Zealand Government and (ii) by indirect means. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information on assistance available to the New Zealand industry is not readily available in the categorization requested. Various forms of government assistance known to be currently available to New Zealand dairy farmers are described below. However, details of the level of assistance provided to dairy farmers under schemes which are applied on a general basis to the New Zealand farm sector are not separately available. It should be noted that the New Zealand Government has recently terminated a number of assistance measures which were available, either directly or indirectly, to the dairy industry. These include the Supplementary Minimum Prices Scheme, the Dairy Export Suspensory Loans Scheme, the Export Program Suspensory Loan Scheme, the subsidy on milk for domestic consumption, the Dairy Beef Market Guarantee Scheme, the subsidy on the cost of transport and aerial spreading of fertilizers and an investment allowance scheme. ASSISTANCE MEASURES Reserve Bank Concessional Credit (a) Stabilization Arrangement The New Zealand dairy industry is subject to a stabilization arrangement administered by the New Zealand Dairy Board in consultation with the Government. Under the scheme fluctuations in dairy industry income are brought within a defined range by levying producer returns in buoyant years and supplementing returns in depressed years. Funds under the scheme are administered through a Dairy Industry Reserve Account which has been in surplus since 1980. In 1984 the surplus was $NZ352m, (of which some $NZ200m has been applied to capital expenditure). Credit balances in this account have until 1 June 1985 earned 1 per cent interest and borrowings from this account for income supplementation purposes were also charged at 1 per cent interest. However as from 1 June 1985 a market interest rate (of around 20 per cent) is to be applied. (b) Working Capital Since its establishment in 1936, the New Zealand Dairy Board has had access to working capital, which includes funds required to supplement returns, from the New Zealand Reserve Bank at a concessional rate of 1 per cent. In 1983 the New Zealand Government placed a ceiling of $NZ750m on advances at the concessional rate. The balance of the Board's working capital requirements are now raised on normal terms through the financial system. The $NZ750m advanced by the Reserve Bank has been converted from an overdraft payable on demand to a subordinated loan to be repaid over 40 years at 1 per cent interest with repayments to commence on 31 May 1986 Assistance to Town Milk The production of fresh milk for domestic consumption is oragnised on a quota system where producers are allocated daily production quotas for the supply of milk every day of the year. It is estimated that there were 1,247 town milk suppliers and 15,000 factory milk suppliers in 1984-85. The volume of town milk produced accounts for about 6 per cent of total production and manufacturing milk about 92 per cent. Direct assistance to this sector is in the form of milk quotas which receive premium prices. Quota milk together with seasonal percentages above quota receive a premium price above the manufacturing price, which is intended to compensate producers for the higher costs of milk production particularly in winter. Town milk producer prices are linked to factory milk prices by an established formula in the ratio of 0.06 cents per litre of wholemilk for every 1 cent per kilogram milkfat change in the price of factory milk. Town milk prices are presently estimated to be 28-30 per cent above factory milk prices. New Zealand Import Regime All dairy products except concentrated or sweetened milk in liquid/solid form may be imported without licence. Imports of dairy products from Australia and certain Pacific countries are free of import duties. However, for all other countries, an import tariff exists as follows: milk, fresh, concentrated or sweetened-10 per cent milk, other-20 per cent butter-10 per cent cheese, cheddar-10 per cent cheese, other-20 per cent curd-10 per cent In practice imports are negligible. Rural Bank Concessional Credit The Rural Banking and Finance Corporation (RBFC) was established in 1974 to provide loans at concessional rates of interest for farm purchase and development purposes. The Corporation has to date obtained its funds from the New Zealand Reserve Bank. However, in the November 1984 Budget it was announced that access to the Reserve Bank Loans Account for new loans would be phased out as follows: 1984-85-$NZ175m 1985-86-$NZ100m 1986-87-Nil From 1986-87 the Rural Banking and Finance Corporation will need to seek funds from the private sector at market rates of interest. Interest rates on current loans through the RBFC are also being progressively brought into line with market interest rates. From 8 November 1984, the rate on current loans is being increased from 7.5 per cent in one or more steps up to the market indicator rate, which was set at 15 per cent in the 1984 Budget and is being kept under review. New loans are being offered at an initial rate of 12 1/2 per cent until 1 April 1986, from which date rates will be increased by 1 per cent until the market indicator rate is reached. Total loan authorisations to the farming sector by the Corporation in 1984-85 were $NZ376.98m compared with $NZ390m in 1983-84 and $NZ443.6m in 1982-83. Export Performance Taxation Incentive The Export Performance Taxation Incentive Scheme provides a tax credit or refund on a specified percentage of the domestic value added of qualifying exports. Dairy products which qualify are: spray dried goat milk powder infant milk powder dairy whip cream in aerosol cans processed cheese including processed cheddar ice cream. The relevant level of tax rebate on exports to all markets on these items was reduced by 50 per cent on 1 April 1985 in accordance with an established formula which will result in complete removal of the incentive by 1 April 1987. The current level of rebate on ice cream is 5.25 per cent, and, for the other products listed above, the rebate is 3.85 per cent. Export Market Development Taxation Incentive (EMDTI) The EMDTI, which provides tax credits for specified promotional expenditure incurred outside New Zealand, has been extended to 1990-91. From 1987-88 the tax credit rate will be phased down over four years from 69 per cent to the corporate tax level of 48 per cent. This will remove the additional incentive for export. The New Zealand Government has indicated that further changes to the scheme may be made. From the 1987-88 income year, the New Zealand Government intends to replace the EMDTI with support of a more selective and targeted nature. Fertilizer Subsidies A subsidy of $NZ12/tonne is paid to approved end users in respect of a nominated range of imported and locally manufactured fertilizers-but not to lime. The New Zealand Government has announced this subsidy will terminate on 30 June 1986. Government expenditure on this item in 1984-85 was $NZ23.0m and $NZ24.9m has been allocated for the item in the 1985-86 budget. Inspection and Grading Dairy inspection and grading services have been fully funded by Government until the end of the 1984-85 season. Funding is to be reduced in 1985-86 with a one-third cost recovery. Two-thirds cost recovery will apply in 1986-87. Taxation Deductions The New Zealand farm sector has available to it a range of taxation deductions which are designed to encourage development and increase productive capacity. These deductions are subject to change from time to time. Current taxation allowances include income equalisation arrangements, depreciation, farm development expenditure and deferral of certain costs such as purchase and spreading of fertilizer and lime. Other Assistance Measures Other general assistance measures to New Zealand agriculture include pest (principally rabbits) and noxious weed control. Government cost of pest control was $NZ7m in 1984-85 and is to be phased down to nil in 1993-94. Weed control allocations are being phased down with $NZ3.7m being allocated in 1985-86 c.f. $NZ9.5m in 1984-85. The New Zealand dairy industry also benefits from the provision of Government advisory, agricultural research, quarantine and animal health services. ACCESS TO FOREIGN MARKETS Apart from the above-listed assistance measures, the New Zealand dairy industry has available to it negotiated access to several key markets. (a) Under the Treaty of Accession of the United Kingdom into the European Ecconomic Community, New Zealand was granted access to the EEC market for certain quantities of butter under a number of conditions. The quantity and conditions have changed so that from an initial quantity of 166,000t in 1973, the 1985 level is 81,000t reducing to 79,000t in 1986. Levels for 1987 and 1988 are yet to be agreed. (b) New Zealand negotiated access to several dairy markets in the last (Tokyo) round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN). The Principal New Zealand MTN quotas are for cheese in the United States and EEC markets: EEC 6,500 t.p.a. of cheddar cheese for direct consumption 3,000 t.p.a. of cheddar cheese for processing 9,500 t.p.a. total USA 3,100 t.p.a. cheddar cheese 2,000 t.p.a. American type 11,322 t.p.a. other cheese 1,000 t.p.a. Skim cheese 17,422 t.p.a. total t.p.a. = tonnes per annum (Question No. 1237) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Columns (a) to (f) on the following tables relate to parts (a) to (f). Table 1 lists all consultants engaged other than those engaged for the purpose of training Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) Project Personnel. Table 2 lists the consultants engaged for the purpose of training CYSS Project Personnel. TABLE 1 (a) Consultant (b) Purpose (c) Working plan (d) Cost (e) Commence- ment Finish/ duration (f) Excess The following consultants were engaged by the Bureau of Labour Market Research $ Dr Withers Dept of Economic History, ANU Asian and Pacific Countries Labour Markets Research Report Consultancy briefs 769 20 October 1983 2 months (part-time) No Complementary technical paper of the research report on the wages and labour market adjustment project 935 1 October 1983 6 months (part-time) No Dr R. Powell Dept of Agricultural Economics, University of New England Study of labour markets in rural Australia, Phase 1 Consultancy brief 15 050 June 1983 6 months No Dr A. H. Winefield University of Adelaide Study of psychological impact on participants in the Wage Pause Program Consultancy brief 23 940 1 March 1984 12 months No Dr P. Trivedi Dept of Economics, ANU Forecasting of long term unemployment Consultancy brief 1 000 March 1984 5 days No Prof. M. Borus Provide advice on development of National Longitudinal Study based on USA experience Consultancy brief 7 077 20 July 1983 13 days No Prof. R. Freeman Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research, USA In-house review of BLMR research in `Progress in Planning', 2 seminars Consultancy brief 3 557 27 July 1983 3 weeks No Dr L. Ruzicka Demography Dept, ANU Preparation of paper on `Working Life' tables for Australia Consultancy brief 900 9 January 1984 2 months No Dr P. N. Junankar University of Essex, England Discussion paper on unemployment flows Consultancy brief 300 July 1984 2 days No Prof. F. L. Jones Dept of Sociology, ANU Comparative study of youth manpower program Consultancy brief 3 340 April 1983 5 days 2 404 Dr L. Smith Dept of Demography, ANU Develop a proposal to survey the Aboriginal labour force to assess suitability for CEP projects Consultancy brief 645 January 1984 5 days No Mr J. Wielgosz Developing research projects which would use National Longitudinal Survey data Consultancy brief 500 September 1983 3 months No Mr B. Chapman Paper on potential research uses for National Longitudinal Survey data Consultancy brief 500 September 1983 3 months No Ms Y. Dunlop Edit report on CES activities Consultancy brief 1 976.60 19 July 1984 4 months 176.60 Prof. L. Kish Lecture on `Survey Sampling' Consultancy brief 200 13 September 1984 13 September 1984 No Dr B. Barnow Evaluation of employment and training programs in Australia Consultancy brief 5 000 19 August 1984 1 month No Mr B. Casey Preparation of papers and presentation of seminars on labour market programs Consultancy brief 20 000 15 July 1984 6 months No Dr R. Smith Effectiveness of Special Youth Employment Training Program Consultancy brief 2 385 5 June 1984 1 month No Dr B. Reubens Current research on youth labour market Consultancy brief 487 16 July 1984 2 days No Dr M. Bendick Preparation and presentation of paper on labour market redundancy Consultancy brief 4 000 2 August 1984 3 August 1984 No Profs Norris and Malvey Paper on efficiency of labour market operation and policies for improvement Consultancy brief 5 000 2 August 1984 2 months No Mr C. Ford Coding completed projects survey data Consultancy brief 386 13 November 1984 2 weeks No Pinner, Ford and Denton Coding of Labour Adjustment Training Arrangement Questionnaires Consultancy brief 1 005 16 November 1984 1 month No H. Luckle Production of BLMR Style Manual Consultancy brief 180 16 October 1984 10 hours No National Institute of Economic and Industrial Research Survey of Expenditure Patterns of Commonwealth Employment Programs Participants Consultancy brief 37 218 17 July 1984 6 months No Dr. L. Williams Research on migrants and structural duration Consultancy brief 12 556 27 December 1984 6.5 months No. Dr. A. Eyland Analysis of Australian Longitudinal Survey Data Consultancy brief 10 540 31 January 1985 4 months No Prof. G. Markus Conducting course on analysing panel data Consultancy brief 2 000 24 February 1985 1 week No Dr Pak-Wai-Liu Advise on sample selection bias and conducting seminar Consultancy brief 1 800 15 February 1985 2 days No Debbie Richardson Data Processing for Australian Longitudinal Survey Consultancy brief 647.50 11 March 1985 1 week No Mr P. Duncan-Jones Analyse employment impact of Wage Pause Program Consultancy brief 3 900 16 March 1985 3.2 months No IAESR University of Melbourne Structural change and the labor market Consultancy brief 40 000 8 March 1985 6 months No Roy Morgan Research Australian Longitudinal Survey. Wave 2 Pilot Tests Fieldwork Consultancy brief 1 396 219 1 February 1985 10 months No Scientific Information Retrieval CRAFT apprentice survey data Consultancy brief 2 000 11 March 1985 3 weeks No INSTATT Australian Longitudinal Survey. First Wave Analysis and Preparation Consultancy brief 2 800 9 April 1985 23 April 1985 No Academic and Consultancy Enterprises Report on structural change and the Labour Market-Industrial Relations Consultancy brief 2 600 29 April 1985 15 November 1985 No Ms J. Muir Australian Longitudinal Survey Special Apprentice Employment Incentive Consultancy brief 4 500 10 April 1985 15 July 1985 No Mr L. Drake Edit Bureau of Labour Market Research Bulletin Consultancy brief 1 000 30 April 1985 30 June 1985 No Scientific Information Retrieval Analysis of Wage Pause Program Consultancy brief 560.20 14 May 1985 21 May 1985 No Prof. M. Killingsworth Appraisal of BLMR Project Teams Consultancy brief 500 24 April 1985 1 week No ANUTECH Spatial Distribution Study Consultancy brief 9 980 15 April 1985 2 months No Mr D. Plowman Melbourne Bibliography of Australia labour market literature and documentation Consultancy brief 37 000 6 May 1985 6 months No D. Newton Review report on employment and training policy and program developments in Canada. Oversee review paper on technological change and employment. Advise on research strategy. Advise on research projects. Consultancy briefs 42 598 10 March 1983 30 November 1983 No Dr N. Whiteside Present paper on social consequences of unemployment Consultancy brief 1 000 10 May 1985 2 weeks No The following consultants were engaged by the Trade Union Training Authority: Noble Lowndes International Pty Ltd Internal work value review of administrative staff of the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) Consultancy brief 38 796.55 1 June 1984 1 November 1984 No Arthur Young Services Study TUTA's financial recording and reporting systems Consultancy brief 2 000 5 October 1983 4 November 1983 No Touche Ross Services Review of TUTA's financial and ADP systems Consultancy brief 20 000 16 April 1984 Still continuing Not completed Nicholson, Boyce Marketing Research Review of publicity for New South Wales TUTA programs Consultancy briefs 1 805.50 June 1984 April 11 1985 No Lawrence Nield and Partners Pty Ltd Clyde Cameron College building strategic planning report Consultancy brief 8 000 30 November 1984 still continuing No Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Engineering consultants for installing air conditioning chillers Consultancy brief 10 000 3 April 1984 Still continuing No The following consultants were engaged by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission: Mr T. Rowe Participate in selection interviews and prepare written documentation as required Consultancy brief 5 900 paid to 31 July 1985 ($100 per day.) December 1984 31 July 1985 No Jakoba Consultancy Services Prepare draft health and safety ordinances and regulations Consultancy brief 10 000 February 1985 June 1985 No Dr T. J. Constance Specialist Histopathologist to Mesothelioma project Consultancy brief 4 085 November 1984 December 1984 No Dr K. Burgess Participate in medical survey work, data analysis and epidemiological studies Consultancy brief 17 568 April 1985 October 1985 Not completed Mr G. Devereux Provide policy advice and guidance to National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Consultancy brief 58 615 February 1985 February 1986 Not completed Mr J. Ford Prepare and disseminate promotional material, establish press liaison network Consultancy brief 41 000 February 1985 February 1986 Not completed Prof. D. Ferguson Advise on the development of National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, undertake academic responsibilities within Master of Public Health Course Consultancy brief 55 000 May 1985 June 1986 Not completed THE FOLLOWING CONSULTANTS WERE ENGAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT Mr C. Nixon, Mr D. Kenny To conduct `Information Technology Awareness' Courses. Consultancy brief 750 750 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 30 October 1984 31 October 1984 19 February 1985 27 February 1985 28 February 1985 5 March 1985 1 May 1985 2 May 1985 8 May 1985 9 May 1985 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day No No No No No No No No No No H &M Crago Crago Clinical and Educational Services Consultant psychologists for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Inter-Regional psychology conference. Consultancy brief 850 25 March 1985 29 March 1985 No Institute of Technology (INSEARCH Pty Ltd) Computer awareness courses for: * Senior OCES officers * Regional Office Line Management Consultancy brief 6 066 1 May 1985 8 May 1985 15 May 1985 2 May 1985 9 May 1985 16 May 1985 No Matt Peacock Remote Area Media Run media course for Commonwealth Employment Programs' Officers Consultancy brief 150 October 1983 1 day No Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit Conduct survey of CES vacancy market penetration and employer attitudes to CES Consultancy brief 10 000 August 1983 March 1984 No M. Bowden and Associates Conduct marketing course/workshops for CES managers Consultancy brief 2 000 21 November 1983 1 December 1983 15 December 1983 1 day 1 day 1 day No No No D. Berker and Associates (Management and Training Consultants) Management Development Workshop Consultancy brief 1 800 22 August 1984 24 August 1984 No Mr R. Smyth, Queensland Institute of Technology Development of Information Technology curriculum Consultancy brief 12 000 April 1984 June 1984 No James Cook University Development of Information Technology curriculum Consultancy brief 1 300 May 1984 June 1984 No CORE Consulting Development of Management Development Course Consultancy brief 1 300 May 1984 June 1984 No Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd To assist work of Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 15 807 October 1984 December 1984 No Mr B. Dabscheck University of New South Wales To assist work of Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 3 930 February 1985 March 1985 No Mr N. Blain University of Western Australia To assist work of Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 3 765 October 1983 December 1984 $2 000 Mr R. Kriegler To assist work of Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 19 200 September 1984 December 1984 No Mr D. Worland, Ms M. Brown, Mr K. Wilson, Footscray Institute of Technology To assist work of Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 6 771 August 1984 January 1985 $771 Ms M. Pittard Monash University Prepare comparative analysis of labour legislation in the Federal and State Jurisdictions Consultancy brief 2,124 March 1983 October 1983 No Coopers and Lybrand Services Preparation of tender specifications for Office Automation Equipment Consultancy brief 800 25 July 1983 28 July 1983 No Evaluation of tenders for automation equipment Consultancy brief 7,500 7 November 1983 January 1984 No Digital Equipment Corporation Provision of software support Services Consultancy brief 19,200 July 1984 November 1984 (30 days) No Centre for Urban Research and Action Women's Employment Opportunities Project Consultancy brief 14,000 June 1984 January 1985 No C. Ronalds Implications of the Sex Discrimination Act for the delivery of Commonwealth labour market programs Consultancy brief 1,000 June 1984 October 1984 No Trans National Co-operative Limited i Maternity Leave Provisions in Federal Awards ii Maternity Leave Provisions in State Awards iii Maternity Leave Provisions in Acts of Parliament Consultancy brief 2,970 June 1984 October 1984 No Lyn Cottier Prepare report on Maternity and parental leave provisions in Australia and Overseas Consultancy brief 6,000 June 1984 January 1985 No Penelope Giles Prepare report on Technology Contracts, Industrial Restructuring and Women's Employment Consultancy brief 7,875 November 1984 Ongoing $466 Deborah Wilson Consulting Services Development of a Data Base on women's participation in the labour force and related issues Consultancy brief 9,600 March 1985 Ongoing No Trans National Co-operative Limited Outwork Provisions in State Awards (Australia wide) Consultancy brief 15,600 April 1985 June 1985 No Mr J. Saunders Mr R. Woodland Mr K. Jones Mr H. Hudson Mr A. Gardiner To provide a sample national trade test for use by Local Trades Committees in all States and by Technical Advisers overseas to assist in the assessment of eligibility for the issue of an Australian Recognised Tradesman's Certificate Consultancy brief 250 250 250 125 500 4 June 1984 4 June 1984 4 June 1984 23 May 1984 23 May 1984 25 June 1984 25 June 1984 25 June 1984 30 June 1984 30 June 1984 $200 No No SAS Software Pty Ltd In-house training of staff in intermediate and advanced techniques in SAS software package Course outline provided 1,170 24 January 1985 25 January 1985 No Management Solutions Pty Ltd Perform systems analysis on the Community Employment Program's Management Information System (CEPMIS) Terms of reference and schedule 15,090.70 6 May 1985 31 May 1985 No Markrand To distribute, collect computer analysis and report on a questionnaire related to Tasmanian Tourism and Hospitality Industry Briefing and question- naire 2,300 October 1984 January 1985 No Tas-Tech Developments Pty Ltd Develop briefing paper for Vacancy Market Penetration Research Project Briefing paper and two discussion sessions with Senior Manage- ment 850 March 1985 March 1985 No Tas-Tech Developments Pty Ltd To conduct a Vacancy Market Penetration Research Project for Commonwealth Employment Service Detailed briefing paper and two meetings with senior depart- mental officers 19,300 April 1985 June 1985 No Mr O. Covick Flinders University To research, compile and analyse available data and developments in the area of total labour costs Consultancy brief 15,500 May 1985 October/November 1985 Not completed Ms Diane Keddie Advise management on preventative aspects of repetition strain injury Consultancy brief 1,800 7 December 1984 22 February 1985 No Ms Eva Pragier Advise management on preventative aspects of repetition strain injury Consultancy brief 6,400 to 31 July 1985 ($50 per hour) 6 December 1984 16 December 1985 No Computer People Pty Ltd * Development of Departmental Human Resources Monitoring System (HRMS) Full system specification provided for develop- ment and conversion tasks 27 279 August 1984 December 1984 No * Conversion of HRMS from ACI computer services miniframe to FACOM M-200 January 1985 January 1985 No * support services with introduction of Personnel Management System (HORACE) No payment as yet for HORACE support May 1985 Not finalised No Cyber Management Services Pty Ltd Investigate and advise on forms function Consultancy brief 984 14 June 1984 15 June 1984 No G. Campbell Seminars on Stress Management Consultancy brief 640 400 15 November 1983 11 May 1984 16 November 1983 11 May 1984 No No C. Nixon Workshops on `ADP Appreciation' including provision of Micro-Computers Consultancy brief 500 500 700 700 700 700 700 700 29 October 1983 31 August 1983 6 October 1983 13 October 1983 27 October 1983 3 November 1983 17 November 1983 29 November 1983 30 August 1983 1 September 1983 7 October 1983 14 October 1983 28 October 1983 4 November 1983 18 November 1983 30 November 1983 No No No No No No No No Mr C. Nixon Workshop of `Visicale' and `Multiplan' including provision of Micro-Computers Consultancy brief 750 750 1 December 1983 7 December 1983 2 December 1983 8 December 1983 No No Mr M. Faris Training session on middle management training Consultancy brief 350 13 June 1984 1/2 day No Australian Film and Television School Provide Audio-visual training course Consultancy brief 3 020 9 July 1984 13 July 1984 320 Mr F. Carroll Workshop on `Efficient Reading' Consultancy brief 720 23 April 1985 24 April 1985 No Mr Chris Richards Negotiation Skills Training Courses Consultancy brief 570 690 740 20 July 1983 15 March 1983 9 July 1984 1 day 1 day 1 day No No No Mr John Casson Effective Communication Seminar Consultancy brief 1 000 21 October 1983 1 day No Mr John Martin Senior Management Seminar Consultancy brief 250 24 May 1984 1 day No Mr Stig Ehnbom Time Manager Effectiveness Consultancy brief 5 000 28 May 1984 29 May 1984 No Mr Peter Blunt Evaluation Methods-CYSS Project Officers Consultancy brief 600 12 July 1984 1 day No Mr Ian Turk Time Management Workshop Consultancy brief 700 18 April 1984 19 April 1985 No Mr T. Dalmau Consultancy Skills/Strategy Development Consultancy brief 975 30 April 1985 1 day and preparation No Mr Peter Steid Planning and Evaluation Consultancy brief 975 29 April 1985 1 day and preparation No Ms Jane Dixon Community Development Marketing and Promotion Consultancy brief 400 1 May 1985 1/2 day No Ms Sue Cochrane Community Development Interpersonal Consultancy brief 400 1 May 1985 1 day No Mr L. Hudson Mr P. Falconer Negotiation Skills Consultancy brief 7 200 27 May 1985 29 May 1985 No Street, Ryan and Associates Pty Ltd To conduct an Equal Employment Opportunity Survey of all employees in the Department Tender specification and detail brief 19 550 April 1985 August 1985 Actual fee is reduction on quote tendered Mrs I. G. Chalk Conduct Training Courses * Accident Prevention Trainers Packaged training program 718 24 October 1983 28 October 1983 No * Training Officer Program (1) Packaged training program 2 594 2 April 1984 13 April 1984 No * Training Officer Program (1) Packaged training program 2 294 30 April 1984 11 May 1984 No * Training Officer Program (1) Packaged training program 2 294 21 May 1984 1 June 1984 No * Training Officer Program (2) Packaged training program 3 444 25 June 1984 6 July 1984 No * Basic Instructional skills Packaged training program 960 16 July 1984 20 July 1984 No * Training Officer Program (1) Packaged training program 1 950 23 July 1984 3 August 1984 No Coopers and Lybrand W. D. Scott Develop Information Technology Strategic Plan Consultancy brief 20 000 (600 per day 13 May 1985 Ongoing Not completed Dr Michael Quinlan Griffith University Discussion paper involving field research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Management and Industrial Democracy: Structures and Strategies'. Stipulated in contract 4 770 November 1984 April 1985 No Dr Harvie Ramsay Trans-National Co-operative Program Sydney University Discussion paper involving field research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Transnationals and Industrial Democracy'. Stipulated in contract 4 106 November 1984 June 1985 No Ms Sue Walpole and Ms Francis Baldwin Discussion paper involving field research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Women Workers and Industrial Democracy'. Stipulated in contract 5 000 December 1984 June 1985 No Dr Edward Davis University of New South Wales Discussion paper involving field research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Trade Union Structures and Industrial Democracy'. Stipulated in contract 1 500 December 1984 May 1985 No Professor Russell Langsbury Macquarie University Discussion paper involving field research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Supervisors and Industrial Democracy'. Stipulated in contract 750 January 1985 April 1985 No Dr John Hill Monash University Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy In the Finance Industry'. Stipulated in contract 10 500 November 1984 May 1985 $1 500 Mr Howard Guille Brisbane College of Advanced Education Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy In the Food and Beverage Industry'. Stipulated in contract 15 138 November 1984 May 1985 No The Trans-National Co-operative Sydney Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy and Outwork and Subcontract Labour'. Stipulated in contract 9 500 December 1984 May 1985 No Centre for Multicultural Studies, University of Wollongong Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy and Migrant Workers'. Stipulated in contract 9 955 November 1984 May 1985 No Mr David Plowman University of New South Wales Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy: `Employer Associations and Industrial Democracy'. Stipulated in contract 14 657.10 November 1984 April 1985 No Professor G. W. Ford University of New South Wales Co-ordinate research for Green Paper on Industrial Democracy. Stipulated in contract 6 290 to 31 July 1985 (203 per day) November 1984 up to 40 days No Mr Stephen Frenkel University of New South Wales Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy in the Metal Industry'. Stipulated in contract 7 320 November 1984 May 1985 No Dr Ian Marshall Chisholm Institute of Technology Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy in the Metal Industry'. Stipulated in contract 7 940 November 1984 June 1985 No Centre for Technology and Social Change University of Wollongong Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy in the Retail Industry'. Stipulated in contract 11 050 November 1984 June 1985 No Professor W. Howard; Ms Carol Fox Monash University Research for the Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: `Industrial Democracy in the Mining Sector'. Stipulated in contract 10 000 November 1984 May 1985 No Professor G. W. Ford University of New South Wales Prepare annotated bibliography on Northern European (Nordic) and German Literature on technological change and organisational participation. Stipulated in contract 8 500 January 1985 July/August 1985 Not completed Comedia Ltd To produce videotapes (15 copies of 3 Segments) on representative forms of Industrial democracy. As outlined in conditions of agreement. 30 000 July 1984 June 1985 No Techsearch Incorporated (SA Institute of Technology) Research for Government Green Paper on Industrial Democracy: Survey of the role of ADP supplies in advising clients on organisational aspects of systems design and implementation. Stipulated in contract 5 716 March 1985 April 1985 $34 Dr S. G. Goldstein University of Western Australia Mr W Latter To write training package on representative forms of Industrial democracy Stipulated in contract. 21 000 June 1984 May 1985 No Dr S A Thomas Mr J Buchner Evaluate National Association of Disabled Office Workers (NADOW) Training Program-New South Wales Consultancy brief 1 150 2 539 October 1982 March 1983 No Dr S A Thomas Mrs S Gosden Evaluate Human Resources Program-New South Wales Consultancy brief 850 934 November 1982 March 1983 No Dr B Bishop Evaluate Work Independence Program-Western Australia Consultancy brief 6 524 November 1982 March 1983 No Dr S A Thomas Ms C Bult Evaluate Vocational and Employment Opportunities Program-Victoria Consultancy brief 900 1 148 March 1983 June 1983 No Dr B Bishop Mr J Farrally Evaluate Preparation for Western Australia Association for the Blind Employment Program-Western Australia Consultancy brief 3 000 1 500 April 1983 October 1983 No Dr S A Thomas Ms C Bult Evaluate Assessment and Industrial Skill Training Program-Victoria Consultancy brief 900 970 July 1983 August 1983 No Mr R E Harrold Evaluate Exit Work Preparation Program-Queensland Consultancy brief 3 669.90 December 1983 January 1984 No Mr A. Goldsworthy Evaluate Training and Placement Service Program-South Australia Consultancy brief 4 935 May 1985 June 1985 No Mr Goldsworthy Evalute Special Training and Employment Program-Adelaide Consultancy brief 5 035 May 1985 15 June 1985 No Dr S. A. Thomas Ms J. Vernon Evaluate Work Independence Program-Australian Capital Territory Consultancy brief 900 1 095 August 1983 September 1983 No Christie, Cook and Somerville Corporate Consultancy Services Pty Ltd Evaluate National Association of Disabled Office Workers Training Program- Queensland Consultancy brief 7 477 November 1983 May 1984 No Michels Warren Public Relations Develop and conduct public and private sector seminars in seven locations on behalf of the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee Consultancy brief 72 072 10 October 1983 28 June 1984 2 000 Burson-Marstellar Public Relations Market research into acceptability of wage subsidy agreement format to employers Written brief supported by working meetings 15 532 18 December 1984 13 March 1985 No Michels Warren Public Relations Public relations consultant for the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee Consultancy brief 60 000 9 November 1984 8 November 1985 Not completed Darvall McCutcheon Solicitors To provide opinion on legality of wage subsidy agreements in respect of labour force programs Consultancy brief 565 14 December 1984 15 April 1985 No Schofield, Shertoon and Baker Employer survey of attitudes to the operations of the Professional Employment Service Consultancy brief 40 000 29 March 1985 22 May 1985 No Ms B. Hammond Vocational Orientation Centre Victoria Maarten Post, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Obtain Information and views on the operation of the nine `large' Level 3 CYSS Projects Terms of Reference 58 322 2 April 1984 10 August 1984 No Mr Henk Overberg Victoria College Victoria Detail situation of migrant youth in regard to CYSS, and the means by which access of young migrants to CYSS might be broadened Broad guidelines and conduct of the project responsibility of a committee of management 43 090 4 January 1983 30 April 1984 9 090 Professor Eileen Byrne University of Queensland Review the current CYSS schemes in relation to the opportunities they do, and do not, offer to girls and women Detailed Terms of Reference followed up by requests for recommend- ations to Minister on specific topics 40 000 1 April 1983 30 November 1983 6 000 CYSS Koorie Research Committee, New South Wales To examine ways in which CYSS projects might more effectively meet the special needs of young unemployed Aborigines Detailed working plan involving questionnaires, field surveys and reports 24 000 24 March 1983 31 January 1985 No Coopers and Lybrand Telecommunica- tions audit and cost reduction Schedule of tasks and timetables 23 625 September 1984 November 1984 (12 weeks) No. Coopers and Lybrand Implementation of recommendations of Telecommunica- tions study report Detailed work plans and timetables 75 000 March 1985 continuing Not completed Logica Pty Ltd Identification, specification, implementation strategy of industrial relations information technology systems in department Consultancy brief 53 491.35 10 September 1984 31 December 1984 15 February 1985 (1 day) No Logica Pty Ltd Pilot Federal Award text retrieval system-risk assessment, software suitability, data base alternatives, project plan Consultancy Brief 20 348 19 October 1984 24 December 1984 No Computer Sciences of Australia Feasibility study of Occupational Information and Occupational Analysis/On-line Text project Terms of reference 50 000 plus expenses 1 620 25 March 1985 9 August 1985 Not completed Equus Computer Services Pty Ltd Preparation of Request for Tender for Job Seeker equipment Project plan 13 913 8 October 1984 13 December 1984 No Equus Computer Services Pty Ltd Evaluation of responses to Job Seeker equipment Request for Tender Project plan 39 285 January 1985 June 1985 No Praxa Pty Ltd Provide support in communications area Consultancy brief 5 400 29 January 1985 8 March 1985 No Praxa Pty Ltd Support of Office Automation project communications Technical services as directed 4 600 8 May 1985 30 June 1985 No Computer Power Pty Ltd Design Job Seeker communication network Project schedule 42 000 20 May 1985 12 August 1985 Not completed SPL Australia NATURAL software package Provide services as required 18 523 21 September 1984 Various days as required-not finalised No Hiles Pty Ltd Specialist support for communications in System's Network Architecture Network maintenance and staff training 6 000 20 May 1985 20 August 1985 No Idaps People Pty Ltd Specialist systems software support, data base design and management Specific task definition 47 000 February 1985 November 1985 Not completed Idaps People Pty Ltd Specialist systems software support Specific task definition 15 000 6 May 1985 8 November 1985 Not completed DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd Office Automation project planner Planning schedule 6 600 March 1985 15 days as required No Visasys Computer Systems Office Automation project planner Task specifications 24 000 1 April 1985 30 June 1985 Not completed Koranya Pty Ltd Conversion of BLMR IMPACT Population Projection facility Task specifications 31 150 21 January 1985 Continuing Not completed Koranya Pty Ltd Economic and labour market data base conversion Task specifications 31 800 30 January 1985 13 June 1985 No Australian Industrial Publications Development, writing, graphics, and artwork for all staff bulletin on ergonomic furniture Job specification 4 000 30 April 1985 1 day No D P Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd Planning Workshop-Job Seeker Project 2 102 22 January 1985 23 January 1985 No Video Record Pty Ltd Production related to Strategic Plan video Job specification 222.05 14 November 1984 21 November 1984 No Computer Power Pty Ltd Assist development of Job Seeker Micro-Computer application in Queensland Task specification 18 March 1985 22 March 1985 No Instream Productions Pty Ltd Strategic plan. Develop ``Infotech'' video editing facilities Job specification 2 875 6 December 1984 6 December 1984 No Instream Productions Pty Ltd Strategic planning. Breakdown of material preparation of drafts. Job specification 2 520 May 1985 56 hours No Computer Power Pty Ltd Develop CEPWORD micro-computer system for Community Employment Programs Project plan 18 816.50 2 October 1984 18 January 1985 1 416.50 Rosebell Pty Ltd Support for `FOCUS' software application Job specification 240 12 April 1985 1 Day No Computer Power Pty Ltd Training in `Status' software package for Industrial Relations Divisions Consultancy brief 4,000 18 February 1985 9 days as required No Simon Feely and Co. * Edit and condense Senior Management Improvement Program document Task specifi- cations 937.50 19 October 1984 12.5 hours 187.50 * Rewrite Management and Policy Directions paper Task specifi- cations 1,050 19 October 1984 14 hours No I. D. Jackson and Associates Project Management for Job Bank and Job Seeker Services Project schedules 12,000 30 November 1984 Various days as required Not yet finalised D.P. Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd Supply material and conduct workshop Course specification details 4,860 29 October 1984 26 November 1984 27 November 1984 3 days No Digital Equipment Corporation Software services for VAX mini computer Specific applications require- ments 3,200 13 November 1984 19 November 1984 No Chisholm Institute of Technology Development of a Property Assets Register Specific require- ments for IBM XT micro computer 1,050 November 1984 20 hours as required No Disc International Pty Ltd Review of Department's Information Technology Strategic Plan Consultancy brief 99,882 June 1984 March 1985 No Disc International Pty Ltd ACT regional Information Strategic Plan Consultancy brief 7,201 19 November 1984 30 November 1984 No Willgrive Pty Ltd Provide specialist advice and plan conference on Job Seeker Project Management Project plan 2,353.60 8 October 1984 9 November 1984 (4 days) No Arthur Young Services Development of National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Computing Strategy Project plan 26,175 23 October 1984 Various times as required No Chisholm Institute of Technology Specialist application of Lotus 123 software package Specific applications requirement 1,800 11 July 1984 1 day $1,080 extended to cover extra leasing of model Computer People Pty Ltd Support for interviews and associated documentation Consultancy brief 33,100 21 August 1984 Not finalised Not completed D.P. Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd Develop and conduct training seminars for Central Office Strategic Plan Consultancy brief 50,000 23 September 1985 Not completed Not completed Logica Pty Ltd Job Bank Consultancy Task work plans 368,777 March 1983 June 1983 No Logica Pty Ltd Job Bank Consultancy Task work plans 689,378 July 1983 June 1984 No Logica Pty Ltd Job Bank Consultancy Task work plans 322,369 June 1984 July 1985 No Equus Pty Ltd Job Bank Consultancy Task work plans 10,617 June 1984 July 1985 No Parity Pty Ltd Job Bank Consultancy Task work plans 19,224 June 1984 July 1985 No FACOM Pty Ltd Job Bank Equipment Consultancy Project equipment plan 50,000 June 1983 May 1985 No Idaps People Pty Ltd Job Bank Data Base Manager Project task plan 36,282 March 1983 June 1984 No Logica Pty Ltd Litigations support Task specifi- cations 2,218 March 1983 March 1983 No Logica Pty Ltd Management Information System project feasibility study Task specifi- cations 84,375 March 1983 October 1983 No Mr Brian Tregillis Provide brief for overseas visit by National Director, CES Task specification 500 8 March 1985 1 day No J. Dixon and R. Ratnatunga Assess market penetration of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Canberra and Queanbeyan Consultancy brief 5,265 August 1983 3 months No North Australian Research Unit Obtain base line data concerning Aboriginal access to the local labour market Consultancy brief 3,820 25 February 1985 30 May 1985 No Ms J. Lloyd Research labour market experiences of unemployed Aboriginal People in urban areas Consultancy brief 8,983 23 March 1985 30 May 1985 No Ms E. Fesl Research effectiveness of training programs Consultancy brief 7,036 13 March 1985 30 June 1985 No NSW Department of Technical and Further Education Conduct 2 surveys of students enrolled in full-time TAFE pre-employment courses Assignment specification overseen by steering committee 47,000 28 March 1984 June 1985 $3,000 sample increased McNair Anderson and Associates Pty Ltd Conduct survey of employers receiving CRAFT Technical Education Rebate Assignment specification 44,350 12 June 1984 28 February 1985 1,150 for additional services Computer Power Pty Ltd Convert existing data base relating to Special Package of CRAFT Incentives Job specification 8,000 8 May 1985 Not completed Not completed G. Chalk Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Western Australia Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 11,427 1 March 1983 3 August 1984 (9 occasions) No G. Standen Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in South Australia Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 500 18 July 1983 22 July 1983 No Australian Institute of Management, Queensland Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 600 14 October 1983 1 day No Queensland Road Transport Industry Training Committee Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 150 11 October 1983 1 day No B. J. Arnison Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 100 13 October 1983 1 day No R. Dick Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 250 13 October 1983 1 day No G. C. Connor Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 1,460 16 February 1984 9 March 1984 (2 occasions) No P. Oakhill Assist the conduct of Trainer Training courses in Queensland Briefings, trainer's guides, session notes 2,200 25 October 1984 17 February 1985 (3 occasions) No Mr D. Cole Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 11,850 3 May 1983 24 January 1985 (2 occasions) No Mr L. Colechin Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 10,492.50 9 May 1983 30 August 1985 (2 occasions) No Mr S. W. Smith Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 5,568 9 May 1983 30 August 1985 No Mr A. Gregory Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 12,705 1 February 1984 31 January 1986 No Mr M. Williams Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 4,620 13 April 1984 17 May 1984 No Mr M. Reynolds Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 3,375 10 July 1984 1 July 1985 No Mr D. Mulholland Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 2,750 10 July 1984 20 September 1985 No Mr S. Holmes Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 4,375 13 August 1984 31 October 1985 No Mr P. Lusk Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 6,125 31 July 1984 29 November 1984 No Educational Technology Services Ms M. Bird Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 3,750 14 August 1984 30 September 1985 No Mr A. Probert Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 2,687.50 25 October 1984 20 September 1985 (2 occasions) No Mr B. Probert Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 7,674.30 25 October 1984 24 May 1985 No Mr M. Harvey Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 2,500 11 September 1984 13 December 1984 No Mr D. Walt Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 3,125 25 October 1984 25 May 1985 No Mr K. Earnshaw Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 5,812 9 January 1985 2 September 1985 No Mr R. L. White Write text for a Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 1,250 27 December 1984 1 June 1985 No Mr D. Taylor Write text for Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 3,187.50 1 March 1985 17 June No Mr R. Franklin Write text for Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 4,687.50 23 May 1985 1 January 1986 No Mr L. Milledge Write text for Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 8,125 23 May 1985 6 June 1985 No Ms J. Wilson Write text for Basic Trade Training Manual Editorial briefing, writing schedule, syllabus 25,750 23 May 1985 31 December 1985 No Hawthorn Institute of Education Assess effectiveness of accelerated apprentice training program Research specification 19,950 February 1985 June 1986 No Dr P. E. Steidl Investigate relationship between training and productivity Consultancy brief 47,604 April 1983 April 1986 No Mr J. Hanly Investigate private enterprise investment in training Consultancy brief 50,000 June 1983 June 1985 $10,000 South East Queensland Electricity Generating Board Pilot program to assess effectiveness of computer based training management Research Specifica- tion 19,975 March 1985 August 1985 No Coopers and Lybrand W. D. Scott The Class of '82-follow up study to career paths of tradesmen Consultancy brief 35,780 September 1983 March 1985 No Coopers and Lybrand W. D. Scott Analyse training requirements of jobs where exercise of inter-personal skills is a critical component in organisation's achievement Consultancy brief 59,200 March 1985 September 1985 No Mr P. Howes Investigate industry's needs for trainers Consultancy brief 22,800 March 1983 April 1984 No B. Summer and P. Malone Investigate apprentice selection by small business Consultancy brief 18,600 March 1983 February 1985 No Adam and Associates Prepare national directory of training research and researchers in Australia Consultancy brief 14,580 September 1984 December 1985 No Technisearch Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Develop supervisory behaviour questionnaire package Consultancy brief 36,000 September 1983 July 1985 No Mr K. J. Baker Research into sheltered workshop training and development opportunities for intellectually handicapped people Research specification 3,984 April 1984 December 1984 $1,016 Kinhill Stearns/National Institute of Labour Studies Study engineering technicians in Australia Stage I Consultancy brief 49,447 July 1983 February 1984 No Kinhill Stearns/National Institute of Labour Studies Study engineering technicians in Australia Stage II Consultancy brief 58,629 November 1984 November 1985 No Edusyst Pty Ltd Investigate computer based training in Australia Consultancy brief 89,000 February 1985 December 1985 No Victorian Commercial Teachers Association Design, develop and produce set of curriculum and source materials for small business education for use in Australian secondary schools Working plan 22,000 February 1985 November 1985 No Professor G. Meredith Produce index of industry-based small business computer packages Working plan 5,000 November 1984 June 1985 No F. Emery and Associates Produce national strategy for small business education and training by drafting action plan and managing conference Consultancy brief 15,125 1 April 1985 24 April 1985 No Dr P. E. Steidl Draft submission to Senate Inquiry into new technology and employment Consultancy brief 3,000 February 1985 May 1985 No Dr P. E. Steidl Identification of key job competencies for advanced office technology Consultancy brief 15,600 December 1984 August 1985 No Applied Economic Associates/BIS-Shrapnel Examination of specialised micro-electronic training centres Consultancy brief 44,800 December 1984 August 1985 No Mr C. A. Webb Consultations and report on implementation of pilot ITEC program Consultancy brief 8,400 August 1984 October 1984 No Ms G. Hart Preparation of keynote address for workshop on micro-electronics training needs Consultancy brief 3,000 July 1983 August 1983 No CEDA Pty Ltd Preparation of background material for development of strategy for the Standing Committee on Training for Advanced Technology Consultancy brief 6,000 April 1984 May 1984 No Ms J. Sarver Prepare background paper for workshop on micro-electronic training needs Consultancy brief 10,000 May 1983 August 1983 No Dr K. Tucker Prepare background paper for workshop on micro-electronics training needs Consultancy brief 9,770 May 1983 August 1983 No Dr L. Davies Prepare background paper for workshop on micro-electronics training needs Consultancy brief 11,023 May 1983 August 1983 No Dr L. G. Whitehouse Prepare background paper for workshop on micro-electronics training needs Consultancy brief 15,000 May 1983 August 1983 No Mr M. Hayes To prepare National Training Council submission to Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs Consultancy brief 8,138 April 1984 June 1984 No Mr St John Holt Discuss occupational health and safety issues with senior management Consultancy brief 400 5 December 1983 1 day No G. Graversen Research and write report on employee participation training Consultancy brief 15,000 November 1983 June 1984 No Dr T. Qvale Address seminar `Industrial Democracy and Employee Participation' Consultancy brief 6,882 August 1983 3 weeks No Dr R. G. Gregory Prepare paper on labour market projections for economic summit Consultancy brief 2,256 March 1983 12 days No Dr R. Gun Prepare important papers for Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Consultancy brief 2,500 17 May 1984 25 May 1984 No Mr J. Freeland Research and analysis work for Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs Consultancy brief 7,080 12 March 1984 31 August 1984 No R. Smith Provide research capacity to Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs Consultancy brief 1,599 2 April 1984 31 August 1984 No Professor J. Niland Professor R. Blandy Co-ordinate conference on alternatives to the present arbitration system for Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Consultancy brief 41,000 March 1984 October 1984 1,000 TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ Centre of Personal Encounter (COPE) Assertiveness training Consultancy brief 1 620.00 1 Mar 83 3 x 2 days nil Warrnambool Institute of Technology (3 consultants) Counselling Consultancy brief 200.00 11 Apr 83 4 hours nil Sally Langham Communication and motivation Consultancy brief 50.00 1 May 83 1 hour nil Raymond Lumley (NSW CYSS Projects Association-NCYSSPA) Marketing of project goods Consultancy brief 50.00 1 May 83 1 hour nil Marrickville Legal Centre (2 consultants) Legal issues for CYSS Consultancy brief 100.00 1 May 83 2 hours nil Jenny Matters Tenancy issues for CYSS Consultancy brief 50.00 1 May 83 1 hour nil Phil Smiles Advertising/marketing Yarramundi Consultancy brief 80.00 1 May 83 2 hours nil Debbie Whitmont Incorporation-Yarramundi Consultancy brief 80.00 1 May 83 3.5 hours nil Jerry Sutton Program development Consultancy brief 236.00 3 May 83 4 hours nil Gloria Chan, University of Queensland Motivation Consultancy brief 400.00 3 May 83 8 hours nil Dr John Damm, University of Queensland Stress management Consultancy brief 236.00 3 May 83 7 hours nil Dr Sam Beavers, University of Queensland Interview/counselling workshop Consultancy brief 236.00 3 May 83 6 hours nil Ms J. Howard Time management Consultancy brief 175.00 3 May 83 5 hours nil Ms Julie Berg CYSS participants and aggression Consultancy brief 100.00 12 May 83 2 hours nil Wendy Riches Communication counselling/assertive training Consultancy brief 153.60 12 May 83 2 x 3 hours nil Mr Bob Lulham-Tamworth Legal Aid Legal issues for local management committees Consultancy brief 60.00 14 may 83 2 hours nil Ian Adams Stress management Consultancy brief 90.00 18 May 83 0.5 day nil Mr S. Robertson-Local Community Services Association Submission writing Consultancy brief 160.00 22 May 83 2 x 2.5 hours nil Mr Garry Moore-Bondi CYSS Media workshop Consultancy brief 80.00 23 May 83 1 day nil Sulamain Ubada Ethnic youth participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 73.00 23 May 83 2.5 hours nil Nguyen Van Vuyong Ethnic youth participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 73.00 23 May 83 2.5 hours nil Sebastian La Spina Ethnic youth participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 15.00 23 may 83 1 day nil Dr Roman Jade Ethnic youth participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 30.00 23 May 83 1 day nil Henk Overberg Ethnic youth participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 73.00 23 May 83 half day nil Dr Jeff Langdon Submission writing Consultancy brief 60.00 30 May 83 1 day nil Patty Whitely Media Consultancy brief 60.00 30 May 83 1 day nil Trayna Ltd. Committee rules and dynamics Consultancy brief 540.00 1 June 83 3 x 3 hours nil Steve Biddulph Youth needs Consultancy brief 400.00 1 June 83 1 day nil Ron Snashall, Hobart Technical College Youth needs Consultancy brief 100.00 2 June 83 1 day nil Ian Adams Stress management Consultancy brief 246.00 3 June 83 1 day nil Mr Alan Knight Using the media Consultancy brief 250.00 4 June 83 1 day nil Dr Bob Brinkerhoff Evaluation Consultancy brief 200.00 20 July 83 1 day nil Social Biology Resources Unit Stress management Consultancy brief 90.00 17 Oct 83 2 x 1.5 hours nil Doug McMillan Induction training coordinator Consultancy brief 345.00 17 Oct 83 4 days nil Harry Van Moorst Evaluation/goods/statistics Consultancy brief 50.00 17 Oct 83 2 x 1.5 hours nil Damien Dickson Using the community Consultancy brief 90.00 24 Oct 83 2 x 1.5 hours nil John Dalla-Zuanna Interviewing CYSS participants Consultancy brief 45.00 24 Oct 83 2 x 2 hours nil Power Human Resource Development Centre Resources training Consultancy brief 200.00 31 Oct 83 1 day nil Gordon Dawber Motivation in unstructured environment Consultancy brief 250.00 10 Nov 83 2 days nil Geoff Forster State wide conference coordinator Consultancy brief 520.00 29 Nov 83 6 days nil Jerome Winston Evaluation Consultancy brief 250.00 30 Nov 83 2 days nil Coopers and Lybrand-Dr Tony Vickers-Willis Counselling Consultancy brief 428.00 30 Nov 83 2 days nil Iain Walker Funding/submission writing Consultancy brief 150.00 30 Nov 83 1 day nil Ann Poulis Public speaking/media Consultancy brief 150.00 1 Dec 83 1 day nil Ian Adams Stress management Consultancy brief 198.00 1 Dec 83 1 day nil Jerome Winstone Evaluation Consultancy brief 150.00 25 Jan 84 1 day nil Centre of Personal Encounter (COPE) Assertiveness skills training Consultancy brief 560.00 5 Mar 84 2 days nil Centre of Personal Encounter (COPE) Assertiveness skills training Consultancy brief 560.00 12 Mar 84 2 days nil John Creagh Role of CYSS project officer-panel discussion Consultancy brief 321.04 21 Mar 84 4 days nil Jo Hibbert Role of CYSS project officer-panel discussion Consultancy brief 163.34 21 Mar 84 2 days nil Janelle Blythe Role of CYSS project officer-panel discussion Consultancy brief 160.00 21 Mar 84 2 days nil David Annis-Brown Role of CYSS project officer-panel discussion Consultancy brief 224.28 21 Mar 84 21 hours nil Centre of Personal Encounter (COPE) Assertiveness skills training Consultancy brief 500.00 21 Mar 84 2 days nil Sheree McDonald Review and planning Consultancy brief 100.00 26 Mar 84 10 hours nil Tony Vickers-Willis Planning Consultancy brief 640.00 1 Apr 84 3 days nil Damien Cobley-Finch Role of project officer Consultancy brief 50.00 2 Apr 84 2 hours nil John Thain Listening skills Consultancy brief 420.00 3 Apr 84 3 hours nil Mr John Thain Listening skills Consultancy brief 420.00 4 Apr 84 3 hours nil Peter Henderson Publicity Consultancy brief 169.00 1 May 84 2.5 hours nil Paul Van Reyke Referral to other agencies-panel discussion Consultancy brief 38.23 1 May 84 3.5 hours nil Ms Ann Hughes Role of CYSS project officer Consultancy brief 368.00 15 May 84 4 x 0.5 days nil Truls Johnson Resource access Consultancy brief 102.00 16 May 84 1 day nil Deborah Tipper Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 210.36 22 May 84 3 days nil Ian Adams Motivation Consultancy brief 236.60 24 May 84 0.5 day nil Iain Walker Submission writing Consultancy brief 150.00 24 May 84 0.5 day nil Sedgwick Ltd. Insurance training Consultancy brief 3 000.00 24 May 84 13 days nil Tony Vickers-Willis Counselling Consultancy brief 350.00 25 May 84 0.5 day nil Iain Walker Cooperatives Consultancy brief 250.00 25 May 84 0.5 day nil Wally Dethlefs Youth and the law Consultancy brief 112.50 29 May 84 0.5 day nil Ann McMillan Youth and the law Consultancy brief 112.50 29 May 84 0.5 day nil Peter Rowe Group dynamics Consultancy brief 267.00 29 May 84 2 x 0.5 day nil Lois Imeson Stress management Consultancy brief 89.00 29 May 84 0.5 day nil Jerry Sutton Program development Consultancy brief 354.00 29 May 84 2 x 0.5 day nil Sister Clare Rooney Isolated women Consultancy brief 187.50 29 May 84 0.5 day nil Sister Rosemary Grundy Isolated women Consultancy brief 187.50 29 May 84 0.5 day nil Peter North Adolescent development Consultancy brief 267.00 29 May 84 2 x 0.5 day nil Tim Smird Communi- cations Consultancy brief 50.00 30 May 84 2 hours nil Greg Smith Involving the community in CYSS Consultancy brief 160.00 30 May 84 1 hour nil Dr Paul Finlayson Effects of long term unemployment Consultancy brief 50.00 30 May 84 2 hours nil Greg Henderson Programming and evaluation Consultancy brief 50.00 30 May 84 4 hours nil Coopers and Lybrand Services Coordination of CYSS project officers residential course Consultancy brief 4 300.00 30 May 84 16 days nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit Self and cooperative business ventures Consultancy brief 500.00 1 June 84 1 day nil College of Technical and Further Education Microcom- puting awareness Consultancy brief 750.00 1 June 84 1.5 days nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit Self and cooperative business ventures Consultancy brief 500.00 3 June 84 1 day nil College of Technical and Further Education Microcom- puting awareness Consultancy brief 750.00 3 June 84 1.5 days nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit Self and cooperative business ventures Consultancy brief 500.00 5 June 84 1 day nil College of Technical and Further Education Microcom- puting awareness Consultancy brief 750.00 5 June 84 1.5 days nil John Tremain Non-verbal communica- tion-drama Consultancy brief 52.50 5 June 84 1.5 days nil Robin Kramer Women's unemployment Consultancy brief 70.00 5 June 84 2 hours nil Sue Dyson and Wendy Gale CYSS and young women Consultancy brief 600.00 6 June 84 3 days nil Rina Truchanas Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 27.00 6 June 84 1 day nil George Dibley Motivation of participants/team building/rural outreach Consultancy brief 226.79 7 June 84 2 days nil Greg Henderson Community resourcing/stress/conference facilitation Consultancy brief 267.48 7 June 84 2 days nil Ken and Elizabeth Mellor Counselling Consultancy brief 500.00 7 June 84 1 day nil Maureen Crago Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 200.00 7 June 84 2 days nil Nadya Stani Migrants in CYSS Consultancy brief 30.00 12 June 84 1 day nil Linda Day Migrants in CYSS Consultancy brief 30.00 12 June 84 1 day nil David Burns Aboriginals and CYSS Consultancy brief 30.00 12 June 84 1 day nil Bruce Grant Homosexual law reform Consultancy brief 30.00 12 June 84 1 day nil John Duff and David Grey Sexism workshop Consultancy brief 30.00 12 June 84 1 day nil Julie Hornibrook Assertiveness training Consultancy brief 100.00 13 June 84 1 day nil Mr Doug Bolton, TAFE (Short vocational course unit) Use of micro- computers Consultancy brief 700.00 13 June 84 12 hours nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit (Kenyon) Small business operators Consultancy brief 500.00 13 June 84 7 hours nil John Freeland History of CYSS (a critical analysis) Consultancy brief 100.00 18 June 84 1.5 hours nil J. Hibbert, D. Annis-Brown, J. Blythe, J. Creagh Role of CYSS projects-panel discussion Consultancy brief 320.00 18 June 84 3.5 hours nil Daryl French Aboriginal participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 80.00 18 June 84 1.5 hours nil Damien Cobley-Finch Role of CYSS project officer Consultancy brief 50.00 18 June 84 1.5 hours nil Margo Thompson and Tony Harrison Communi- cations and relationships Consultancy brief 50.00 19 June 84 3 hours nil David Ross Regional economy Consultancy brief 25.00 19 June 84 1 day nil Chris Dodd Project liability Consultancy brief 50.00 19 June 84 1 day nil Mike Hamill Labour market and future prospects Consultancy brief 50.00 20 June 84 1.5 hours nil Mr Doug Bolton, TAFE (Short vocational course unit) Use of microcom- puters Consultancy brief 700.00 20 June 84 12 hours nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit (Kenyon) Small business operators Consultancy brief 500.00 20 June 84 7 hours nil Sue Dyson and Wendy Gale Women in CYSS-course evaluation Consultancy brief 600.00 21 June 84 3 days nil Mr Doug Bolton, TAFE (short vocational course unit) Use of microcom- puters Consultancy brief 700.00 27 June 84 12 hours nil Community Employment Initiatives Unit (Kenyon) Small business operators Consultancy brief 500.00 27 June 84 7 hours nil Liz Payne and Bruce Hamilton Sessional instructor training Consultancy brief 160.00 29 June 84 1 day nil C. H. Rehn Agencies Computer awareness Consultancy brief 800.00 2 July 84 8 x 1 hour nil C. H. Rehn Agencies Basic (introductory) computing skills Consultancy brief 800.00 5 July 84 8 hours nil Jacqui Mason Planning and evaluation Consultancy brief 95.35 1 Aug 84 2 x 2 hours nil Anne Holland Sexism Consultancy brief 74.25 1 Aug 84 2 x 2 hours nil Mark Rosevear Marketing CYSS Consultancy brief 90.78 1 Aug 84 2 hours nil Brian Hobbs Marketing CYSS Consultancy brief 80.24 1 Aug 84 2 hours nil TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ TABLE 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F) Consultant Purpose Training of CYSS Project Personnel in: Working plan Cost Commenced Duration Excess $ Colin Coxhead Outreach Consultancy brief 241.00 01 Aug 84 2.2 x 25 hr Nil Lynn McConnell Programming Consultancy brief 246.85 01 Aug 84 2 x 2 hrs Nil John Dalla Zuanna Funding Consultancy brief 307.85 01 Aug 84 2 x 2 hrs Nil Allan Nickel Law and Legal Rights Consultancy brief 8.60 01 Aug 84 2 x 2 hrs Nil Trisha Szirom Working with Women Consultancy brief 79.29 01 Aug 84 1 x 2 hr Nil Sebastian La Spina Migrants Consultancy brief 26.45 01 Aug 84 2 x 2 hrs Nil Harry Van Moorst CYSS in the Community Consultancy brief 106.80 02 Aug 84 2 hrs Nil Wendy Gale Working with Women Consultancy brief 180.24 02 Aug 84 2 x 2 hrs Nil Andrew Hale ``Participants and the Law'' Consultancy brief 252.00 27 Aug 84 4 hrs Nil C H Rhen Agencies Basic (Introductory) Computing Skills Consultancy brief 1,000.00 03 Sep 84 2 days Nil Ms Maureen Crago Facilitator at Project Officer Induction Training Conference Consultancy brief 600.00 10 Sep 84 5 days Nil Mr Greg Henderson Facilitator at Project Officer Induction Training Conference Consultancy brief 600.00 10 Sep 84 5 days Nil Ms Deborah Tipper Facilitator at Project Officer Induction Training Conference Consultancy brief 600.00 10 Sep 84 5 days Nil Megan Lee New South Wales CYSS Projects Association (NCYSSPA) Consultancy brief 60.00 11 Sep 84 1 day Nil David Annis-Brown The Australian Social Welfare Workers' Union (ASWWU) Consultancy brief 81.00 11 Sep 84 1 day Nil Ms Jo Hibbert Programming and Resourcing Consultancy brief 85.04 12 Sep 84 1 day Nil Ms Jo Hibbert Programming and Resourcing Consultancy brief 85.04 12 Sep 84 1 day Nil Mr Geoff Reany Programming and Resourcing Consultancy brief 82.55 12 Sep 84 1 day Nil Mr George Dibley Programming and Resourcing Consultancy brief 304.00 12 Sep 84 4 days Nil Mr Darryl French Aboriginal participation in CYSS Consultancy brief 70.00 13 Sep 84 1 day Nil Pat Weatherall Aboriginals-social factors influencing problems today Consultancy brief 220.00 01 Oct 84 1 day Nil Alice Silva Environment and social problems of Aborigines Consultancy brief 87.50 01 Oct 84 1 day Nil Jane Dixon Evaluation Consultancy brief 50.00 01 Oct 84 2.5 hrs Nil Ms Maureen Crago Evaluation of CYSS Project Officer Induction Training Format Consultancy brief 120.00 06 Oct 84 1 day Nil Mr Greg Henderson Evaluation of CYSS Project Officer Induction Training Format Consultancy brief 120.00 06 Oct 84 1 day Nil Ms Deborah Tipper Evaluation of CYSS Project Officer Induction Training Format Consultancy brief 120.00 06 Oct 84 1 day Nil Helen Connors Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 80.00 01 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Liz Sadler Welfare Rights Consultancy brief 20.00 01 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Tony Harris Communication Skills Consultancy brief 25.00 05 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Margo Thomson Communication Skills Consultancy brief 25.00 05 Nov 84 3 hours Nil John Collett Research and Evaluation Skills Consultancy brief 45.00 05 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Ian Jewell Workpools Consultancy brief 80.00 05 Nov 84 1 day Nil Wendy Saalfield Problems of local management committees Consultancy brief 75.00 05 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Grant Keen Problems of local management committees Consultancy brief 75.00 05 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Hastings Valley CYSS (George Dibley) Facilitation of CYSS local management committee conference Consultancy brief 300.00 08 Nov 84 3 days Nil Graham Laurence Employer obligations Consultancy brief 450.00 10 Nov 84 2 hours Nil John Duff Sexism in CYSS Consultancy brief 30.00 13 Nov 84 2 hours Nil Jane Unwin Sexual harrassment in CYSS Consultancy brief 60.00 13 Nov 84 2 hours Nil Megan Lee Psychological &Social aspects of unem- ployment Consultancy brief 50.00 13 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Caroline Perry Burnout and stress management Consultancy brief 20.00 13 Nov 84 1.5 hrs Nil Steve Allan Basic counselling for project officers Consultancy brief 20.00 13 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Rev, Clyde Dominish Social issues influencing unemployment Consultancy brief 20.00 13 Nov 84 .50 hrs Nil Mr Phil Smyles Using the Media Consultancy brief 250.00 13 Nov 84 3 hours Nil Di Gibson Communication Consultancy brief 20.00 14 Nov 84 1.5 hrs Nil Swami Satyanurtis Relaxation techniques Consultancy brief 20.00 14 Nov 84 1.5 hrs Nil Jules Van Dyke Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 80.00 14 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Vivanne Cunnigham-Smith Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 80.00 14 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Sally Bryant Welfare rights Consultancy brief 20.00 14 Nov 84 2 hrs Nil Con Theodoridis Stress management Consultancy brief 60.00 27 Nov 84 1.5 hours Nil Alan Grimsley Sex role awarenes Consultancy brief 70.00 27 Nov 84 1.75 hrs Nil John Freeland CYSS forum Consultancy brief 130.00 27 Nov 84 6 hours Nil Megan Lee CYSS forum Consultancy brief 80.00 27 Nov 84 6 hours Nil Karen Schmidt Racism Consultancy brief 60.00 27 Nov 84 2 hours Nil Marayann Frielich CYSS forum Consultancy brief 120.00 27 Nov 84 6 hours Nil Margaret Hall Women in CYSS Consultancy brief 32.40 27 Nov 84 3 hours Nil David Lindsay Racism Consultancy brief 70.00 27 Nov 84 4 hours Nil David Annis-Brown Union &Industrial Relations in CYSS Consultancy brief 50.00 27 Nov 84 2 hours Nil Julie Gregory Alcohol and Drug Abuse Consultancy brief 43.90 29 Nov 84 5 hours Nil Brian E Bavage North Coast Regional Conference Consultancy brief 60.00 01 Dec 84 3 hours Nil Western Australian Institute of Technology Life skills Consultancy brief 1,960.00 05 Dec 84 4 days Nil Dr Cecelia Winkleman Life skills, assertiviness, decision-making, time management Consultancy brief 653.00 05 Dec 84 4 days Nil Nancy Horbath Life skills, assertiviness, decision-making, time management Consultancy brief 653.00 05 Dec 84 4 days Nil Dr Ron Cacioppe Life skills, assertiviness, decision-making, time management Consultancy brief 653.00 05 Dec 84 4 days Nil Val Noga Objective setting and programme evaluation Consultancy brief 400.00 06 Dec 84 3 hrs Nil Val Noga Objective setting and programme evaluation Consultancy brief 400.00 07 Dec 84 3 hrs Nil Val Noga Objective setting and programme evaluation Consultancy brief 400.00 08 Dec 84 3 hrs Nil Ms Maureen Crago Facilitator at project officer induction training conference Consultancy brief 960.00 10 Dec 84 8 days Nil Mr Greg Henderson Facilitator at project officer induction training conference Consultancy brief 960.00 10 Dec 84 8 days Nil Ian Adams Motivation and participation Consultancy brief 414.00 13 Dec 84 5.5 hours Nil Sylvi Azzopardi Migrant women in industry Consultancy brief 60.00 14 Dec 84 1 hour Nil Dr Rick Mohr develop self evaluation exercise for CYSS LMC'S Consultancy brief 20,500.00 18 Dec 84 4 months Nil Dr Peter Steidl develop do it yourself program planning kit for CYSS LMSCS Consultancy brief 6,800.00 01 Feb 85 4 months Nil Steve Allen and Sherryl Spears communication Consultancy brief 40.00 01 Feb 85 4 hours Nil John Freeland strategies for working with long term unemployed youth Consultancy brief 100.00 01 Feb 85 6 hours Nil Rob Player education in CYSS Consultancy brief 100.00 01 Feb 85 7 hours Nil Glenroy CYSS-Sulva Crusca coordinating women in CYSS conference Consultancy brief 1,000.03 18 Feb 85 91 days Nil Footscray CYSS-Irene Verins coordinating women in CYSS conference Consultancy brief 987.36 18 Feb 85 91 days Nil Carlton CYSS-Jenny Dick coordinating women in CYSS conference Consultancy brief 1,114.88 18 Feb 85 91 days Nil Anne-Hilda Sainsbury writing skills session Consultancy brief 75.00 19 Feb 85 2.5 hours Nil Peggy Hogan writing skills session Consultancy brief 75.00 19 Feb 85 2.5 hours Nil Sylvi Azzopardi residential training conference-women workers; your rights Consultancy brief 60.00 19 Feb 85 3.5 hours Nil Glenda May organising skills, stress and time management Consultancy brief 150.00 19 Feb 85 2 x 2.5 hrs Nil Liz Burke, Employment Media Group using technical equipment Consultancy brief 120.00 19 Feb 85 2 x 2.5 hrs Nil Sue Dyson residential women's training conference Consultancy brief 105.00 19 Feb 85 3.5 hrs Nil Jill Allan assertiveness training Consultancy brief 210.00 20 Feb 85 2 x 3.5 hrs Nil Sue Dyson recognising and countering session Consultancy brief 100.00 20 Feb 85 2 x 2.5 hrs Nil Carolyn Poon women's conference-group leadership dynamics session Consultancy brief 210.00 20 Feb 85 7 hours Nil Paula Bain women's training conference-human relations program Consultancy brief 120.00 20 Feb 85 2.5 hours Nil Maria Barone residential womens training conference Consultancy brief 60.00 20 Feb 85 3 hours Nil Judith Jones women's training conference-human relations program Consultancy brief 120.00 20 Feb 85 2.5 hours Nil Steve Biddulph stress management Consultancy brief 360.00 25 Feb 85 3 hrs Nil Steve Biddulph stress management Consultancy brief 360.00 26 Feb 85 3 hrs Nil Steve Biddulph stress management Consultancy brief 360.00 27 Feb 85 3 hrs Nil Garry Moore job creation Consultancy brief 100.00 01 Mar 85 6.5 hrs Nil John Freeland the Kirby Review and the implications for the Region Consultancy brief 130.00 01 Mar 85 1 day Nil Kaye Davison preparation of teaching notes for ``oh what a lovely report'' Consultancy brief 550.00 01 Apr 85 5 days Nil Ms Kaye Davidson Development of advanced skills training for project officers Consultancy brief 2,687.20 06 Apr 85 22 days Nil John George (Sedgwick Limited) Insurance Consultancy brief 550.00 10 Apr 85 3 x 3 hrs Nil Morgan Blackrose rape counselling workshop Consultancy brief 100.00 11 Apr 85 5 hours Nil Sue Todd assertiveness for women Consultancy brief 50.00 15 Apr 85 1 day Nil Ms S Don Leonard unemployment: past &future directions (project officers) Consultancy brief 414.20 16 Apr 85 4 days Nil Mary Crooks unemployment: past &future directions (project officers) Consultancy brief 154.18 16 Apr 85 4 hours Nil Kybram CYSS-Amanda Hornbuckle conference coordinator Consultancy brief 4,237.66 16 Apr 85 29 days Nil Lalor CYSS-Meg Beamount conference coordinator Consultancy brief 2,354.26 16 Apr 85 31 days Nil Keithia Wilson conflict transactional analysis Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Elinor Drake people management, transactional analysis Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Noel Sklavos adolescent development Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Celia Roots creative problem solving, self esteem of long term unemployed Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Graham Bassett motivation Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Pat Golik negotiating skills neuro linguistic programming Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Neville Coventry assertiveness neuro-linguistic programming Consultancy brief 750.00 17 Apr 85 3.5 days Nil Harry Van Moorst unemployment: past &future directions (project officers) Consultancy brief 182.50 17 Apr 85 2 x .5 days Nil Doug White project officers residential training conference Consultancy brief 131.75 17 Apr 85 4 hours Nil Lynn McKenzie project officers residential training conference Consultancy brief 184.75 17 Apr 85 7.5 hours Nil Kaye Davidson planning &organisation of workshop for CYSS clerical ASSTS Consultancy brief 766.00 02 May 85 6 days Nil Altona CYSS-Jody Brown clerical assistants Consultancy brief 108.00 02 May 85 12 hours Nil Robyn Broadbent local management committee workshop-``working in C' `tees'' Consultancy brief 230.36 08 May 85 5 hours Nil Kaye Davidson organisation and planning Consultancy brief 2,875.60 15 May 85 13 days Nil Zenac Productions Pty Ltd production of video for project officers Consultancy brief 14,400.00 21 May 85 3 months Nil Zenac Productions Pty Ltd production of video for local management committees. Consultancy brief 11,900.00 21 May 85 3 months Nil Steve Biddulph development of induction kit Consultancy brief 11,500.00 21 May 85 3 months Nil Kris Foweraker empathy/counselling/dealing with conflict Consultancy brief 900.00 22 May 85 2.5 days Nil Ms Alison Beckett counselling skills workshop Consultancy brief 319.80 28 May 85 7 hours Nil Shirlee Smith working women's issues Consultancy brief 150.00 28 May 85 1 day Nil Paul Pholeros design and production of self evaluation kit. Consultancy brief 3,372.00 28 May 85 1 month Nil Council of Adult Education ``working in committees'' Consultancy brief 658.90 29 May 85 6 x 3 hrs Nil Robyn Broadbent ``working with committees'' Consultancy brief 682.00 04 Jun 85 3 x 3 hrs Nil Robyn Broadbent local management committee training-working in committees Consultancy brief 682.00 04 Jun 85 3 x 3 hrs Nil Hepper Marriott &Associates objective setting/management techniques. Consultancy brief 200.00 05 Jun 85 7 hours Nil Glenda May stress &Time Management Consultancy brief 280.00 13 Jun 85 1 day Nil Ian Adams time and stress management Consultancy brief 295.00 14 Jun 85 1 day Nil Kris Foweraker local management committee skills. Consultancy brief 600.00 14 Jun 85 2 days Nil Hugh Crago local management committee training, group decision making. Consultancy brief 340.00 14 Jun 85 2 days Nil Hepper Marriot &Associates objective setting/management techniques Consultancy brief 125.00 15 Jun 85 half day Nil Malcolm Marshall local management committee roles, job satisfaction, conflicts Consultancy brief 600.00 15 Jun 85 2 days Nil Kaye Davidson planning &developing local management committee conference Consultancy brief 1,910.20 06 Oct 85 15 days Nil (Question No. 1260) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Numerous consultants have been employed by my Department and agencies within my portfolio since March 1983. Details of these are provided. In respect of the Australian Survey Office, the responses to part (b) and (c) of the question are as follows: (b) Consultants and contract drafting services are used to provide a broad spectrum of survey services in the work program; filed surveys, aerial photography, photogrammetric plotting, drafting and digital terrain modelling. They are used in those areas where their services are cost-effective and/or on those occasions when in-house resources are not available. (c) All engagements are made under the provisions of the General Conditions of Contract A and the Special Conditions of Contract. A technical specification forms part of the survey instructions with the letter of engagement. The `working plan' supplied would vary considerably with the project and in most cases would comprise several plans e.g. a cover plan delineating the subject area and copies of existing plans covering the area and its abuttals. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ Alan Grant and Associates As per the Corporation's Land Disposal Program a Waterfront Reservation Study was deemed necessary in determining parcels of land for disposal Comprehensive brief supplied setting out criteria to be taken into account together with consultation 4 500 18 April- 20 June 1983 Nil Alan Grant and Associates To prepare for the Corporation the Stage 1 Open Space Strategy Plan As above 2 000 21 November 1983- 20 March 1984 Nil Alan Grant and Associates To prepare for the Corporation the Stage 2 Open Space Strategy Plan As above 3 000 10 April- 1 August 1984 Nil Alan Grant and Associates To prepare Design Control Plans for Joint Venture Sites at Springdale Heights Estate As above 2 000 12 May- 29 June 1983 Nil Alan Grant and Associates To undertake a Regional Open Space Study Brief supplied setting out objectives of study 2 980 12 April 1985- Not complete Centre for Leisure and Tourism Studies To prepare a Recreation Plan as part of the overall planning for the New City of Thurgoona Detailed brief supplied outlining the task required together with consultation 15 000 17 January 1984- 21 March 1985 Nil Gerner, Sanderson, Faggeter and Chessman To prepare Residential Land &Design controls for the Corporations West Wodonga Golf course Residential Estate As above 2 800 10 March- 23 June 1983 Nil Gerner, Sanderson, Faggeter and Chessman To prepare detail design Controls for the Corporations Dallinger Park Industrial Estate As above 2 000 10 March- 29 June 1983 $500 Core Consultants To undertake an assessment and report on retail and office floor space within the Albury/Wodonga cities Comprehensive brief supplied outlining the Corporation's requirements for the task 6 500 6 March 1985- Not Complete Not known at this stage. R. and J. Frankenberg To undertake an ecological survey of the Growth Area's fish, plant-life &billabongs Detailed brief setting out the goals to be achieved by the survey 1 500 17-22 June 1983 Nil R. and J. Frankenberg To undertake a plant identification fish and billabongs survey within Growth Centre area As above 3 500 18-26 June 1984 Nil LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Name of Consultant Purpose of Consultant Working plan Fee Paid/To be Paid Date of Commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ GHD Vogan Pty Ltd To prepare proposals for alternative uses for school sites in the Pearce St., Willow Park Wodonga area Comprehensive brief supplied setting out criteria to be taken into account when preparing proposals 4,000 22 November 1984-24 January 1985 Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey To prepare overall plans &forward planning of Water Reticulation &Sewerage disposal for the New City of Thurgoona Detailed &comprehensive brief setting out the criteria to be taken into account together with ongoing consultation 24,000 22 March-4 October 1983 Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey To undertake an investigation &report on the effects of effluent from a Wool Scouring Plant As above 2,118 30 May-23 June 1983 Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey To undertake a review of &report on the provision of sewerage in the Corporations proposed Satellite City of Baranduda As above 10,100 14 March 1984-10 March 1985 300 Gutteridge Haskins and Davey To investigate &report on the effect of proposed floodlighting of the Hume Country Golf Course driving range on residential areas in the immediate surrounds Brief supplied detailing requirements 1,200 6-30 April 1984 Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey To prepare Development Plans for the Corporations Residential Estates at Murray Brae &Federation Park, Wodonga As above 7,500 6 April 1984-Not Complete Not known at this stage. Ibis Corporate Services Pty Ltd To undertake a review &report on tertiary &other sectors of education in Albury/Wodonga region Detailed brief setting out the objectives of the review 16,000 29 September-15 December 1983 Nil H. Jones To research &prepare a historical record of the Thurgoona area Brief outlining Corporation's requirements 1,500 30 January-25 May 1985 Nil Kinhill Rofe Pty Ltd To undertake an investigation &report on the location of the Baranduda Western High Level Storage Water Supply Detailed brief setting out criteria to be taken into account in the course of the investigation 2,600 14 May-24 August 1984 191 Loder and Bayly To prepare detail plans for proposed commercial centre for the New City of Thurgoona Comprehensive &detailed brief setting out the criteria to be taken into account 21,330 8 June 1983-25 May 1984 Nil Loder and Bayly To conduct a strategic review and report on the East &West areas of Albury Detailed brief 4,000 6 April-22 October 1984 Nil Loder and Bayly To undertake a review &report on an earlier study conducted into the Lake Hume Recreation area Brief outlining objectives of the review 4,000 6 April-26 July 1984 Nil Loder and Bayly To prepare a Medium Density Planning Code for the New City of Thurgoona Brief outlining Corporation's requirements 6,400 8 February 1985-Not Completed Not known at this stage. Loder and Bayly To prepare an advisory report on Civic Design for the New City of Thurgoona As above 1,500 6 March-15 April 1984 Nil John and Thurley O'Connor To prepare a report on the historical &architectural worthiness of a building located on acquired land From brief supplied 1,505 30 August 1983-3 May 1985 Nil Pak-Poy Kneebone Pty Ltd To prepare &produce a traffic planning report for the Commercial Centre of the New City of Thurgoona Brief outlining Corporation's objectives 3,080 5 April-16 May 1983 87 Ian C. Robinson To undertake a survey of Residential Valuations in other Regional Centres of Victoria Comprehensive brief outlining purpose and objectives of survey 5 706 19-26 October 1984 Nil Street Ryan and Associates To research and prepare a paper on the Cheese Industry as part of the Corporation's ongoing market research. From brief supplied detailing the Corporations objectives 5 600 6 June-12 September 1983 Nil Street Ryan and Associates to research and prepare a paper on the water heating industry as part of the Corporation's ongoing market research. As above 5 600 6 June-12 September 1983 Nil Street Ryan and Associates To undertake a labour market study in the Albury-Wodonga area as part of the Corporation's marketing strategy for the growth centre-preliminary As above 14 800 17 November 1983-25 July 1984 Nil Street Ryan and Associates To conduct a labour market survey and report thereon as part of the Corporation's economic and social resources planning requirements. As above 15 150 21 June 1984-Not complete Not known at this stage Street Ryan and Associates to prepare a Social Indicators Manual and Program as part of the Corporation's ongoing Social Resources Planning Strategy As above 11 900 17 October 1984-Not complete Not known at this stage Willing and Partners To prepare a preliminary assessment of Stormwater Treatment as an aid to future engineering design Brief as supplied 832 4 March-20 April 1983 47 Willing and Partners to undertake a study on the treatment of stormwater flowing down the Eight Mile Creek Detailed and comprehensive brief 24 300 30 June 1983-8 February 1984 Nil Willing and Partners To undertake an update of Hydrological Data in relation to the Redhill Catchment Floodway `A' at Thurgoona Brief detailing Corporation's requirements 4 500 4 March-19 October 1983 Nil Willing and Partners To undertake an update of the Middle Creek Catchment model for the Baranduda Development area As above 1 500 30 January 1985-Not complete Not known at this stage Willing and Partners To undertake a study of the Felltimber Creek Flood Path in the Wodonga area As above 5 065 30 January 1985-Not complete Not known at this stage TRANSPORT AND STORAGE DIVISION Regency Park Community College To develop a prototype swivel base suitable for front bucket seat of Ford Falcons used in the Department's car-with-driver operations for Department of Veterans' Affairs. Comprehensive terms of reference were provided, detailing requirements and timing. 2 000 26 April-August 1985 Not known at this stage Mr W. Law, Training Officer, Linfox Transport Group Specialised training program for Transport Supervisors employed by the Division. An outline of a (2) day specialised course directed specifically to the passenger area; discussion between the consultant and the Transport and Storage Division at Regional and Central Office levels resulting in an acceptable model. 7 920 (Estimate) Course (1) Sydney 19-20 February 1985 Course (2) Canberra 11-12 June 1985 Course (3) Melbourne 1-20 October 1985 Nil Management Solutions Pty Ltd To develop subsidiary accounting systems (Phase 1) for an ADP accounts payable system for a new, ADP based, Accounting and Management Information System (AMIS). A systems specification was provided. 21 845 January-May 1985 $8 192 (due to an under- estimation of the complexity of the task by the consultant and expansion of Departmental requirements.) Management Solutions Pty Ltd To develop subsidiary accounting systems (Phase 2) for an accounts payable system for the Accounting and Management Information System (AMIS) A broad systems specification was provided. 8812 (Estimate) May-July 1985 Not known at this stage SPL (Australia) Pty Ltd To assist in staff training, defining journal entries and personalising input screens for the Accounting and Management Information System (AMIS) A systems implementation schedule which defines tasks and times was provided. 14,500 (Estimate) Part-time basis February-June 1985 Not known at this stage Ferris Norton Associates Pty Ltd To determine feasibility of using a computer system to assist with the furniture removals functions Comprehensive terms of reference were provided including a background paper on the functions of the area and a statement of activities and information requirements. 28,495 1 February-30 April 1983 Nil. Killeen Feasibilities To investigate and report on the transit insurance arrangements required of furniture removal contractors engaged in the removal and storage at Commonwealth expense of furniture and personal effects of Commonwealth public servants and Defence personnel, including the drafting of a standard insurance cover. A written brief encompassing terms of reference and background notes was provided. 1,000 21-28 June 1983 Nil. Michael Creenaune and Associates To develop and present a training course for Departmental assessors engaged in handling loss and damage claims arising from the removal and storage at Commonwealth expense of furniture and personal effects. Terms of reference and background material were provided at a meeting between the consultant and Departmental officers. 5,205.60 (includes travel and accommoda- tion) 2-11 October 1984 Nil. Killeen Feasibilities To address insurance industry concerns about the inclusion of, and intent of, clauses in the standard transit insurance policy for furniture removals contractors. Nature of concerns were addressed orally, both by telephone and at a meeting which included insurance industry representatives. 200 1 February 1985 (one day only) Nil. SPL (Australia) Pty Ltd As an ADP user consultant, to assist the Removals Services Branch in the Utilisation of the Accounting and Management Information System (AMIS). Terms of reference were provided, including user specifications and a program of tasks requiring resolution. 7,250 3 June 1985-current Not known at this stage. National Materials Handling Bureau To examine the feasibility of four-high stacking of containers used for the storage of furniture and household effects. Terms of reference were provided, including background notes on current procedures. 3,000 7 May 1985-current Not known at this stage. OVERSEAS PROPERTY OFFICE Tract Consultants Australia Pty Ltd Interior Design new Embassy Project Riyadh Saudi Arabia Clients Brief &architectural plans 93,710 November 1983-current . . Desmond Freeman and Associates Pty Ltd Interior Design Bangkok Embassy staff housing project Clients Brief &architectural plans 27,000 March 1985-current . . Project Planning and Management Pty Ltd Project Management and Co-ordination-Beijing Embassy complex Briefed by Dept of Housing and Construction Est. 79,000 March 1985-current . . Emery, Vincent and Associates Graphics-Beijing Embassy Complex Briefed by Department of Housing and Construction Est. 26,500 April 1985-current . . P.D.C.M.-Geyer Design Pty Ltd Interior Design-Beijing Embassy Complex Client Brief &architectural plans Est. 152,000 June 1985-current . . Flair Pty Ltd Interior Decorating-Apia official residence Client Brief and floor plans 3,000 January 1984- January 1985 . . Tokyo official residence January 1984-June 1985 . . Lester Firth Associates Pty Ltd Interior design-various projects Verbal brief, written contract 131,430 July 1984-current . . Nexus Design Pty Ltd Interior design-Riyadh Embassy project Written brief 51,000 April 1984-current . . B. Hogan Energy Management-Port Morseby Chancery Written brief 3,600 June 1983 . . Melbourne University Catering plans for Lagos maintenance team Written brief 1,000 December 1984 . . G. Harding Accoustic analysis-residential generator sets Written brief 4,000 March 1983 . . L. D. Elms and Associates Energy audit-Paris Chancery Written brief 18,000 October-November 1984 . . Tierney &Partners Earthquake design-Honiara Chancery Written brief 12,000 February 1984, January 1985 . . J. Wollaston Honiara Chancery project Written brief 12,000 June-November 1984 . . David Kilpatrick Pty Ltd Asbestos assessment-Manila Chancery Written brief 9,500 May 1985 . . UV Technology Water sterilisation-Seoul Written brief 8,300 May 1985 . . Coopers and Lybrant To review procedures and control systems for all aspects of financial programming within the Property Directorate and develop alternatives where necessary. Detailed specifications of work to be undertaken by the Consultant supplied at the time tenders were called. The Consultant reported regularly to a Steering Committee. 75,485 5 July 1984-30 May 1985 $25,485 spent on programming arising from the recommend- ations of this Consultant. This extension was agreed to by the Steering Committee Clarkplan Lower planning study A detailed brief as to the extent of the study was given. 7,000 1 April-7 June 1985 Nil Baillieu, Bowring, Marsh and McLennan Pty Ltd, Melbourne To conduct a review of the Application of the Common- wealth's self-insurance policy in Government Contracting and provide an Advisory Service to Commonwealth Departments and Authorities on an as required basis in insurance-related matters. The Consultancy services compare Phase One and Phase Two activities. Phase One activities include, inter alia, a review of the Contract Conditions for, and modes of application of the Commonwealth's insurance policy in the light of current Australian and overseas government and commercial practice, in the area of major projects, e.g. shipbuilding; and the provision of advice on insurance matters having wide applicability for other areas of government contracting for goods and services. Phase Two activities involve the provision of consulting services on insurance matters arising specifically in relation to the functions and operations of the Commonwealth departments within Australia and overseas. The service is provided on the basis of a retainer fee of $15,000 per annum, adjusted retrospect- ively according to the actual number of hours of consulting time used at $95.00 per hour. Each advice request for Phase Two tasks is funded by departments on a per service basis at a rate of $95.00 per hour. Phase One tasks are to have priority. Commitments for Phase Two tasks are not entered into without the prior approval of the Department of Local Government and Administ- rative Services. The service has been engaged for a period of three years from 14 June 1984 to 13 June 1987 inclusive. The Consultant was required by the terms of the Contract to complete Phase One consultancy services by 13 June 1985. It is now expected that the time for completion will be extended to 13 June 1986. Nil. Peat, Marwick Mitchell Services, Canberra Review of Commonwealth Disposals Procedures. Implementation of a Management Information System. A summary of the agreed Terms of Reference covered such aspects as: Review of existing procedures in Disposals Activities; Examination of responsibilities of various branches included; Consideration of appropriateness of Auctioneer's panels; Recommendations for changes to maximise revenue being obtained. 94,818 October 1983-September 1984 9,318 CSIRO, Division of Computing Research To review the tendering and evaluation procedures in respect of a major ADP acquisition by a Commonwealth Government department. The Consultant was required to make an independent assessment of the conduct of tendering and evaluation procedures adopted by the subject department. The consultant was given all relevant tenders, working papers and reports. 5,727 1 August- 6 September 1984 Nil. General and Personnel Services Branch Aspect Computing Pty Ltd To assist staff to carry out a pre-installation review of the Purchasing and Disposals Division CIS system. A statement of requirement was supplied with the Request for Tender 5,613 September-October 1984 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand (1) To review the trading and administrative activities of Commonwealth Accommoda- tion and Catering Services Ltd (CACS). Terms of reference were provided to the consultants, requiring them to report on and make recommendations with specific reference to appropriate management information and financial reporting systems, arrangements between the company and the Commonwealth, the nature of the company's future relationship with the Commonwealth, the Criteria that will govern the company's entry into new activities and a strategy for the company becoming so far as practicable a self sustaining operation. 29,164 September-December 1983 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand (2) An extension of the consultancy under (1) above. The conduct of a Study to formulate an effective EDP plan and to advise on the development of a framework for the construction of financial and operating manuals with respect to migrant centre operations. 14,425 May-June 1984 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand To review the form of incorporation of CACS Terms of reference required the consultant to report and make recommendation regarding an appropriate form of incorporation in terms of the ability of the company to compete openly in its field of operation and presentation of financial statements to the Minister and to Parliament in a form which satisfies required levels of accountability. 11,830 April-May 1985 Nil. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited Coopers and Lybrand Accounting and advisory services to CACS in respect of Canberra guest houses. Terms of reference provided. 20,000 August-December 1984 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand Preparation for CACS of a revised manual of accounting procedures for Canberra guest houses. Terms of reference provided. 4,000 February-March 1985 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand Preparation of request for tender for supply of computer hardware and software for/to CACS. . . 6,000 October 1984-January 1985 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand Design of computer models . . 21,060 October 1984-March 1985 Nil. Coopers and Lybrand Development and implementation of computer model. . . 7,200 April-May 1985 Nil. Staffing Branch C. Richards Assistance with structure and implementation of Residential Management Seminar (RMS) Specifications concerning the course subject matter and content. 13,690 November-December 1983 (17 days) Nil. C. Phillips Human Relations session at RMS As above 660 8 December 1983 (1 day only) Nil. MANAGEMENT DIVISION (4) G. Campbell Motivation and stress session at RMS As above 400 7 December 1983 (1 day only) Nil Professor D. Yerbury Industrial relations session at RMS As above 750 7 December 1983 (1 day only) Nil A. Jarman Corporate planning session at RMS As above 250 6 December 1983 (1 day only) Nil J. Martin Management techniques As above 510 23 August and 28 November 1983, Nil P. Lawrence Session on communication skills at Assistant Research Officer (ARO) course As above 100 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil D. Outram Conduct of writing workshops As above 180 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil D. Outram As above As above 180 March 1984 (1 day only) Nil Arthur Young Services Conduct of effective negotiation skills workshop As above 3,102 1-3 May 1984 Nil Effective Negotiation Services Negotiation skills training As above 3,868 June 1984 (3 days) Nil J. McMillan Administrative law seminar-residential management seminar As above 100 23 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil MANAGEMENT DIVISION (5) P. Lawrence Administrative law session-supervision course As above 200 10 April 1984 (1 day only) Nil C. Richards Session supervision course As above 600 12 April 1984 (1 day only) Nil D. Outram Conduct of writing workshops As above 705 June 1984 (3 days) Nil D. Outram Four writing courses As above 2,355 July 1984 (3 days) August 1984 (3 days) October 1984 (1 day only) November 1984 (3 days) Nil K. Caldwell Interpreter services for induction course As above 166 6-7 December 1984 Nil Hannah and Sands Communi- cations workshop As above 400 5-6 September 1984 Nil K. Sharp Introduction to automatic data processing (ADP) seminar As above 186 June 1984 Nil M. Greenaune Negotiating skills workshop As above 9,650 May 1985 (8 days) June 1985 (4 days) Nil B. Walsh Writing course As above 4,455 April 1985 (3 days) May 1985 (6 days) June 1985 (3 days) Nil MANAGEMENT DIVISION (6) HRM Consulting Residential management seminars As above 12,081 3-8 March 1985 19-24 May 1985 Nil HRM Consulting Personnel development strategy As above 3,208 7-9 November 1984 Nil HRM Consulting Personnel development officer's conference As above 3,605 4-8 February 1985 Nil Coopers and Lybrand Computing seminar As above 1,604 3 May 1985 (1 day only) Nil Management Branch-New South Wales Effective Negotiating Services Negotiating skills Session briefs 2,200 27-28 June 1983 Nil Dr R. Collins Organisation development Session briefs 325 6 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil J. McMillan Administrative law Session briefs 100 8 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil J. Martin Management techniques Session briefs 400 7 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil Professor D. Yerbury Industrial relations Session briefs 325 8 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil Stewart and Associates Interpersonal skills Session briefs 375 9 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil MANAGEMENT DIVISION (7) Lifestyles Stress Management Session briefs 150 9 February 1984 (1 day only) Nil M. Greenaune and Associates Negotiating Skills Designed to meet Department's requirements on the basis of consultant's evaluation 2 680 9-11 July 1984 Nil Hay and Associates Organisation Development Session briefs 425 26 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil Warwick, Hammill and Associates Time Management Session briefs 350 26 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil J. McMillan Administrative Law Session briefs 200 27 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil ADOM Pty Ltd Negotiation Skills Designed to meet Department's requirements on the basis of consultant's evaluation 400 28 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil J. Martin Practical Skills Session briefs 300 28 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil Sydney Human Performance Laboratory Interpersonal Skills Session briefs 170 29 November 1984 (1 day only) Nil MANAGEMENT DIVISION (8) M. Greenaune and Associates Negotiating Skills Designed to meet Department's requirements on the basis of consultant's evaluation 1 200 13-14 May 1985 Nil M. Greenaune and Associates Negotiating Skills Designed to meet Department's requirements on the basis of consultant's evaluation 1 200 16-17 May 1985 Nil Management Branch-Victoria David C. Capel and Associates Pty Ltd Ergonomic Audit of VDU installation Broad terms of reference including eye tests, rest breaks, radiation testing, physiological considerations 200 March 1984 Nil David C. Capel and Associates Pty Ltd Ergonomic Audit of Typing Pools Terms of reference including lighting, furniture, physical aspects, power outlets, footrests, RSI prevention 330 June-July 1984 Nil MANAGEMENT DIVISION (9) HRM Consulting Pty Ltd (Southern Division) Design and execute Residential Management Seminar, University of Melbourne 19-24 May 1985 Identify training needs of participants. Develop a relevant program. Brief and sub-contract external speakers as required. Costs for extra speakers not to exceed $1 500. Undertake role of Director of Studies and reside at St Hilda's College, 19-24 May 1985. Organise one-day follow-up seminar within 6 months. All literature provided to participants not subject to copyright by acknowledge- ments to be made. 5 100 April 1985-will terminate on completion of follow-up seminar Not known at this stage (no change to date) AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ ACT-March to June 1983 Private Surveyors Courtenay and Barratt... 6196-00 March-May Nil M. D. Downing and Associates... 2688-00 May-June Nil Ellison and Head Pty Ltd... 5376-00 March-April Nil J W Foxlee... 1680-00 March-April Nil M Hickey... 1542-00 May-June Nil R J Kell and Co... 1182-00 April-May Nil Alan J Mail and Associates... 1968-00 May-June Nil McKeon and England... 4547-00 March-April Nil McKimmie, Jamieson and Partners Pty Ltd... 4942-00 April-May Nil C Samundsett... 3624-00 May-June Nil Sowden and Lilley and Associates Pty Ltd... 4096-00 April-June Nil J R Vaughan, Burton and Associates Pty Ltd... 15472-00 Feb-June Nil Williams and McDonald... 1977-00 April-May Nil Drafting Contractors Capital Drafting Consultants Pty Ltd... 7343-00 March-June Nil Canagraphics Pty Ltd... 7061-00 March-June Nil Carto-Survey Drafting Services... 10615-00 March-June Nil GR and JK Devrell... 4007-00 March-June Nil Manuka Drafting Services... 1244-45 +861-18 March-June Nil McKimmie Jamieson and Partners Pty Ltd... 2395-17 March-June Nil Technical Services Aerometrix... 17390-00 July-May Nil Bennett and Francis Aerial Surveys... 5687-88 June Nil Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd... 5387-66 June Nil Kevron Aerial Surveys... 900-00 April Nil Ortho Mapping Services... 11932-75 Feb-May Nil Reprographics Pty Ltd... 3319-00 June Nil Stereometric Services... 5100-45 June Nil Airesearch Survey Pty Ltd... 166246-00 Jan-June Nil Regional Offices-March to June 1983 Private Surveyors N.S.W. Brown and Pluthero... 225-00 June Nil B Carr... 510-00 April Nil Caddy, Seal and Jarman... 929-00 June Nil B Wesler and Associates... 81-00 May Mike Fornell... 258-00 May 8-00 Griffin Drafting... 11625-00 April-June Nil G F Howe... 426-00 June Nil M Hickey... 300-00 June Nil Denis J I James... 600-00 June 20-00 L J Kane... 66-00 May Nil R R Langford and Associates... 14300-00 March-June 5180-00 L Lewington... 400-00 May 180-00 B Leigh-Cooper and Young... 869-00 May Nil P W Rygate and West... 1200-00 June 100-00 Bob Sliters... 792-00 May Nil M Wells... 4500-00 April Nil P J Williams... 413-00 May 1983 Nil R N Arndell... 7179-00 March-June 273-00 S.A. Alexander and Symons Pty Ltd... 4067-00 (1) May 67-00 B K S Surveys (A/Asia) Pty Ltd... 2220-00 (4) April-June Nil Mosel, Brown and Associates... 7692-00 (1) June Nil McGay Surveys... 4477-00 (1) May 77-00 Adelaide Survey Drafting... 594-00 (1) March Nil Caddsman... 6900-00 (3) March-May Nil Victoria Alexander and Symons... 310-00 (1) April-May 13-50 Cannon and Kluge... 260-00 (1) May-June Nil Fisher, Cleeland, Turner and Dwyer Pty Ltd... 1098-00 (6) May Nil McMahon, Abram and Associates... 326-00 (1) June Nil R C Page... 428-00 (1) April Nil Thomas and Partners... 750-00 (1) June Nil A Van Pty Ltd... 970-00 (2) June Nil Tasmania D M McAvoy... 23275-00 (2) Jan-June 5975-00 J B Medbury Pty Ltd... 367-00 (2) March-April Nil Peacock, Darcey and Anderson... 2404-00 (1) Feb-June 326-00 G J Walkem and Co... 1040-00 (1) April-June Nil N.T. Brazier and Motti*... 29100-00 March-May Nil P R Coppin and Associates*... 18605-00 April-June Nil Fisher, Cleeland, Turner and Dwyer Pty Ltd... 14174-00 March-June Nil Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey... 37400-00 March-June Nil Earl James and Associates*... 8000-00 May-June Nil Markey, Campbell and Thomson*... 63550-00 May-July Nil Maguire, Lowe and McKellar*... 103483-00 April-August Nil Qasco Northern Surveys*... 46600-00 May-June Nil (``*'' funded in part/whole by Aust. National) W.A. Cartographic and Survey Drawing Services... 11601-00 Feb-June Nil Geomax... 4432-00 May-April Nil K Maguire... 425-00 May Nil McKimmie, Jamieson and Partners Pty Ltd... 650-00 May-June Nil AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE Name of Consultant Fee paid/ to be paid Date of commencement and cessation of services Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ R. Waller and Associates... 390.00 June Nil A. R. Williams and Associates... 6315.00 June Nil QLD Bennett and Francis Pty Ltd... 155.00 (1) April Nil Boddy Axtell... 367.00 (3) June 22.69 Brazier and Motti Pty Ltd... 4536.00 (1) June Nil W. S. Comiskey... 975.00 (1) June Nil C. Edmonston and Associates... 960.00 (1) June Nil Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd... 3653.44 (2) June 536.00 Jones, Flint and Pike Pty Ltd... 20 737.11 (3) April-June 2392.61 Mapping and Hyrographic Surveys... 9850.00 (1) June Nil J. MacIsaacs and Associates... 3770.00 (1) June Nil Pike, Mirls McKnoulty, Clarke Pty Ltd... 14 660.29 (1) June 3060.29 Rowlands Survey Pty Ltd... 12 780.00 (1) June 3280.76 Skilled Engineering (Contract Labour) Pty Ltd... 1491.00 (3) April-June Nil Ullman and Nolan Pty Ltd... 2259.00 (1) June 559.54 E. Westlake and Associates... 1600.00 (1) June Nil Dennis and O'Neil... 1500.00 (1) June Nil ACT-JULY 1983 to 1984 Private Surveyors Clark and Di Pauli... 18 573.00 (5) Nov-June Nil Courtney and Barrett... 19 259.20 (6) Aug-June Nil Blecharz and Shaw (Downing)... 16 037.00 (5) Sept-June Nil Ellison and Head... 12 222.00 (5) Aug-June Nil M. Hickey... 13 403.00 (4) Oct-June Nil R. J. Kell... 32 116.73 (7) Aug-June Nil Alan J. Mail... 26 444.14 (6) Aug-June Nil McKimmie and Jamieson... 27 008.00 (6) Nov-June Nil McKean and England... 9469.50 (3) July-May Nil J. Rae... 28 338.39 (7) Aug-June Nil C. Samundset... 17 388.50 (6) Oct-June Nil Sowden and Wells... 29 877.37 (7) Aug-June Nil J. R. Vaughan and Burton... 45 411.00 (9) July-June Nil Williams and McDonald... 21 900.00 (4)Feb-June Nil P. W. Williams... 8500.00 (2) Feb-June Nil P. J. Shaw... 3486.00 (1) June Nil McLure... 3200.00 (1) June Nil Drafting Contractors T. C. Drafting... 1901.00 (4) July-June Nil K. M. Peronnel Pty Ltd... 2583.93 (5) Nov-June Nil Designex... 7984.22 (13) Oct-June Nil L. P. Fraser Pty Ltd... 4899.52 (8) Nov-June Nil Cangraphics Pty Ltd... 4485.89 (11) July-Oct Nil G. R. and J. K. Deverell... 6218.49 (14) July-June Nil Capital Drafting Consultants Pty Ltd... 5704.37 (5) July-Feb Nil McKimmie, Jamieson and Partners Pty Ltd... 5891.50 (11) July-June Nil Carto-Survey Drafting Service... 19 718.20 (34) July-June Nil Manuka Drafting Service... 5293.16 (19) July-June Nil Nymphs Nominees Pty Ltd... 19 079.25 (9) Nov-June Nil Technican International (NSW) Pty Ltd... 2300.52 (3) Jan-June Nil Technical Services Australian Aerial Mapping... 4621.00 (1) Sept Nil Geo Spectrum (Aust.)... 7995.10 (1) Sept Nil Southern Aerial Surveys... 5846.00 (2) March-May Nil Aerometrex... 1650.00 (1) April Nil Kevron Aerial Surveys... 1745.00 (2) March-June Nil Northern Air Surveys... 542.50 (1) April Nil Stereometric Services... 2970.00 (1) April Nil Airesearch Surveys... 411.40 (1) Feb Nil Survey and Mapping Group... 3650.00 (1) May Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey... 950.00 (1) June Nil REGIONAL OFFICERS-JULY 1983 TO JUNE 1984 NSW Private Surveyors and Contractors Ayres and Britton... 1423.00 (4) July 65.50 Bernie King... 635.00 (1) April 135.00 M. J. Vaughan... 2020.75 (4) July-Aug Nil C. Rodgers... 500.00 (1) Feb Nil G. F. Howe (PC)... 5300.00 (1) March Nil Haggerty and Walker (PC)... 275.00 (1) Jan Nil D. James (PC)... 1220.00 (3) July-April Nil Land and Marine Consultants Pty Ltd (PC)... 30 200.00 (1) July 6700.00 Laurie, Montgomery and Pettit (PC)... 989.11 (1) Aug Nil R. Langford and Associates (PC)... 4072.00 (4) Aug-April 2092.00 L. Lewington (PC)... 480.00 (1) March Nil R. C. McKenzieand Co. (PC)... 950.00 (3) Feb 60.40 Allen Price and Associates (PC)... 8481.00 (2) Feb-June Nil T. J. Stewart and Co. (PC)... 200.00 (1) Aug Nil Scott Crisp Cashmere and Partners Pty Ltd (PC)... 527.00 (1) March Nil M. Shaw (PC)... 230.00 (1) Nov Nil Alan A. Shepherd (PC)... 3940.00 (1) Sept Nil Jolly, Sharp J. Skehan Pty Ltd (PC)... 180.00 (1) April Nil P. W. Rygate and West (PC)... 10 550.00 (2) April-June Nil Neville J. Norwood (PC)... 1480.44 (1) April Nil Godfrey Bliss (PC)... 600.00 (1) April Nil R. N. Arndell (PC)... 2500.00 (1) April-June Nil A. Stephen and Raymond (PC)... 1970.00 (1) April-June 50.11 Faulks Polkinghorne- Budd (PC)... 1085.00 (1) April Nil Southern Aerial Surveys (PC)... 1340.00 (1) May Nil Campbell and Anderson Pty Ltd (PC)... 4320.00 (1) Feb Nil Caddy, Searl and Jarman (PC)... 1,210-00 (1) Feb Nil Bullock, Walters and Associates (PC)... 3,500-00 (1) Feb Nil Blyth Hadlow and Associates (PC)... 165-00 (1) July Nil Brown and Pluthero Pty Ltd. (PC)... 574-00 (2) July Nil BHP Engineering (PC)... 16,266-00 (2) Feb-June Nil Wallis and Moore Pty Ltd. (PC)... 2,808-00 (2) April-June Nil tGriffin Drafting (PC)... 3,003-00 (3) Aug-Sept Nil BSP Technical Services Group (PC)... 18,627-60 (4) Jan-June Nil S.A. BKS Surveys (A/Asia) Pty Ltd.... 13,212-00 (10) July-April Nil Plantec Drafting Services Pty Ltd.... 7,429-00 (17) Aug-June Nil Alidade Survey Drafting Services Pty Ltd.... 1,682-00 (5) Nov-May Nil Caddsman Pty Ltd.... 3,552-00 (2) July-June 2-00 MIP Drafting Services... 500-00 (1) March Nil Engineering Survey &Drafting Services Pty Ltd.... 472-00 (1) April Nil South Australian Department of Lands... 860-00 (2) Aug-Nov Nil Photec Air Surveys Pty Ltd.... 4,440-00 (2) July-Feb 75-00 M L Frankland... 496-00 (1) Oct-June 58-00 Ngaanyatjarra Air... 241-00 (1) Oct Nil D and K Swan... 9,900-00 (1) Feb-June Nil A R Fyfe... 5,917-00 (1) May-June 917-00 Victoria B W Essler and Associates... 2,820-00 (3) July-May Nil Fisher, Cleeland, Turner... 426-00 (1) July Nil Stereometric Services... 520-00 (1) Sept-Oct Nil Crowther and Saddler... 970-00 (1) Nov-Dec Nil G Shaw... 381-00 (1) Nov-Dec Nil D L McQueen... 6,670-00 (2) March-June Nil Armstrong Design and Technical Services... 10,242-00 (4) March-June 282-00 P W Guy and Ferguson... 1,250-00 (1) March-June Nil Fisher and Dowell... 658-00 (1) March 28-00 Thomson and Singleton Mildura... 800-00 (1) April Nil Rod Bright and Associates... 484-00 (1) June 35-00 Tasmania Campbell, Smith, Phelps and Pedley... 6,613-00 (2) July-Aug, Jan-Feb Nil Peacock, Darcey and Anderson... 24,025-20 (5) July-June 250-00 G J Walkem... 1,372-00 (2) Aug-April Nil K Mitchell and Associates... 1,764-00 (3) Aug-May Nil M Hurburgh... 1,596-00 (1) Aug-Sept Nil Cromer and Cerrutty... 4,742-00 (1) Aug-Oct 42-00 E B Valentine... 8,440-0 (1) Sept-Feb 55-00 L McKenzie... 2,231-00 (2) Sept-June Nil C Cohen and Associates... 3,843-00 (2) Oct-Dec 34-00 H A Mackay... 634-00 (1) Nov Nil G J Walker... 318-00 (1) Oct-Jan Nil J Roberton... 884-00 (2) Nov Nil J Medbury Pty Ltd.... 4,055-00 (1) March-June 55-00 N.T. Brazier and Motti... 37,395-00 (3) Oct-June Nil G Bell... 500-00 (1) July-Aug Nil Chrisp DeVries... 60,571-00 (1) Sept Nil P R Coppin... 7,272-00 (1) Aug-Sept Nil CSDS... 180-00 (1) July-Aug Nil Fisher, Cleeland, Turner and Dwyer... 66,942-50 (4) July-June Nil Geo-Spectrum... 140,441-00 (1) July-Sept Nil Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey... 181,532-00 (19) July-June Nil EBM James... 22,365-22 (5) Sept-June Nil Markey, Campbell and Thomson... 186,149-00 (13) Aug-June Nil Maguire and McKellar... 247,996-00 (7) Oct-June Nil McKimmie, Jamieson and Partners... 165,399-50 (16) Oct-June Nil QASCO Northern Surveys... 179,687-00 (8) Sept-June Nil W.A. Cartographic and Survey Drafting Services (PC)... 21,714-00 (1) July Nil G A and J E Roe (PC)... 37,649-00 (1) Sept-June Nil J Towie (PC)... 8,678-00 (1) Aug-Oct Nil A R Williams (PC)... 993-00 (1) June-Aug Nil G Goith (PC)... 1,167-00 (1) July-Aug Nil K M Edwards (PC)... 7,636-00 (1) July-Sept Nil Zuideveld Bennett (PC)... 12,307-00 (1) July Nil A King and Co (PC)... 7,918-00 (1) Sept-Oct Nil Hillie and Thompson (PC)... 8,129-00 (1) Aug-Oct Nil P Heyhoe and Associates (PC)... 8,348-00 (1) Aug-Oct Nil McKimmie Jamieson (PC)... 16,775-00 (1) Oct-June Nil W F Johnson (PC)... 3,100-00 (1) Sept-June Nil R J Rule (PC)... 507-00 (1) Sept-Oct Nil B R Kingston and Associates (PC)... 423-00 (1) Dec-Feb Nil Byrne Surveys (PC)... 1,587-00 (1) Dec-Feb Nil K H Piper (PC)... 300-00 (1) May-June Nil Norman and Sauzier (PC)... 3,636-00 (1) May-June Nil Ranieri Bateman and Ingram (PC)... 4,916-00 (1) May-June Nil Bennetti Groghan and Associates (PC)... 950-00 (1) May Nil McGay Surveys (PC)... 500-00 (1) April-June Nil M L Hawker (PC)... 9,000-00 (1) May-July Nil Qld. R G Bell and Associates... 2,207-50 (1) Feb Nil J G Beresford... 3,450-00 (2) Feb-May Nil Bennett and Francis... 9,961-38 (20) June, July, Aug Nil Boddy Axtell and Wood... 11,997.79 (24) June 83-June 84 Nil Capricorn Survey Consultants... 3,652.00 (5) Aug.-Dec. Nil W. S. Comiskey... 10,055.00 (1) Jan. Nil C. Edmondson and Associates... 3,683.50 (7) July-Dec. Nil Gutteridge Haskins and Davey... 11,699.00 (8) July-Feb. Nil Hillhouse and Hillhouse... 2,465.00 (2) Nov.-March Nil Heibron, Waterson, Graze and Associates... 180.00 (1) Sept. Nil M. J. Hedges and Associates... 19,250.00 (3) Sept.-Feb. Nil AJ and MK Hoffman... 4,620.00 (2) Nov.-Feb. Nil Peter J. Jardine and Associaties... 735.00 (2) July-Nov. Nil Jones, Flint and Pike... 22,134.16 (18) July-June Nil Keilar, Fox and McGhie... 2,198.30 (1) Sept. Nil Lincoln Partners... 8,660.00 (6) Aug.-March Nil Mapgraphics... 10,439.50 (2) Feb.-March Nil D. J. Matheson Pty Ltd.... 620.00 (1) Feb. Nil Department of Mapping and Surveys (Qld)... 10,000.00 (1) Nov. Nil Mapping and Hydrographic Surveys... 9,950.00 (1) Nov. Nil J. Mac Isaacs and Associates... 4,175.00 (3) Dec.-May Nil Charles O'Neill... 1,470.00 (5) Sept.-April Nil Parkinson and Parkinson Pty Ltd... 3,315.00 (5) Dec.-June Nil Pike and Partners... 61,940.00 (2) Dec.-Feb. Nil Rowlands Surveys... 9,754.67 (5) July-May Nil F. T. Taylor and Associates... 4,976.46 (4) Dec. Nil R. C. Todd and Associates... 4,500.00 (1) Jan. Nil J. F. and P. Gladstone... 2,300.00 (1) March Nil McLennan Gray and Associates... 3,000.00 (1) March Nil Denis O'Neil Pty Ltd.... 3,120.00 (2) March-May Nil James A. Harris and Associates... 1,850.00 (1) March Nil Jolly, Sharp and Skehan... 9,616.25 (1) March Nil Pike, Mirls, McKnoulty, Clarke... 11,000.00 (1) Feb. Nil R. Legge... 779.02 (1) May Nil J. F. and P. Consulting Surveyors... 6,800.00 (1) May Nil ACT-July 1984 to June 1985 Private Surveyors Kell (PC)... 15,310.00 (4) July-June Nil Alan Mail (PC)... 14,298.00 (4) July-June Nil Courtenay and Barrett (PC)... 16,182.00 (4) July-June Nil Clarke and Di Pauli (PC)... 19,664.00 (4) July-June Nil Downing (PC)... 10,850.00 (4) July-June Nil Ellison and Head (PC)... 12,017.00 (3) July-June Nil Hickey (PC)... 15,400.00 (3) July-June Nil McKeon (PC)... 10,317.00 (2) July-June Nil McKeon and English (PC)... 8,300.00 (2) July-June Nil McKimmie and Jamieson (PC)... 13,664.00 (4) July-June Nil Samundrett (PC)... 9,304.50 (2) July-June Nil Sawden and Lilley (PC)... 17,225.00 (5) July-June Nil Vaughen and Burton (PC)... 2,5041.00 (4) July-June Nil Williams and McDonald (PC)... 2,100.00 (4) July-June Nil P. Williams (PC)... 10,900.00 (3) July-June Nil Shaw (PC)... 10,562.80 (4) July-June Nil Rae (PC)... 15,117.00 (4) July-June Nil Private Draftsman The Caddsman Pty Ltd (PC)... 8,495.00 Sept.-March Nil Nymphs Nominees Pty Ltd (PC)... 9,087.81 July-June Nil L. P. Fraser Pty Ltd (PC)... 2,491.32 Aug.-Nov. Nil Capital Drafting Consultants Pty Ltd (PC)... 4,915.50 Sept.-June Nil Designex (PC)... 13,162.67 July-June Nil G. R. and J. K. Deverell (PC)... 8,348.43 Aug.-June Nil McKimmie Jamieson and Partners Pty Ltd. (PC)... 3,858.60 July-Feb. Nil Carto Survey Drafting Service (PC)... 14,645.27 July-June Nil Manuka Drafting Service (PC)... 4,855.99 Aug.-May Nil QASCO (PC)... 6,670.00 (4) July-April Nil Peter Livings and Associates (PC)... 6,725.00 (1) Aug.-Sept. Nil Associated Surveys (Aust.) Pty Ltd. (PC)... 2,300.00 (1) Aug. Nil BKS Surveys... 18,795.00 (2) Oct. Nil Alpha Aerial Surveys... 19,950.00 (2) Oct. Nil Australasian Mapping Services... 24,650.35 (2) Aug.-Feb. Nil Kevron Aerial Surveys Pty Ltd.... 225,032.26 (1) July-Dec. Nil Pike and Partners... 30,369.00 (1) March-April Nil AAM... 15,760.00 (2) Nov.-Dec. Nil Southern Mapping Group... 1,640.00 (1) Oct. Nil Southern Aerial Survey... 12,350.00 (1) Oct.-Sept. Nil GHD... 5,350.00 (2) Aug.-Oct. Nil Photec... 9,960.00 (2) Sept.-Nov. Nil Stereometric... 7,860.00 (3) Sept.-Nov. Nil Aerometrix... 1,550.00 (1) Oct. Nil Airesearch Mapping Pty Ltd. (PC)... 85,083.09 (2) Jan.-June Nil Northern Air Surveys... 18,410.66 (2) Oct.-Dec. Nil Schlenker Mapping... 12,060.00 (1) March Nil Regional Offices-July 1984 to June 1985 N.S.W. R. Langford and Associates (PC)... 16,600.00 (3) Nov.-May Nil John C. Stevenson (PC)... 3,361.00 (2) Oct.-Feb.-May-June Nil MacDonald Wagner Pty Ltd. (PC)... 48,000.00 (1) Nov.-June Nil Leigh-Cooper and Young Pty Ltd. (PC)... 6,374.75 (5) July-June Nil F. M. Mason and Co. (PC)... 280.00 (1) Oct.-May Nil Yates and Watkinson (PC)... 12,675.00 (2) July-May Nil Denis James (PC)... 3,510.00 (6) July-June Nil Palmer Bruyn and Warpole (PC)... 5,000.00 (1) Jan.-March Nil Hill and Blume (PC)... 175.00 (1) Jan. Nil Alfred Stephen and Raymond (PC)... 482.38 (2) Jan.-June Nil Louis A. Lewingston (PC)... 490.00 (2) Feb.-May Nil Scott Crisp Cashmere (PC)... 230.00 (1) Feb.-March Nil Buckley and Associates (PC)... 629.00 (3) Feb.-April Nil Campbell and Anderson Pty Ltd (PC)... 210.00 (1) Feb. Nil Rennie and Partners (PC)... 180.00 (1) Feb. Nil Bull Ferranti and Collier (PC)... 1,300.00 (1) March-May Nil R. W. Veitch and B. L. Mitsch (PC)... 846.00 (2) March-June Nil P. J. Williams and Associates (PC)... 525.00 (1) March-April Nil B. W. Esler and Associates (PC)... 400 (1) March-April Nil Mapping and Hydrographics (PC)... 12,825.00 (3) April-June Nil Dovers and Associates (PC)... 1,278.00 (1) April-May Nil Caddy Searl and Jarman (PC)... 230.00 (1) April-May Nil Godfrey Bliss and Co. (PC)... 2,650.00 (3) May-June Nil Haggerty and Walker (PC)... 1,687.00 (1) May-June Nil M. Wells (PC)... 1,805.50 (1) May-June 305.50 Blyth Hadlow and Associates (PC)... 2,500.00 (1) May-June Nil R. S. Smith (PC)... 400.00 (2) June Nil R. C. McKenzie and Co. (PC)... 2,664.60 (1) June Nil Southern Aerial Surveys (PC)... 6,775.00 (1) Jan.-April Nil B.S.P. Tech. Services Group (PC)... 2,120.00 (2) Aug.-Nov. Nil B.H.P. Engineering (PC)... 13,296 (6) Aug. June Nil Kervis Pty Ltd... 10,267 (6) Nov.-June Nil R. Stahl and Associates... 732.00 (1) April-June 232.00 Stein Woolley and Co.... 638.00 (1) April-June 138.00 Ayres and Britton Pty Ltd... 2,545 (3) Feb.-June 45 Col. Rodgers... 481.00 (1) Dec.-June Nil M. J. Vaughan and Co.... 480.00 (1) Dec.-May Nil Bernie King... 1,540.50 (2) Oct.-March 40.50 S.A. B.S.P. (A/Asia)... 2,540 (2) Dec.-Jan. 16.00 B.K.S. Surveys (A/Asia) Pty Ltd... 5,157.00 (8) July-March Nil Plantec Drafting Services Pty Ltd... 7,200.00 (7) July-March Nil Adelaide Survey Drafting Services... 6,312.00 (2) Aug.-March Nil M.I.P. Drafting Services... 1,200.00 (3) Aug.-Feb. Nil Engineering Survey Drafting Services... 441.00 (1) Feb.-May Nil Government Printing Division... 997.00 (2) March-May Nil D. and K. Swan... 2,200.00 (1) Feb Nil The Caddsman... 4,921.00 (1) March-June 1,070.00 Napier Air Services... 100.00 (1) May Nil M. L. Frankland... 715.00 (1) March Nil STH Coast Air Centre Pty Ltd... 447.00 (1) Feb-March 207.00 Murray Frankland... 582.00 (1) Aug.-June Nil Department of Lands... 1,180.00 (2) July-March Nil Photec Air Surveys Pty Ltd... 9,001.00 (3) Aug.-May 713.00 Victoria Armstrong and Design... 5,040.00 (1) July-Aug. Nil Taurus Personnel... 2,673.00 (1) July-Sept. Nil Armstrong... 5,945.00 (1) July-Sept. Nil Heron, Dell and Associates... 630.00 (2) Aug.-Oct. 30.00 More and Ryan Surveyors... 1,640.00 (2) Aug.-Sept. Nil Adshead and McQuie... 850.00 (1) Dec.-Feb. Nil Fisher Cleeland, Turner and Dwyer... 1,980.00 (3) Feb-May Nil Crowther and Sadler... 100.00 (1) May-June Nil Tasmania Cromer and Cerutty Pty Ltd... 5,813.00 (3) July-Aug. Nil G. J. Walkern and Co. Pty Ltd... 1,911.00 (3) July-Sept., March-June Nil Crigg, Leary and Co. Pty Ltd... 3,537.00 (3) July-Sept., June Nil D. J. McAvoy... 5,341.00 (1) Oct.-March 91.00 Peacock Darcy and Anderson Pty Ltd... 14,599.00 (6) July-June Nil E. B. Valentine... 993.00 (1) Nov. Nil T. Woolford... 2,417.00 (1) Sept. Nov. Nil J. B. Medbury... 8,752.00 (1) Dec.-June Nil Cohen and Associates Pty Ltd... 6,799 (2) Feb.-March, June Nil Leslter, Franks and Co. Pty Ltd... 4,934.00 (1) March-April Nil H. A. Mackay and Associates Pty Ltd... 6,061.00 (1) March-June Nil Campbell, Smith, Phelps, Pedley Pty Ltd... 900.00 (1) March-June Nil James S. Gibson Pty Ltd... 1,658.00 (1) June Nil M. Hurburgh... 8,570.00 (1) June 570.00 K. R. Mitchell and Associates Pty Ltd... 1,206.00 (1) June Nil Brooks, Lark and Co.... 445.00 (1) June Nil N.T. QASCO Northern Surveys... 21,498.20 (2) Feb.-April Nil Brazier and Motti... 71,540.00 (3) Oct.-June Nil Vaughan and Associates... 596.50 (1) Oct.-Dec. Nil McKimmie Jamieson and Partners... 41,224.25 (4) July-June Nil Fisher Cleeland Turner and Dwyer... 10,194.98 (2) Aug.-Dec., June Nil Guttridge Haskins and Davey... 17,083.50 (3) Oct., March-April 291.00 Sue Wilshire W.A.... 850.00 (1) May-June Nil Australian Aerial Mapping... 830.61 (1) July-June Nil F. R. Rodda and Co.... 4,468.00 (1) May-June Nil F. R. Rodda and Co.... 4468.00 (1) May-June Nil Ranieri... 4,475,00 (1) April-May Nil Benetti Groghan... 11,665.89 (1) March-April Nil McKimmie Jamieson and Partners... 2,046.110 (1) Feb.-April Nil Hill Thomson... 1,099.00 (2) Dec.-Jan Nil P. Kraft... 9,704.13 (1) Dec.-Feb. Nil Driscoll Brownwasser... 8,815.31 (1) Dec.-Feb. Nil G. I. Cole and Associates... 9,276.68 (1) Oct.-Dec. Nil Harley Hedderwick and Webber... 2,800.00z (1) Aug.-Sept. Nil Brown and McAllister... 18,744.46 (1) Sept.-Jan. Nil M. L. Hawker... 9,000.00 (1) July-June Nil Zuideveld Bennett... 300.00 (1) July-June Nil Maguire and Mckellar... 10,593.52 (2) Sept.-Nov. Nil B. P. Kingston and Associates... 26,060.28 (4) Sept.-May Nil Scandata... 8,056.74 (8) June Nil G. A. and J. E. Roe... 60,254.28 (45) July-June Nil Cartographic and Survey Drafting (PC)... 9,224.58 (7) July-Jan. Nil Sorenson, Short and Associates (PC)... 2,375.00 (1) Feb.-March Nil Fisher Lewis (PC)... 9,665.00 (1) Oct.-Dec. Nil Qld. J. F. and P. Consulting Surveyors... 1,946.00 (2) Jan.-June Nil Boddy, Axtell and Wood... 21,870.00 (32) July-June 728.00 Jones, Flint and Pike... 2,755.60 (9) July-June 60.00 Lincoln Partners... 1,000.00 (1) Jan.-June Nil T. J. Lavercombe... 2,100.00 (2) Jan.-June Nil Peter Hoffman Surveys Pty Ltd... 2,250.00 (2) Dec.-April Nil Peter J. Jardine and Associates... 140.00 (1) Oct.-Nov. Nil J. Rowlands Surveys Pty Ltd... 14,027.00 (6) Oct.-June Nil P. I. Karhula and Associates Pty Ltd... 800.00 (1) Oct.-Dec. Nil Waterson and Bowden... 1,000.00 (1) Jan. Nil Egerton, Hudson and Associates... 800.00 (1) Nov.-Jan. Nil Charles O'Neil Pty Ltd... 2,350.00 (2) Nov.-June Nil Denis and O'Neil Pty Ltd... 1,920.00 (2) Nov.-April Nil Department of Harbours and Marine... 200.00 (1) Jan. Nil Mapping and Hydrographic Surveys... 8,000.00 (1) Dec.-May Nil A. K. and M. K. Hoffman Pty Ltd... 11,660.00 (1) Jan.-June Nil R. A. Legge... 8,500.00 (1) Jan.-June Nil C. W. Edmonston and Associates... 2,775.00 (4) Jan.-June Nil Garnet Lincoln... 2,400.00 (1) April-June Nil J. F. H. Murray... 450.00 (1) May-June Nil Edwin Hyde and Associates... 400.00 (1) May-June Nil Brazier and Motti... 15,989.00 (1) April-June Nil Stopford and Hopkins... 3,788.00 (1) May-June Nil R. C. Todd and Associates Pty Ltd... 15,320.00 (2) Jan.-May Nil Bennett and Francis Pty Ltd... 8,500.00 (1) Jan.-May Nil Schlenker, Bennett and Francis... 1,750.00 (2) Oct.-April Nil MacIaasc and Associates... 4,017.00 (3) Jan.-June Nil Lownds, Hay and Dawson... 2,580.00 (1) Oct.-Dec. Nil Kane Associates... 4,620.00 (3) Aug.-Sept. Nil Kelly and Karavas... 77,840.00 (1) Nov.-June Nil Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey... 12,189.00 (3) Nov.-April Nil Parkinson and Parkinson... 1,400.00 (1) July-Aug. Nil Mapgraphics... 6,274.50 (1) July-Nov. Nil Capricorn Survey Consultants... 3,132.00 (2) July-Nov. Nil M. Lodewyk... 597.00 (1) May-June Nil (Question No. 1262) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Re- creation, and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Has his Department finalised proposals for direct assistance to the tourism industry to compensate for the loss of assistance under the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Scheme. (2) When will the proposals be considered by Cabinet. (3) For what period will the tourism industry have to wait before knowing the Government's policy on this matter. (4) Can he provide an assurance to industry that any new measures of direct assistance will at least compensate the tourism industry for the estimated loss of $9 million, because of its exclusion from the EMDG Scheme. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Proposals for direct assistance to the tourism industry have been prepared by my Department, they have already been considered by Cabinet and the outcome was made known in the Media Release on 19 June 1985 when details of the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS) were announced. I expect to be in a position to release the printed detailed guidelines of the Scheme in September. (4) The question of compensation for the tourism industry for its removal from the EMDG Scheme is not relevant. The fact is that for the first time the tourism industry, through TOPS, will have an incentive scheme specifically designed to match its needs. (Question No. 1284) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984/85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agency. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (3) The Office of the Status of Women, in my Department, will administer a grants program (National Consultation and Assistance Program for Women) totalling $350,000 during 1985/86. The program is in two parts and provides for- (a) grants totalling $150,000 to be distributed to National Women's Organisations. This financial assistance is aimed at improving the capacity of women's organisations to take part in community decision-making and at equipping organisations with the means to research, consult and debate on issues of particular significance to women; (b) grants totalling $200,000 to be allocated to approved projects to raise the status of women. Such bodies as trade unions, churches, Aboriginal groups, ethnic groups and traditional women's organisations will be eligible to apply for grants, as well as individuals. There will normally be a limit to $15,000 on any one grant. Applications from migrant and ethnic organisations will be considered on the same basis as applications from other groups. Applications will need to meet the selection and eligibility criteria for these grants. The final decision on the allocation of funds will be made by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. The Office of Youth Affairs in my Department, administers the Program of Assistance to youth organisations (PAYO) which provides grants to national organisations which are comprised of or provide services to young people. Priority is given to proposals which promote equity amoung young people or which recognise the needs of disadvantaged young people and positively discriminate in their favour. Ethnic young people constitute one of the five categories of disadvantage which are recognised for PAYO purposes, the other being Aboriginal, young women, disabled and rural/isolated young people. To ensure that all eligible organisations have equal opportunity to apply for and receive grants, the following procedures have been instituted:- a detailed advice and instructions pamphlet is issued with application forms; information seminars are held in the major capital cities prior to the close of applications; individual interviews are conducted with applicant organisations to ensure that all the relevant information is supplied. Assistance is also available through the Australian Bicentennial Authority for local and regional Bicentennial activities in a number of areas within the Commonwealth funded National Program. These areas are Heritage, Environment, Commissionings of Works of Art, Sport and Recreation, Multicultural and Community Arts. Applications under the Heritage and Environment Programs have already closed but applications will be called for the remainder of the programs over the next eighteen months. Each of the programs under which Bicentennial funding is available will have guidelines based on the Authority's planning objectives which include provision of avenues of participation for all Australians irrespective of age, ethnic background or sex. The guidelines have been formulated after consultation with key groups in respective areas. The guidelines for the multicultural program will be discussed with a broad range of interested Government and non-Government organisations. (2) No. (Question No. 1296) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled ``Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment'' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so called ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agencies. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Australian Chicken Meat Research Trust Account Barley Research Trust Account Cotton Research Trust Account Dairy Research Trust Account Dried Fruits Research Trust Account Fishing Industry Research Trust Account Honey Research Trust Fund Oilseeds Research Trust Account Pig Industry Research Trust Account Poultry Industry Trust Fund Tobacco Industry Trust Account Wheat Research Trust Account Wool Research Trust Fund Commonwealth Special Research Grants Scheme Meat Research Trust Fund Sheepmeat Market Development Fund Australian Lamb Promotion Fund Dairy Industry Stabilization Fund National Soil Conservation Program World Food Day The Australian Honey Board finances some of the activities of beekeeper organisations in the promotion of honey. The Pork Promotion committee finances some of the activities of organisations associated with the pig industry in the promotion of pork. (2) Yes. (3) In the types of programs administered, predominantly research funds to research institutions, questions of ethnic origin become irrelevant as in those cases and all other cases applications for funding are considered completely on the basis of individual merit. (Question No. 1297) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled ``Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment'' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agency. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Community organisations may apply for assistance provided to the States and the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Two specific assistance programs, the Crisis Accommodation Program and the Local Government and Community Housing Program, involve community organisations in the provision of low cost rental housing. These, and all other public housing programs funded under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, are administered in each State by the State Housing Authority. (2) Yes. (3) The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, 1984 includes a specific provision which requires the States to provide assistance to all sectors of the community regardless of their race, religion, age, sex, marital status, disability or life situation with priority determined by the need for assistance. (Question No. 1302) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant In Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agencies. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Programs under which organisations may apply for funding are: the Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People; the Innovative Recreation Program; the National Sports Facilities Program; the Innovative Employee Fitness and Recreation Program; the Joint Recreation and Sport Program with States/Territories; the Steel Regions Assistance Program; and the Sports Development Program. Yes. Applications for financial assistance which relate to the needs of migrants are eligible under these programs, to the extent that they satisfy the guidelines, and these applications receive equal consideration with other applications. The Sports Development Program, administered by the Australian Sports Commission, however, provides assistance to bona fide national sporting organisations rather than State, Local government or individual organisations. (Question No. 1345) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: Is it a fact that four men were arrested in March 1985 for attempting to illegally procure and export arms to anti-independence forces in New Caledonia; if so, were they committed for trial; if not, why not. Is any reform of the law under consideration following this action. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that on 5 March 1985, Alan Grelier, Paul Vu Ngoe Ly, Vu Viet Chuan and Jean Nicholas Bondaletoff were arrested and subsequently charged with accumulating arms and munitions for the purpose of committing an offence against section 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978, namely engaging in a hostile activity against the Government of New Caledonia. On 17 April 1985, the charges were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis that, on the evidence available to the prosecution, the defendants' alleged conduct did not constitute offences against the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. Proceedings have been instituted against the defendants under the Customs Act for the recovery of pecuniary penalties. The implications of this case are under study. (Question No. 1358) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: What are the terms of the convention governing the supply to Minister of information relating to the actions of previous administrations, documents brought into existence by Ministers of previous administrations and the files of previous administrations. Was the provision to the Minister for Communications of advice referred to by the Minister in his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 9 May 1985, pages 1954-1955) a breach of that convention; if not, under what part of the convention was the provision of that advice made. Was the notification to the Minister for Communications of the fact that the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications had sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department a breach of that convention; if not, under what part of the convention was that notification made. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (2) and (3) Successive governments-including the present Government-have accepted the convention that Ministers do not seek access to the deliberative documents of their predecessors, including Cabinet documents and other documents revealing ministerial deliberations. In particular, Cabinet documents are considered confidential to the government that created them and access to them by succeeding governments would not normally be given without the approval of the current leader of the appropriate political party. The convention is a working rule that enables Ministers to express themselves freely, without risk that upon change of government they will be under challenge for every decision and comment. Where an incoming government is formed from a different policital party, or parties, from its predecessor, continuity in administrative practice at times requires reference back to decisions of former governments, including Cabinet decisions. In such cases Ministers should be provided by their Departments with a resume of all relevant facts and operative decisions necessary for an understanding of the current issue-including, if essential to the understanding, summaries of Cabinet decisions taken by previous governments, though not the decisions themselves. The convention does not affect access by incoming Ministers to the normal run of departmental papers generated by a previous government. In relation to the honourable member's particular question, the provisions of advice to the Minister for Communications by his Department was not a breach of the convention. Information of a factual nature concerning the exercise of ministerial powers under the Postal Services Act 1975 was sought and given. No deliberative decisions of a previous government were involved and the information provided was necessary for consideration of the proper handling of a Government responsibility by the Minister for Communications. No breach of convention was involved. Question No. 1365 Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) How many new cases have commenced in the Federal Court of Australia in each year since its establishment and how many cases were awaiting hearing on 1 January in each year. (2) What (a) is and (b) has been, the anticipated delay in having matters in the defended lists of the Court heard. (3) How many new judges have been appointed to the Court in each year since its establishment. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of new cases (other than bankruptcy cases) commenced in the Federal Court of Australia in each year since its establishment is set out below: 1977- 442 1978- 469 1979- 367 1980- 592 1981- 838 1982- 956 1983-1263 1984-1671 1985- 553 (to end of June) Because of the nature of the jurisdiction and the diversity of proceedings which may be brought in respect of a single bankruptcy it is not practicable to provide equivalent figures for cases in the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the Court. The Registrar of the Federal Court has advised that the Court does not maintain records of the number of cases awaiting hearing as at 1 January in each year. (2) The Registrar of the Court has provided the following information. The Court has no defended list as such. There are no appreciable delays in having matters heard. This has been the case particularly since 1979 when the Federal Court Rules were introduced which provided for Directions Hearings in all single Judge matters. (3) The number of Judges appointed to the Court in each year since its establishment is set out below: 1976- 1 1977-21 1978- 4 1979- 1 1980- 1 1981- 3 1982- 1 1983- 3 1984- 4 1985- 3 Of the above, two Judges resigned on being appointed to the High Court of Australia, one resigned on being appointed President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, five have retired, three died in office and two resigned to return to practice at the Bar. (Question No. 1504) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or Automatic Data Processing hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Social Security is undertaking a major computer re-equipment program, known as Stratplan, to provide mainframes in each State capital connecting to new minicomputers in over 200 sites at Regional, State and Central Offices to form a large network. (1) The pre-Stratplan equipment which is being replaced consists of Natsemi and IBM mainframes and Honeywell and NCR networking hardware. The major items of Stratplan equipment is comprised of Amdahl mainframes, Datamatic tape libraries, Storage Technology peripheral devices and Wang minicomputers. Minor items of equipment are supplied by Datacraft, Memorex, Quest, Systems Technology, Techway, Tektronics and Telex. (2) (a) The Department of Social Security is dependent on its ADP systems for the delivery of its income maintenance services such as the payment of pensions, family allowances and unemployment, sickness and special benefits. The principal function of the Stratplan systems is, firstly, to maintain the Department's capacity to provide income support and secondly to provide a basis for a more effective delivery of this support. (b) The pre-Stratplan equipment was installed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The installation of Stratplan equipment is progressive having commenced with the Central Office system in late 1983 and due to finish with the Perth system in 1986-87. (c) The cost of the pre-Stratplan equipment is not readily available, however, the cost of Stratplan equipment, including vendor-supplied software is $108.3 million. (d) The pre-Stratplan equipment is at the end of its useful life and this is the primary reason for undertaking such a large re-equipment program. The anticipated life of the Stratplan equipment is 10 years. (e) Pre-Stratplan equipment is being progressively replaced. The Department has a strategic planning process which is an avenue for providing equipment upgrades, replacement or additions. (3) The major systems are not shared with any other users, however, the Department makes available a limited amount of processing capacity to the Department of Community Services to run its ADP systems. This arrangement will continue until that Department becomes operationally independent. (Question No. 1541) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Further to his answer by the Minister for Social Security to question No. 458 (Hansard, 17 April 1985, page 1341) relating to the assets test (a) how do people in the Electoral Division of Tangney find out what the procedures are for appeals and (b) how many appeals have been lodged from pensioners in the Division to 20 August 1985 and how many of those were by farmers. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Clients are informed by officers of the Department of Social Security of appeal procedures in several ways: in the letter informing a client of the effect of the assets test on his or her rate of pension, there is specific reference to appeal rights and procedures. brochures detailing appeal rights and procedures (in various languages) are available at all DSS offices and counter staff advise individual pensioners of appeal rights and procedures when asked. when advised of an adverse decision following consideration of an appeal by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the client is also advised of the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (b) Figures are not available for the number of appeals lodged in a particular Electoral Division, nor are any figures kept which would indicate the occupation of any appellant. (Question No. 1177) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Does the Government intend to establish the Overseas Trading Corporation as stated by his predecessor and outlined in ALP policy documents. (2) Have any expressions of interest been received from private industry as to their partnership in any proposed Government sponsored corporation. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have been examining the study of the Australian Bank on the overseas trading company proposal, a copy of which has been released to the honourable member. No decision to proceed has been made. (2) Yes. (Question No. 1243) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following provides details of consultants engaged by my Department and statutory authorities for which I am responsible: Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Department of Resources and Energy Professor Vokes Initiate research in massive-sulphide strata-bound ore bodies Consultancy proformas set out a plan of action and what is the aim of the result sought of the project 4,500.00 Feb-June '83 . . J. Totterdell, S. Andrews, S. Radke Provide 3 contractors for NERDDC Permian Coals Project . . 28,500.00 Mar-Aug '83 . . D. Green, B. Hobbs, B. Runnegar, J. Veevers Bicentennial Publications of the Geology of Australia . . 10,450.00 1983-1988 . . Dr R. Botz Direct detection of hydrocarbons in seabed samples . . 237.00 March '83 (1 day) . . Dr M. Solomon To discuss the forthcoming program for the Division of Petrology and Geochemistry . . 170.00 Apr '83 (2 days) . . Dr A. J. W. Gleadow Provide lectures and workshop on fission-tract dating techniques . . 261.00 Apr '83 (1 day) . . Mrs Y. Roberts Water Perspective Study-design and edit report . . 2,200.00 May-June '83 . . E.P.I. Consultants Production of Local Government Advisory Booklets . . 27,900.90 June '83-Mar '84 . . Banks Bros &Street To undertake a rapid survey of available vessels suitable for geological/geophysical work. . . 950.00 July '83 (30 hours) . Dr A. G. Duba Present a lecture on `Electricity conductivity as a monitor of changes in the solid state' . . 150.00 Aug '83 (1 day) . . Dr G. West Lecture on Borehole Electro-magnetics . . 250.00 Aug '83 (2 days) . . Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Consultant Purpose of Consultancy Working Plan Cost Duration Excess $ $ Tour Hosts Pty Ltd To provide 2 Japanese/English interpreters for SYNROC meeting . . 1,931.40 Aug. '83 (1 day) . . P. R. Mora Implementation of computer program for migration of seismic data . . 450.00 Aug. '83 (21/2 days) . . Tour Hosts Pty Ltd To provide interpreters for the 6th Australia/Japan Consultations on Co-operation in Energy Research and Development . . 1,897.00 5 Sept. '83 (1 day) . . Prof. Tweedie Preparation of text on water use for inclusion in the volume `Water' of the Atlas of Australian Resources, Third Series . . 990.00 Sept. '83-Dec. '84 . . Dr W. Steel Inspection of the Photographic Zenith Tube to ensure all optical and mechanical specifications and tolerance are accurate in the design and fabrication of a new lens to replace a damaged one . . 300.00 5-6 Sept. '83 . . Mr A. Duncan of Davies &Collinson To prepare a patent specification for the Downhole Omnidirectional EM Probe . . 500.00 Sept. '83 . . Dr B. Nisbet Study the Amoco minerals copper/gold/ironstone ore body in the Mount Isa metal province . . 4,610.00 Sept. '83 (20 days) . . Computer People Pty Ltd To provide system support for the Department's HP250 Computer Management Information System . . 5,890.00 Oct.-Nov. '83 . . Mr M. Hudson Effective Negotiating Skills-Presentation of training module . . 3,397.00 21-23 Nov. '83 61.00 Siromath Pty Ltd To carry out a literature search and provide a preliminary evaluation in relation to extended containment and surveillance as a means of safe-guarding large scale nuclear power station processing plants . . 6,000.00 Dec. '83-June '84 . . Dr J. Symonds Preparation of report on the involvement of Australians in the British atomic tests programs at Maralinga and EMU, South Australia . . 59,000.00 plus travelling expenses Dec. '83-Oct. '84 . . Drs Maker, Horvath Adrian, Forster Houghton, Lee and Sharma Preparation of explanatory commentaries to accompany each map in the seven volume Atlas of Population and Housing, 1981 Census . . 6,000.00 Jan.-April '84 . . Institute of Australian Geographers Prepare explanatory commentaries for Atlas of Population and Housing, 1981 Census . . 6,000.00 Feb.-April '84 . . PA Computers and Telecommunications To examine existing and planned ADP systems and advise on what in-house or other computing facilities are necessary to meet central office requirements . . 28,000.00 Feb.-April '84 . . Mrs J. Lau Preparation of text on Groundwater Resources for Atlas of Australian Resources, Volume `Water', Third Series . . 1,340.00 Feb.-June '84 . . Prof. J. Mabutt Discussions on the land forms topic of the Atlas of Australian Resources, Third Series . . 243.00 Feb. '84 (1 day) . . Prof. P. Molnar To discuss earthquake research and earth movements . . 350.00 Feb. '84 (5 days) . . Mr I. Sluiter Provide advice on the identification of palynological material . . 210.00 Feb. '84 (2 days) . . Ms J. Totterdell Extract and interpret geological information from petroleum exploration well reports . . 3,000.00 Feb.-April '84 . . Dr T. Mernagh To visit Tasmania University to become familiar with Laser Raman facility . . 200.00 March '84 (3 days) . . Woolard, Mitchell &Young Estimate the cost of rehabilitation of the Ranger Project as at 31 March 1984 and 31 March 1985 . . 16,500.00 . . . . Siromath Pty. Ltd To conduct an evaluation of techniques in Nuclear Material Accountancy . . 67,000.00 Mar.-Oct. 1984 . . Mr J. Kinna To provide advice on the technical and structural aspects of a resource rent tax in the petroleum sector . . 6,900.00 Commenced and completed Mar. 1984 . . McLannan Magasanik Associates To undertake studies into the marketing of solar thermal systems in industry in Australia . . 47,500.00 Mar.-July 1984 . . McLannan Magasanik Associates To undertake an assessment of solar pond technology and application in Australia . . 22,500.00 Mar.-July 1984 . . McLachlan Group Pty. Ltd. To undertake a study into the feasibility of solar thermal electric systems for Australia . . 49,650.00 Mar.-July 1984 . . N.S.W. Department of Agriculture To undertake a study into the opportunities to reduce energy consumption in tillage operations . . 16,000.00 Mar.-July 1984 . . Australian Dairy Corporation To undertake a technical and economic assessment into the effect of energy conservation methods and practices on milk concentration technologies . . 29,500.00 Mar.-July 1984 . . Ms D. Outram To conduct an effective writing course . . 1,410.00 15-23 March 1984 . . J. R. S. Owen Determine suitability and integrity of pontoons, bridge deck and `A' frame rig for sampling catamaran . . 690.00 Mar. 1984 (23 hrs.) . . Needham Clark &Associates Determine suitability and integrity of pontoons, bridge deck and `A' frame rig for sampling catamaran . . 525.00 March 1984 . . Dr J. Kerr To testify to the operations of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority . . 3,500.00 plus travelling expenses Commenced and completed April 1984 . . Mr R. Franzi Advice on feasibility of upgrading McNamee Hydro-steamer Winch . . 500.00 Apr. 1984 (9 hrs.) . . J. K. Davidson Structural interpretation of Seismic Sections from Bass Strait . . 1,655.00 Apr. 1984 (3 days) . . Dr R. Ellis Provide specialist computing and geophysical input to BMR's program on Earthquake Hazards . . 1,000.00 Apr.-June 1984 . . Professor P. F. Howard Deliver a course and provide specialist advice on phosphate exploration in Burma . . 17,347.00 Apr. 1984-June 1985 (27 days) . . PA Computers and Telecommunications To review existing word processing facilities in the Department and to provide recommended future strategies and to assist with the evaluation of ADP tenders . . 28,550.00 May-July 1984 . . Dr Stemprok Give lectures and seminars on nature and origin of tin and tungsten deposits . . 600.00 May 1984 (2 days) . . Dr M. Neudent Give lectures and seminars on the sedimentology of the Mount Isa area . . 185.00 May 1984 (1 1/2 days) Mr Birch of PA Computers and Telecommunications To discuss recommended strategy for implementation of a word processing system . . 500.00 June 1984 (1 day) . . Mr P. Paterson To assist the Deputy Crown Solicitor with the preparation of the Commonwealth's case in the matter of transfer of ownership of oil and gas reserves in the Cooper Basin . . 200.00/day plus travelling expenses June-July 1984 50.00 day Gaffney, Cline and Associates To advise the Commonwealth on litigation regarding the sale of Cape Basin assets . . 300,000.00 June-July 1984 . . Dr R. P. Cooney Fine-tune Argon Laser, install a photo-multiplier for spectrometer, place polarising filters at University of Tasmania . . 1,271.00 June 1984 (3 days) . . Professor J. Coleman Give lecture and seminars on aspects of basin studies . . 500.00 Aug. 1984 (2 days) . . Professor E. Silver Provide consultation on marine geophysical matters such as advanced Ocean Drilling Project, offshore sediments etc. . . 2,312.00 Aug. 1984 (29 days) . . Dr W. D. Carter Produce a listing of CZCS satellite imagery of Australia . . 2,300.00 Aug. 1984-Nov. 1984 (4 weeks) . . Dr S. Treitel Organise workshop and give lecture on digital data . . 5,100.00 Sept. 1984 (3 days) . . Ms A. U. Kerr Provide specialist advice on computer hardware and software for Nuclear Monitoring project . . 1,350.00 Sept. 1984 (10 days) . . Dr C. R. Scotese To install proprietary software on the VAX-based BMR Intergraph system . . 6,500.00 Sept. 1984 (25 days) . . Mr A. Duncan of Davies &Collinson Advise on patenting Downhole Omnidirectional EM Probe . . 920.00 Sept. 1984 . . K. S. Sellick Inspect and certify design of 2 Tonne SWL gantry . . 250.00 Sept. '84 . . Mr G. Hansler To visit Australia for the purpose of discussions with Commonwealth and State authorities on water resource issues . . 10,000.00 8.9.84-30.9.84 . . Mr M. Hudson Effective Negotiating Skills-Presentation of Training Module . . 4,300.00 19.9.84-21.9.84 . . Mrs D. Prescott Feasibility of the National Mapping Council producing a bicentennial publication . . 1,000.00 7-21 Sept. '84 . . Mr A. Duncan Filing overseas patents for Downhole Omni-directional EM Probe . . 3,900.00 Sept. '84 . . R. Burnash To present a series of workshops on rainfall runoff . . 16,140.00 Commenced and completed Oct. '84 . . Ms Y. Kato To provide interpreting services for Australia/Japan Remote Area Power Supply systems meeting . . 200.00 Commenced and completed Oct. '84 . . Ms Mary White Identify, date and curate plant fossils collections . . 1,000.00 Nov. '84 (50 hrs) . . Mr S. Tremont Provide BMR with results of studies in geo-magnetism from Project Blizzard . . 200.00 Nov. '84 (2 days) . . Dr V. Pinczewski Consultation in relation to use of a petroleum reservoir simulator . . 2,012.00 Nov. '84 (6 days) . . Ms J. E. Lau Assist with compilation of a Hydrogeological Map of Australia . . 7,200.00 Nov. '84-June '85 . . Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Sciences Maintenance of the National Tidal Data Base . . 19,000.00 Dec. '84-Dec. '89 . . Mr M. O. Lee To assist BMR in developing the National Groundwater Reconnaissance and Exploration Program, which is a component of the National Water Resources Data Strategy . . 12,800.00 Jan. '85-30 Apr. '85 . . Dr F. R. Kalf To assist in setting up specific models on BMR microcomputers to provide seminars/workshops on model theory and simulation applications . . 9,700.00 Jan. '85-May '85 . . Groundwater Consultants Pty Ltd To provide assistance to BMR with development of detailed proposals for the implementation of the National Water Resources Data Strategy Program, to undertake discussions with State agencies and then formulate recommendations . . 74,514.00 Jan. '85-Apr. '85 . . Dr F. R. Kalf To develop methods to transfer the GAB data base on to BMR's microcomputer system and to initiate this transfer . . 9,850.00 Jan. '85-May '85 . . Dr D. Elmore Lecture and participate in symposium on application of acceleration mass spectrometry . . 420.00 Feb. '85 (2 days) . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation To provide consultancy services in relation to the national network of gauging stations . . 55,000.00 Feb.-June '85 . . Dr C. Rizos and Dr E. Masters Advice on developing a comprehensive software package for use with the new satellite based Global Positioning System . . 1,081.20 21-22 Feb. '85 6-7 June '85 . . Dr J. Carnahan To map and describe the present vegetation of Australia . . 25,000.00 Feb.-July 1985 . . Dr D. Walker Give a Fortran 77 Computing Course at the Bureau of Mineral Resources . . 6,000.00 Feb. '85 (2 weeks) . . Trippett Allan &Associates Prepare a technical proposal to use satellite telemetry for the transmission of seismological data . . 6,430.00 Feb. '85 . . Professor V. Pinczewski Use of a petroleum reservoir simulator available through the Control Data computer service bureau. . . 2,012.00 Feb. '85 (6 days) . . Professor V. Pinczewski Provide further advice to BMR on the computer simulation techniques used for Palm Valley Gas field, NT . . 512.00 Mar. '85 (1 day) . . Dr A. Stolz Consultation on the establishment of a National Geodetic Data Centre, applications of new technology in Geodesy and redefinition of National Mapping role in Geodesy . . 140.00 April '85 (1 day) . . Mr Meacham To write comment for AWRC Review 1985 . . 15,500.00 April '85-Feb '86 . . Dr P. Blumling Provide specialist analytic skills in the analysis of well logs . . 2,000.00 April-July '85 . . Dr F. R. Kalf Assist with the development of the National Water Resources Data Strategy Program . . 6 750.00 May '85-June '85 (80 hours) . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation To review Burdekin Dam contract conditions . . 907.20 May '85 (12 hours) . . Curriculum Development Centre To develop curriculum material in energy conservation . . 10,000.00 May-July '85 . . Mr K. Warne Study of groundwater aquifers in the Australian arid zone . . 6,540.00 June '85 (30 days) . . Mr K. Warne Log water bores Alice Springs area . . 5,540.00 1 May-15 June '85 . . Professor K. Kubick Advice on evaluating three software packages for computing DEM'S from irregularly distributed data: HIFI, CIP a CSIRO system . . 345.00 June '85 (1day) . . Professor R. Q. Oakes Investigate and report on a complex and problematical part of the Amadeus Basin, Central Australia . . 2,600.00 Aug.-Sept. '85 . . Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Metlab Pty Ltd Undertake non-destructive inspections of various mechanical components the Authority's practice is to manage consultancies through the provision of a detailed specification or a brief which includes the terms of reference of the assignment. 6,300.00 Mar '83-Mar. '85 . . Dr O'Brien Noxious substances analysis . . 5,000.00 Mar '83-Apr '84 . . Leith Bartlett &Partners Pty Ltd Design of staff quarters, Cabramurra . . 10,700.00 Mar '83-Apr '84 . . Dept of Housing and Construction Design and supervision of construction of new Cooma headquarters building . . 370,600.00 Mar '83 continuing . . S. G. Allum &Sons Inspection of the Authority's pressure vessels . . 23,000.00 May '83-May '85 . . ANUTEC Pty Ltd To establish presence or otherwise of aboriginal relics on head office site. . . 692.00 Sept '83 . . Northage &Associates Study and report on design implications of organisation consolidation in respect of new head office building. . . 6,600.00 Oct '83 . . Dr Neil Adams Investigation of training needs of the Authority . . 5,200.00 Oct '83-Dec '84 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Report on instrumentation on Talbingo Dam . . 15,500.00 Oct '83-Jan '85 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Dambreak study of Jindabyne Dam . . 7,500.00 Nov '83-Oct '84 . . George Close and Associates To produce a planning report and a specification for a new authority communications system. . . 75,000.00 Jan '84-Jun '85 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Design of Eucumbene gatehouse sub-station refurbish- ment . . 6,800.00 Feb-Mar '84 . . Peat Marwick Mitchell Services Investigate the Authority's EDP systems and develop an EDP Strategic Plan, preparation of requirements, definitions for major applications and tender documents for hardware and software associated therewith . . 190,000.00 Feb '84-Mar '85 . . Deverson Shoultens Bombardier Landscaping attached housing, Cooma . . 2,400.00 Feb-Apr '84 . . Dept of Housing and Construction Removal of asbestos in Khancoban Community Hall . . 1,800.00 Feb '84 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Design 66-11 KV Sub-station refurbishment . . 15,500.00 Apr '84-Apr '85 . . Macro Corporation Develop a planning report and specification for a data acquisition and control system . . 100,000.00 May '84-date . . Coopers and Lybrand Development of a payroll package . . 18,000.00 Feb-Apr '85 . . Laurie Montgomerie &Pettit Pty Ltd Water supply investigation for proposed sub-division Cooma North . . 500.00 June '84 . . Professor Stokes Testing of Upper Tumut circuit breakers . . 3,100.00 July-Oct '84 . . Peter Doyle Extension to Murray Group control centre . . 37,500.00 July '84-May '85 . . Nexus Design Pty Ltd Interior design of new Cooma headquarters building . . 27,300.00 Sept '84 continuing . . John Wade Examination of corrosion problems Tumut 3 Power Station . . 1,200.00 Sept '84 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Assistance in investigation of rough running problems Murray 2 turbines . . 88,000.00 Sept '84-May '85 . . Unisearch Ltd Advice on vibrations of Murray 2 Pipeline . . 1,200.00 Dec '84 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Geological report of Eucumbene Tumut tunnel inspection . . 3,000.00 Jan-Mar '85 . . Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Fire prevention of high voltage cables Tumut 1 power station . . 8,800.00 Jan-Mar '85 . . Coopers and Lybrand Development of a budget model . . 24,000.00 May-June '84 . . Coopers and Lybrand Evaluation of suitability of personnel software package . . 15,000.00 May-June '85 . . Australian Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, England SYNROC Project Letter of agreement 3,500.00 5.3.84-May '84 . . Vipac and Partners Hifar refurbishing project Task specification 12,000.00 14.4.85-not yet completed . . Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, England SYNROC Project Task brief 22,000.00 17.10.84-Mch '85 . . A Williams Brothers-CMPS Engineers Hifar refurbishing project Task brief 12,700.00 11.10.84-13.2.85 500.00 Cruikshank Management Resources Limited Organisation review of hifar operations section Task brief 29,400.00 3.12.84-29.3.85 . . Joint Coal Board Peat Marwick Mitchell Services Retrenched mineworkers-KCC and BP Mines Undertake study of re-trenched mineworkers as arranged by N.S.W. Govern- ment 32,695.00 Sept.-Oct. '84 . . System Dynamics Pty Ltd Conduct of EDP Management Workshops List of topics 2,950.00 3 days . . Grierson Technical Services Literature review to assist in determining techniques to improve dust suppression Detailed list of subject matter. References required 3,600.00 14.12.83-16.5.84 . . The Pipeline Authority Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation To provide advice on welding procedures for high pressure line pipes for natural gas pipelines Task brief 24,208.00 Apr. '83-July '84 . . J. R. Griffiths To provide advice on welding procedures for high pressure line pipes for natural gas pipelines Task brief 2,772.00 Oct. '84-Nov. '84 . . J. Wade To provide advice on welding procedures for high pressure line pipes for natural gas pipelines Task brief 2,572.00 Aug. '84-Jun. '85 . . (Question No. 1318) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the `Dregs' column of the Electronics Today International, dated December 1984, on the subject of the electronic scarecrow device, which states that to project an infrasonic wave 12km would require the entire generating capacity of the N.S.W. Electricity Commission; if so, when. (2) Is this the same device which was displayed at the Australian Pavilion at Expo 85 in Japan; If so, was he familiar with this exhibit at the time of making the statement that Australia has a great deal to be proud of in its technological achievements and these had been well displayed in our pavilion. (3) Who recommended that this device be included in the display at the Australian Pavilion. (4) Were demonstrations given of the device's effectiveness. (5) How many people viewed the device. (6) Were any orders or expressions of interest taken in relation to the device. (7) Was any remuneration paid to the inventor, marketer or promoter of the device in connection with its display at Expo 85; if so, what amount and for what reason. (8) Who (a) presented the device to the Government and (b) explained its operation at the Expo, and what was the text of any literature and/or exhibit material associated with the device's display. (9) Did he or his Department enter into any contractual arrangement in relation to the device's display at Expo 85; if so, what was the nature of the arrangement. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. It should be noted that a good report appeared in the Engineers Australia of 17 May 1985. (2) The device was on display from 15 March 1985, when the Pavilion was opened until 7 April 1985. It was located in the Technology Gallery of the Australian Pavilion, one of nine major display areas in the Pavilion. The exhibits in this gallery comprise 56 display modules, 130 panels of text and associated graphics, 8 television monitors each showing a separate program as well as a number of wall and photo murals. The electronic scarecrow occupied one display module and was described in one piece of text. (3) The displays in the Technology Gallery were selected after extensive consultation between officers of my department, the Departments of Science and Housing and Construction, the CSIRO and other government and industry groups. The electronic scarecrow was one of a long list of possible recent technological innovations suggested in discussion by the Minister for Science. The final list of displays and text was corrected and agreed by the Department of Science. The electronic scarecrow was withdrawn from exhibition on the recommendation of the Minister for Science. On further consideration by the Minister for Science, the electronic scarecrow was placed back among the exhibits on 28 August 1985. (4) Because of the short lead time available none of the displays were specifically tested for inclusion in the pavilion at the Exposition. (5) A total of 280,000 people visited the Australian Pavilion in the period up to 7 April 1985. It is not known how many of these may have paid specific attention to the electrosonic scarecrow. (6) An International Exposition is not a Trade Fair and the maker's name and address did not appear on the display. Orders are not taken at an Exposition and any detailed enquiries are referred to the Trade Commissioner Service at the Australian Embassy, Tokyo. (7) No. (8) (a) The device was loaned by Hi Tech Control Systems Pty. Ltd., 43 Holland Street, Goonellabah, N.S.W. (b) Enquiries about the device would have been answered by Australian attendants who are stationed through the Pavilion. No printed handouts describing the device were available. The text panel describing the device read: A proven deterrent for repelling most air and land creatures, preventing them from affecting property. Intense acoustic air-waves are produced which affect the muscular and skeletal structure of the creature, causing it to avoid the protected area. (9) A Loan Agreement was entered into by my Department and Hi Tech Control Systems Pty. Ltd. This specifies the period the item will be on loan to the Commonwealth, provides for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for the item while it is under Commonwealth control and sets out provisions to be followed in the case of loss or damage to the property. [ In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard of 10 September 1985.] (Question No. 1326) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 68 (1) and (3) (Hansard, 16 April 1985, pages 1229-1230), what other information programs, not in the sense of information campaigns, has the Information Co-ordination Branch been involved with since its inception. (2) What advertising agencies were employed to conduct the information campaigns listed, what amounts were paid and what amounts were spent on actual advertising, as opposed to agency services. (3) What firms conducted the research projects listed in the answer to parts (2) and (4). (4) Were any other information campaigns conducted by the ICB, not included in his answer; if so, were these special information campaigns, what did each of the campaigns cost and what advertising agencies were involved in each of the campaigns. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since its inception in 1982 the Information Co-ordination Branch has been involved with information programs of all departments. The Information Co-ordination Branch also regularly conducts surveys of departmental information programs and monitors for changes in proposed information activities. Many departments have sought advice and assistance from the Information Co-ordination Branch about aspects of their information programs. (2) Following is a list of the advertising agencies employed to conduct the information campaigns, the amounts that the agencies were paid and the amounts spent on advertising. Subject of Campaign Agency Amount paid to Agency Cost of Advertising $ $ Benefits for the Disabled Lintas (Syd.) 5,239.80 317,000 Economic Summit Monahan Dayman Adams 69,980.25 330,000 Family Income Supplement Lintas (Melb.) 7,730.10 546,000 Community Employment Program (Monahan Dayman Adams (Melb.) (Ogilvy and Mather 8,524.50) 55,000.00) 557,700 Superannuation ``The Facts'' Monahan Dayman Adams (Melb.) 4,624.50 242,985 First Home Owners' Scheme Jirgenson &Naughton (Syd.) 10,252.41 276,162 National Wage Case Hyde, Everett Fuller (Melb.) 19,620.00 154,000 Enrol to Vote Campaign Monahan Dayman Adams (Syd.) 56,751.00 2,415,000 Registration of Lobbyists Neville Jefferies n.a. 15,691 Drink Driving Campaign Foote, Cone Belding (Melb.) 71,438.01 719,754 Prices and Incomes Accord Hyde Everett Fuller (Melb.) 83,047.50 697,486 Sex Discrimination Act Monahan Dayman Adams (Melb.) 11,913.00 255,000 International Youth Year Campaign Palace (Syd.) Spectator Marketing (Syd.) 31,289.74 64,471.31 nil* Participation in Education and Training Connaghan &May Ayer 24,324.84 340,309 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Abel Barton (Syd.) 2,430.00 nil* Blood Donors Campaign phase 1 Connaghan &May Ayer (Melb.) Monahan Dayman Adams 51,918.16 2,985.00 183,749 Sea Safety Meridian (Syd.) 27,381.55 46,000 Blood Donors Campaign phase 2 Connaghan &May Ayer 36,276.00 260,000 * information campaign did not include any paid advertising (3) Following is a list of the agencies which conducted the research projects. Date Subject of Research Name of Agency August 1983 Awareness and understanding of the 1983-84 Federal Budget Frances Hellier Jan.-June 1984 Attitudes of young Australians to various government policies and programs ANOP Jan.-June 1984 Public understanding of policy on funding of schools ANOP March-April 1984 Initial and follow-up research into awareness of Tasmanian public of Commonwealth offers of assistance following the High Court decision on the Gordon-below-Franklin dam ANOP June 1984 Testing and evaluation of the Tax Form `S' Lenehan Lynton &Bloom August 1984 Community awareness and understanding of the 1984-85 Federal Budget ANOP (4) No [ In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard of 10 September 1985.] (Question No. 1349) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) How many animals were used in the past 3 years to enable Australian surgeons to refine surgical techniques. (2) Will he provide guidelines for the protection of animals used in transplant techniques. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The responsibility for the welfare of animals including those used for experimentation and refinement of surgical techniques lies with the State and Territory Governments and therefore the information requested is unobtainable from Commonwealth Government sources. Insofar as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, I am informed that no animals have been or are being used by the ACT Health Authority for the refinement of surgical techniques. (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in conjunction with CSIRO and the Australian Agricultural Council recently published a Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes. While the Code does not specifically address the subject of the use of animals for transplant techniques, its general principles place the onus on the experimenter to ensure that he has the ultimate reponsibility for all matters related to the welfare of animals upon which he experiments and should be competent in the procedures to be carried out. This responsibility encompasses the proper design of experiments to ensure that most effective scientific use of the least number of animals, the appropriate care and housing of animals, before, during and after experimentation, and the competence and skills of co-investigators and technicians. Although the Code has no legislative force, I understand that it has been adopted widely by research institutions and various funding bodies which, like the NHMRC, seek clearances by Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees before funding of research projects is provided. (Question No. 1535) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Did he discuss possible changes to the Closer Economic Relations Agreement with the NZ Government during his visit in May 1985; if so, what impact are those changes expected to have on Australian primary industries. (2) Were any aspects of bilateral trade in dairy produce raised during these talks; if so, what changes are proposed. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The purpose of my visit to New Zealand in May 1985 was to address the Pacific Basin Economic Council Annual General Meeting in Auckland on the Australian perspective on Pacific trade issues. (2) No. (Question No. 1552) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice on 22 August 1985: Is it a fact that New Zealand is importing large quantities of apple and pear juice from Europe because of cheap European prices while exporting its own juice to Australia to achieve higher prices available to it because the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Agreement bestows sales tax exemption and because New Zealand products are duty free; if so, will he take steps to restrain New Zealand from taking advantage of the CER Agreement to the detriment of Australian growers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the CER Agreement New Zealand producers may export apple juice to Australia free of Government imposed restrictions notwithstanding any arrangements made for supplying the New Zealand market with juice from third countries. Similarly, juice originating in third countries may be exported from New Zealand and be considered of New Zealand origin provided the CER Rules of Origin provisions are met. Principally these require that the last manufacturing process is performed in New Zealand and comprises 50 per cent or more of the factory cost of the finished product. There are safeguard provisions built into CER to protect industries in either country against specific instances of unfair competition or where imports have increased significantly and are causing, or threatening severe injury. There is also provision for consultations between the two Governments where difficulties arise. I would need to be convinced that imports of apple juice are causing the local industry difficulties before I would consider whether any specific action should be taken by the Government. I am advised that imports in 1984/85 came from a number of sources, with less than 40 per cent from New Zealand at prices comparable with other imports. Furthermore, I understand there was a significant local shortfall of apple juice last year necessitating Australian processors to import to meet local demand. (Question No. 595) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are provided with credit cards. (2) Which companies are used to provide these cards (for example, American Express, Diners Club). (3) Who pays the membership and service fees. (4) At what level is an officer entitled to credit cards. (5) What limits are placed on the usage of the cards. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on information provided by the statutory authorities in the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (1) The Department of Communications-195; Australian Telecommunications Commission-18,800 (18,000 Shell Cards; 800 Cabcharge Cards); Australian Postal Commission-173; Overseas Telecommunications Commission-5; Australian Broadcasting Corporation-175; Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-25; Special Broadcasting Service-8; Aussat Pty Ltd-9. (2) Credit cards available to officers are issued by: American Express International (AMEX) Diners Club International The Australian Telecommunications Commission (Telecom) The Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA) Ansett Airlines of Australia Ltd (Ansett) Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd (Cabcharge) Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd (Avis) Hertz Rent-A-Car (Hertz) Taxi Credit Shell Company of Australia Ltd (Shell). (3) There are normally no membership or service fees applicable to TAA, Ansett, Telecom, Shell, Avis and Hertz credit cards; a service fee is payable to Cabcharge and Taxi Credit and these are paid by the approrpriate statutory authorities. In respect of AMEX and Diners Club credit cards, the Department and relevant statutory authorities reimburse the annual membership fee to an officer, in accordance with Finance Direction 34/25. AMEX and Diners Club have introduced special annual membership rates for officers who apply for and are issued with credit cards through `Corporate Card' schemes that were negotiated with the Department of Finance. (4) The issue of TAA, Ansett, Telecom, Shell, Avis, Hertz, Taxi Credit and Cabcharge credit cards to nominated senior officers and staff of the relevant statutory authorities has been longstanding. There are no restrictions on the level of officers who may apply for AMEX or Diners Club credit cards. However, before a credit card is issued under the `Corporate Card' scheme, the Department/Authority must be satisfied that the officer has a `work-related' need for the card. (5) TAA, Ansett, Telecom, Shell, Avis, Hertz, Taxi Credit and Cabcharge credit cards are intended for use by senior officers where there is an urgent need to use the services of those bodies for official purposes in circumstances that do not allow the usual procedures to be followed, such as outside normal business hours or in remote locations. AMEX and Diners Club cards are subject to the limitations placed on the cards by AMEX or Diners Club. Officers are responsible for meeting all expenditure charged to their card account. Expenditure of an official nature incurred by the use of credit cards is subject to normal reimbursement procedures to which the disciplines of the Audit Act and other relevant legislation are applied. Other charges including interest, etc. that an officer chooses to incur in using these cards are the personal responsibility of that officer. (Question No. 861) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) How many submarine platform and weapon system tenderers, contractors or agents have been involved in formal discussions in respect to the submarine study program as allowed for in the tender documents by the submarine project team. (2) Where and when did the discussions take place and with whom. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Tender documents stated that Commonwealth representatives would visit Project Definition Study (PDS) tenderers and their main sub-contractors to discuss the Commonwealth's requirements during the preparation of the tender responses; clarifying questions from tenderers would be answered prior to the tenders being lodged; and clarification considered necessary by the Commonwealth of tendered responses would be undertaken by discussion or in writing by the contract authority. Formal discussions were undertaken with 41 organisations during the course of the preparation of the tenders. (2) The discussions took place at the companies' own premises during an overseas mission in May-July 1983. Details of the companies and organisations visited are as follows: (a) Vickers Shipbuilding &Engineering Co. at Barrow-In-Furness, U.K. on May 10-12. (b) Barr and Stroud at Glasgow, U.K. on May 13. (c) AUWE Portland at Portland U.K. on May 13. (d) Paxman Diesel at Colchester U.K. on May 16. (e) Plessey Marine at Newport and Templecombe, U.K. on May 14-16. (f) Strachan and Henshaw (S&) at Bristol, U.K. on May 17. (g) Ferranti Computer Systems at Bracknell, U.K. on May 18-19. (h) Chloride Power Storage at Manchester, U.K. on May 20. (i) Kockums at Malmo, Sweden on May 24. (j) A/S Kongsburg Vapenfabrikk (KV) at Konsburg, Norway on May 25. (k) Tudor AB at Nol, Sweden on May 26. (l) Hedamira at Hedamira, Sweden on May 28. (m) United Stirling at Malmo, Sweden on May 31. (n) IKL/HDW at Lubeck, FRG on June 1-2. (o) Siemens at Kiel and Hamburg, FRG on June 1-2. (p) Thyssen Nordseewerke at Emden, FRG on June 6-7. (q) AEG-Telefunken at Bremen, FRG on June 7. (r) KAE at Bremen, FRG on June 8-9. (s) Wilhelm Hagen Batteries at Soest, FRG, on June 13. (t) Varta Batteries at Hagen, FRG on June 13. (u) Motaren and Turbinen-Union at Friedericks Haven FRG on June 13. (v) Siemens* (refer (2) (o)) at Nurnberg, FRG on June 14. (w) DTCN Dockyard at Cherbourg, France on June 15. (x) Nevesbu at The Hague, The Netherlands on June 28. (y) Rietschoten &Houwens at Rotterdam, The Netherlands on June 29. (z) HSA at Hengelo, The Netherlands on June 30. (aa) Plessey: Australia &Marine, BAe &CAP* (refer (2) (e)) at London, U.K. on July 2. (ab) Raytheon Submarine Signal DIV at Portsmouth, USA on July 6. (ac) Kollmorgen Corp at Northhampton, USA on July 6. (ad) Sperry at St Paul, USA on July 7. (ae) Singer-Librascope at Glendale, USA on July 8. (af) Rockwell AMSD at Anaheim, USA on July 11. (ag) Jeumant Schneider (J/S) (Electromechanical &Nuclear Division) at Maubeuge, France on June 16. (ah) CEAC (French Tudor-Fulmen) Batteries at Lille, France on June 16. (ai) Sagem at Paris, France on June 17. (aj) SEMT- Pielstick Diesels at St Nazaire, France on June 17 &20. (ak) Dubigeon-Normandie (D-N) at Cherbourg, France on June 20. (al) Sintra Alcatel (SA) at Paris, France on June 20. (am) Thomson CSF (ESM) at Cagnes-Sur-Mer, France on June 20. (an) Sagem* (Refer (2) (ai)) at Montlucon, France on June 21. (ao) Sintra Alcatel (Sonar)* (Refer (2) (al)) at Aubagne, France on June 21. (ap) Cantieri Navali Riuniti (CNR) at Genoa, Italy on June 23. (aq) Thomson-CSF* (Refer (2) (am)) at Cagnes-Sur-Mer, France on June 23. (ar) Elsag at Genoa, Italy on June 24. (as) De Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatsche APPIJ BV/Nevesbu at Rotterdam, The Netherlands on June 27. (at) Hughes Aircraft Company (Ground Systems Group) at Fullerton, USA on July 12. (Question No. 985) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the laying of a new 30 pair cable by Telecom to connect a telephone service to the small town of Nelligen, New South Wales. (2) Is it a fact that after approximately 37 kilometres of cable had been laid, it was discovered that it was the wrong type and the correct cable was laid alongside; if so, (a) what was the cost of replacing this cable, (b) how did the error occur and (c) what quality controls can Telecom introduce to ensure that this does not happen in the future. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The project at Nelligen required the installation, by mole plough, of a total of 37 kilometres of cable to provide telephone service for waiting applicants in the area. The estimated cost of the project was $260,000. (2) The correct type of cable was installed. However some minor changes in both final route selection and cable size were made following receipt of an unusually large number of additional unforeseen applications for service during progress of the work. The changes resulted in the need to plough an additional cable over a distance of approximately 500 metres alongside the original project cable at a cost of $400. (Question No. 1235) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Barry Jones — The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE (a) Consultant (b) Purpose (c) Working plan (d) Cost (e) Period Com- menced Finished (f) Fee in Excess of Initial Quote $ $ Australian National University-Health Research Unit Provide advice on specialised economic and econometric aspects of the retail pharmacy industry * 360.00 6.1.83 30.6.83 Nil Australian National University-Research School of Pacific Studies To provide statistics relating to Australia's trade with developing countries * 3,971.00 9,394.00 14,620.00 17.5.83 18.2.84 Oct. 84 21.11.83 6.3.84 Oct. 84 Nil 884.00 Nil Australian Graduate School of Management (Centre for Research in Finance) Study the costs of funds in manufacturing industry * 2,300.00 1.6.83 31.7.83 Nil Touche Ross &Co To provide services to train staff in the use of systems based investigation methodology and ADP audit software * 96,957.75 4.10.83 3.10.84 24,457.75 Development of ADP Audit Methodology for Internal Audit * 7,336.00 - - Nil David Angeloro &Associates Pty Ltd Train and supplement departmental staff involved in data base administration and provide specialist advice in particular areas * 14,000.00 7.11.83 30.6.84 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Perform installation audit of New Automatic Data Processing system * 5,765.00 10.11.83 30.6.84 Nil Undertake an Entry Processing audit * 10,000.00 (Estimated) 15.10.84 Oct. 85 (Estimated) - P.A. Management Consultants Report of the feasibility of assembly or manufacture in Australia of certain light commercial vehicles * 42,897.08 16.11.83 7.12.83 Nil Capital Territory Health Commission Mental Health Unit Middle Management Workshop * 907.40 16.1.84 20.1.84 Nil Ormsec Management Centre Undertake two pilot surveys on small business failure and entrepreneurial skills in small business, analyse the results and produce a report * 6,800.00 28.2.84 30.6.84 Nil Insearch Ltd (Dr Kaunitz) Produce a high level document describing the total departmental information environment (ADP) * 2,400.00 23.1.84 31.1.84 Nil Audit of the development of data communications network * 10,000.00 10.10.84 July 85 Nil Media Enterprises Pty Ltd Write a correspondence course on small business management * 8,154.40 28.2.84 22.5.84 154.40 Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd To provide a training course for observers using the Litton radar system installed in Nomad aircraft used for surveillance * 4,095.54 5,184.24 2.4.84 25.2.85 6.4.84 1.3.85 95.54 nil Ms Geraldine Crane Training Needs Analysis Workshops * 900.00 2.4.84 6.4.84 nil Mr Terrence Cummins Advanced Written Communication Course * 3,200.00 28.5.84 31.5.84 nil Professor Charles Margerison Occasional Seminar-Organisational Development * 500.00 1.6.84 1.6.84 nil Human Resource Management Middle Management Workshop Training Needs Identification Middle Management Workshop * * * 1,738.00 3,773.65 2,645.25 3.10.83 5.12.83 16.1.84 7.10.83 9.12.83 20.1.84 nil nil 395.25 Selection/Interviewing Course * 3,634.70 28.5.84 1.6.84 nil Middle Management Workshop * 5,917.00 17.6.84 22.6.84 nil Middle Management Workshop * 5,125.00 17.2.85 22.2.85 nil Middle Management Workshop Middle Management Workshop * * 5,498.00 5,462.40 19.8.84 14.10.84 24.8.84 19.10.84 nil 7.40 Mr Phil Hanford Senior Management Seminar Senior Management Seminar * * 8,491.70 7,953.45 9.11.83 21.3.84 18.11.83 30.3.84 858.85 nil Senior Executive Seminar * 7,089.39 21.9.84 22.10.84 26.11.84 21.9.84 26.10.84 27.11.84 nil Senior Executive Seminar * 4,970.70 5.5.85 10.5.85 nil Senior Executive Seminar * 7,052.91 20.9.84 15.10.84 11.12.84 20.9.84 19.10.84 12.12.84 nil Ravaba Pty Ltd Design a system to identify and update the continuing training needs of managers and factors affecting their performance; train Training Section personnel to implement the system; recommend methods of improving managerial performance * 10,337.15 1.7.83 30.6.84 nil Senior Management Seminar * 6,238.65 9.11.83 18.11.83 1,244.60 Senior Management Seminar * 6,536.00 21.3.84 30.3.84 nil Mr Chris Phillips Middle Management Workshop Middle Management Workshop Senior Management Workshop * * * 1,125.00 1,455.20 6,594.30 2.5.83 12.9.83 21.3.84 4.5.83 16.9.83 30.3.84 nil nil nil Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Ltd Review of cost recovery-fee structure for licensed warehouses and depots * 41,250.00 4.4.84 18.9.84 nil To carry out a full scale study of the effectiveness of the grant elements of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentive Scheme * 499,978.00 (Estimated) 8.10.84 15.10.85 (Estimated) . . Micro Solution dBase II Course * 400.00 7.2.84 9.2.84 nil Microcomputer processing of data from the survey of Major Manufacturing and Mining Investment Projects * 9,240.00 (Estimated) 19.5.85 30.8.85 (Estimated) . . Development of dBase II computerised processing system for Accounts, Purchasing and Travel functions * 13,000.00 (Estimated) 18.1.85 in progress . . NIS Associates Pty Ltd Level II DPA User Training Programme * 2,100.00 6.6.84 8.6.84 nil Nicholas Clark and Associates To undertake a study into the means of establishing a nationally based manufacturing industry extension service in order to promote the competitiveness and efficiency of Australian manufacturing industry * 150,000.00 9.11.84 4.4.85 nil To undertake a study into effectiveness measurement * 32,970.00 (Estimated) 14.6.85 in progress . . Metal Trade Industry Association To conduct a survey of Australian machine tool population * 10,748.67 (Estimated) 10.5.84 in progress . . Dr L. Cook Undertake an economic modelling exercise to estimate imports of trade flows on the major sectors of the Australian economy * 6,000.00 (Estimated) Nov. 84 July 85 (Estimated) . . McIver Associates Senior Executive Seminar * 5,564.90 21.9.84 22.10.84 26.11.84 21.9.84 26.10.84 27.11.84 nil Senior Executive Seminar * 4,553.70 5.5.85 10.5.85 nil Senior Executive Seminar * 5,499.05 20.9.84 15.10.84 11.12.84 11.12.84 20.9.84 19.10.84 12.12.84 12.12.84 nil Infotrol Pty Ltd Provide audit software and training in its use * 35,500.00 (Estimated) 20.2.85 in progress . . Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Provide specialist training courses for the introduction of a system based audit technique * 23,292.25 11.1.85 1.4.85 5,052.25 Deloitte, Haskins and Sells Provide specialist training courses for the introduction of a systems based audit technique * 7,533.40 11.1.85 18.4.85 1,533.40 Filewood and Hartill Consultants Pty Ltd To conduct a feasibility study of the closed circuit television system at the International Terminal Building, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport * 15,450.00 (Estimated) 24.11.84 in progress . . To conduct Stage 1 of a feasibility study of the closed circuit television system at the International Terminal Building, Melbourne Airport * 5,050.00 (Estimated) 16.4.85 in progress . . Reark Research Pty Ltd Undertake surveys of small business owner/managers to evaluate their knowledge and perceptions of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce small business self-learning training materials and Small Business Awards program and to collect information on their attitudes to development of management knowledge and skills particularly through self-learning methods, and produce a report * 30,000.00 29.11.84 27.5.85 nil Dr R. D. Black To produce a modular training package to assist accountants in counselling their small business clients, to make proposals for a supporting audio-cassette and a video-cassette/film, and to propose appropriate means for marketing and presenting the package throughout Australia * 20,000.00 (Estimated) 8.2.85 in progress . . Arthur Young and Company (Mr Milne) To serve as a member of the Implementation Committee for the Joint Management Review of Bounty Administration * 1,222.40 26.7.84 12.2.85 26.7.84 12.2.85 nil Hungerford Hancock &Offner To examine management fees and incentive packages of management and investment companies and applicants for a management and investment company's licence * 10,274.97 8.10.84 6.12.84 nil W. D. Scott &Co P/L Study of Information Technology Opportunities-Phase 2 * 51,780.00 23.9.83 31.7.84 nil Prof. H. Hughes To report on the operation of the Australian System of Tariff Preferences * 7,200.00 13.5.85 in progress . . Mr J. McLucas To report on the operation of the Australian System of Tariff Preferences * 17,600.00 13.5.85 in progress . . * Working Plan Detailed Terms of Reference are provided to each consultant as either part of their contract or by exchange of letters. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY INDUSTRYIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (a) Consultant (b) Purpose (c) Working plan (d) Cost Fee Travel Total (e) Period Commenced Finished (f) Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ $ $ $ Mandeville, Mr T., Sydney, N.S.W. Seminar on Fishing Industry Presentation &Participation 120 141 261 7/3/83 7/3/83 Nil Wallace, Prof. C. Monash University, Melbourne, Vic Technical advice regarding inquiries into Computer Hardware and Software, Metal Working Machines Tools &Robots Provide advice according to Contract 1 128 (8 days) Nil 1 128 23/3/83 30/6/83 Nil Alaouze, Dr C. University of Melbourne Workshop on Orani Economic Model Presentation &Participation 105 196 301 14/4/83 14/4/83 Nil Dixon, Dr R. University of Melbourne (temp. located in Canberra) Workshop on Orani Economic Model Presentation &Participation 105 Nil 105 14/4/83 14/4/83 Nil Freebairn, Prof. J. LaTrobe University, Melbourne Workshop on Orani Economic Model Presentation &Participation 105 196 301 14/4/83 14/4/83 Nil Pazan, Dr A. ANU Canberra Workshop on Orani Economic Model Presentation &Participation 105 Nil 105 14/4/83 14/4/83 Nil Schweinberger, Dr A. ANU Canberra Workshop on Orani Economic Model Presentation &Participation 105 Nil 105 14/4/83 14/4/83 Nil Parish, Mr R. Monash University, Melbourne Seminar on Resource Allocation Presentation &Participation 120 251 371 22/11/83 22/11/83 Nil Nicholas Clark &Associates, Woden, ACT Telephone survey for Passenger and Light Commercial Vehicles Provide services as per contract 7 075 Nil 7 075 23/11/83 1/12/83 Nil Adaps Ltd, St Kilda, Vic. Survey on recent purchases of motor vehicles Provide services as per contract 709 Nil 709 30/11/83 30/11/83 Nil Koranya Data Base, Canberra, ACT Study and report on Information System for IAC Provide report and assistance as per contract 19 900 Nil 19 900 24/1/84 23/5/84 Nil Kennedy, Dr J. LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Vic. Seminar on Southern Bluefin Tuna Inquiry Presentation &Participation 360 Nil 360 29/3/84 31/3/84 Nil Watkins, Dr J. Latrobe University, Melbourne, Vic. Seminar on Southern Bluefin Tuna Inquiry Presentation &Participation 120 211 331 29/3/84 31/3/84 Nil Seiper, Mr E. ANU Canberra Seminars on: Southern Bluefin Tuna Inquiry Presentation &Participation 240 300 Nil Nil 240 300 29/3/84 21/9/84 30/3/84 22/9/84 Nil Nil NZ Protection Reform Presentation &Participation 146 Nil 146 3/4/84 3/4/84 Nil Subsidies and Taxes Presentation &Participation 146 Nil 146 17/4/84 17/4/84 Nil Shadow Pricing Presentation &Participation 146 Nil 146 1/5/84 1/5/84 Nil Mineral Sector Growth and Structural Change Presentation &Participation 146 Nil 146 15/5/84 15/5/84 Nil Assistance with Honey Industry Inquiry Presentation &Report 250 Nil 250 23/5/84 23/5/84 Nil Seminar on Motor Vehicle Industry Presentation &Participation 150 Nil 150 12/6/84 12/6/84 Nil Mumme, Mr A. W. Canberra, ACT Assistance with respect to the Uhrig Review of the IAC In accordance with contract 10 845 Nil 10 845 9/8/83 1/12/83 Nil Warr, Dr P. ANU Canberra Seminar on Price Distortions Presentation 105 Nil 105 30/5/84 30/5/84 Nil Wallace, Prof. T.D. Melbourne, Vic. Combined Seminar on Agricultural Economics Presentation &Participation 400 320 720 25/6/84 26/6/84 Nil Wilkie, Mr S. Canberra, ACT Seminar on Export Incentive Schemes Presentation 140 Nil 140 10/7/84 10/7/84 Nil Logan, Mr J. ANU Canberra Seminar on Barriers to Occupational Entry Presentation 140 Nil 140 17/7/84 17/7/84 Nil Levick, Mrs P. Canberra, ACT Advice on prevention of Repetitive Strain Injury Provide advice and Instruction 1 387 Nil 1 387 5/8/84 16/5/85 Nil Harris, Dr R. Sydney, NSW Seminar on Economic Modelling Presentation and Participation 400 196 596 15/9/83 16/8/84 Nil Davidson, Mr K. Canberra, ACT Seminar for PSB Economists in Action Campaign Presentation and Participation 100 Nil 100 28/8/84 28/8/84 Nil Brennan, Prof. G. Canberra, ACT Seminar on Government Presentation and Participation 300 Nil 300 11/9/84 12/9/84 Nil Albon, Dr R. Canberra, ACT Seminar on Non-newable Resources Presentation and Participation 300 Nil 300 21/9/84 22/9/84 Nil Media Monitors Haymarket, NSW Survey for Tableware Inquiry Provide press clippings 235 Nil 235 25/9/84 23/10/84 Nil Blandy, Dr R. Adelaide, SA Assistance with Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Inquiry Provide initial assistance 294 561 855 2/10/84 3/10/84 Nil Olewchowski, Dr A. Geneva, Switzerland Inventory of Non-Tariff Barriers Presentation and Report as per agreement 7 019 Fee and Travel Combined 7 019 2/10/84 18/10/84 Nil Lovett, Dr J. Hobart, Tas Seminar on Biological Control of Echium Presentation and Participation 540 395 935 13/1/85 16/1/85 Nil National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University Adelaide, SA Employment Study for Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Inquiry Report as per contract 199 450 . . 199 450 25/1/85 Due 15/10/85 Nil Sampson, Dr G. Monash University, Melbourne, Vic Seminar on Erosion of Multilaterial Trading System Presentation and Participation 120 278 398 20/9/83 20/9/83 Nil Assistance with information transfer on Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Provide advice and assistance 1 632 (22 days) 3 214 (10 return trips to (Cbr. 966) 4 846 6/5/84 14/3/85 Nil Study on Non-Tariff Assistance Provide assistance to develop program of work as per contracts 2 4448 (12 days) 966 3 414 10/11/84 27/2/85 Nil Lloyd, Prof. P. G. University of Melbourne Study on Non-Tariff Assistance Provide assistance to develop program of work as per contracts 1 224 (6 days) 1 470 2 694 10/11/84 1/3/85 Nil Snape, Prof. R. M. Monash University Melbourne, Vic Study on Non-Tariff Assistance Provide assistance to develop program of work as per contracts 1 224 (6 days) 742 1 966 12/11/84 27/2/85 Nil Gruen, Prof. F. H. A.N.U., Canberra Study on Non-Tariff Assistance Provide assistance to develop program of work as per contracts 204 Nil 204 12/11/84 12/11/84 Nil Corden, Prof. W. M. ANU, Canberra Study on Non-Tariff Assistance Provide assistance to develop program of work as per contracts 204 Nil 204 12/11/84 12/11/84 Nil Seminar on Economists in Action Presentation 100 Nil 100 31/8/84 31/8/84 Nil Kelly, Dr W. University of Qld, Brisbane Seminar on Bioligical Control of Echium Presentation and Participation 360 346 706 21/2/85 22/2/85 Nil Seminar on Bioligical Control of Echium Presentation and Participation Nil 346 346 29/3/85 29/3/85 Nil CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY INDUSTRY COUNCILS' SECRETARIAT (a) Consultant (b) Purpose (c) Working plan (d) Cost (e) Period Com- menced Finished (f) Fee in excess of initial quote $ $ University of Sydney Metal Fabrication Industry Analysis Formal Contract 10,000.00 (Estimated) 1.12.84 in progress . . Price Waterhouse and Associates Metal Fabrication-Marketing Aspects Formal Contract 19,575.00 25.1.85 1.4.85 nil Nicholas Clark and Associates Office Automation Study Formal Contract 6,000.00 17.1.85 10.4.85 nil Maunsell and Partners Modular Plant Construction Study Formal Contract 31,500.00 (Estimated) 4.4.85 in progress . . National Institute of Economic and Industry Research Industry Forecast Formal Contract 9,500.00 (Estimated) 15.2.85 in progress . . Jaako Pty Ltd Study of Forest Product Competitiveness Formal Contract 70,000.00 (Estimated) 7.5.85 in progress . . John Slack Provision of advice for Strategic Planning Formal Contract 7,500.00 (Estimated) 4.4.85 in progress . . Max Brereton Provision of advice on Metal Manufacturing Industry Formal Contract 10,000.00 (Estimated) 26.4.85 in progress . . Australian Book Publishers Survey on Small Publishers Letter of Instruction 2,500.00 20.11.84 24.3.85 nil Sarah Sargent Information on Offshore Manufacturing Formal Contract 1,000.00 (Estimated) 9.5.85 in progress . . Australian Chamber of Manufacturers Provision of Industry Specific Advice in Strategic Planning Letters of Agreement 40,000.00 (Estimated) 1.2.85 in progress . . Mr N. Gruen To prepare briefing papers on automotive industry matters. Tasks are allocated to meet Authority priorities and committees 19,162.00 (Estimated) Jan 85 in progress . . Mr M. Wynne-Hughes To prepare briefing papers on automotive industry matters. Tasks are allocated to meet Authority priorities and commitments 2,838.00 June 85 July 85 nil (Question No. 1341) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: How many public telephones, exclusive of red phones, have been (a) installed and (b) disconnected (i) nationally, (ii) in New South Wales and (iii) in the Electoral Division of Chifley, in each year since 1979. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission is as follows: 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Installed National... 5395 *...4506 5014 2002 913 685 NSW... 2426 1607 2206 288 30 112 Chifley Electorate (old and new boundaries)... 6 1 Nil 1 2 3 Disconnected National... 5388 *...4787 6644 1730 1475 450 NSW Chifley Electorate 2230 1469 2590 232 26 123 (old boundaries)... Nil 5 7 12 11 7 (new boundaries)... Nil 2 10 13 4 8 * Estimates only, the figures for Victoria (country) are unavailable. It has been possible to rationalise the population of public telephones because of the increased penetration of residential telephone services and the greater availability of privately rented or owned coin telephones. (Question No. 1450) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 August, 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No advertising campaigns. A research study of public attitudes towards a second Sydney Airport site-24 November, 1983. (2) The research study was co-ordinating by the Australian Government Advertising Service in Sydney. (3) (a) Research firm Burke Marketing Research was selected by the Australian Government Advertising Service. (b) $16,775. (4) (a) $16,775. (b) Does not apply-no advertising campaigns were undertaken. (Question No. 425) Mr Wright asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: What action is being considered to overcome the delays in the Family Law Court and problems associated with the lack of counsellors. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Principal Registry of the Family Court of Australia has advised that the overall maximum period of delay in the hearing of a defended case in the Court, from the time it is placed in the defended list until it is heard, is eighteen months. In New South Wales, both the Sydney and Parramatta registries have, in particular, had dislocations to their listing systems by virtue of security and accommodation problems. I do not, however, necessarily accept that there is a lack of counsellors within the Family Court of Australia. Following representations from Family Court counsellors and their relevant staff association, a management review of the Family Court Counselling Service is presently under way. The review will, inter alia, canvass the question of counsellor numbers. Specific measures have been taken over the last 12 months to overcome delays in the Family Court of Australia. These include- the opening of five new registries of the Court, ranging from those with full filing facilities and a resident Judge (Dandenong), to those with counselling facilities only (Bendigo, Albury, Lismore and Wollongong); the appointment of two additional Judges to the Court; the allocation of additional staff to the Court, increasing the average operative staffing level of the Court by 61 staff units in 1984/85 and 14 staff units in 1985/86 to a total of 506. In addition, it is expected that the following measures will reduce delays in the Family Court- the exercise by Registrars and Deputy Registrars of powers under section 37A of the Family Law Act. These powers have been exercised by Registrars and Deputy Registrars in most registries of the Family Court since 1 July 1985. It is expected that judicial time will therefore be free to deal with defended matters rather than procedural applications. the introduction of a case management system. My Department has also sought the consultative advice of Professor Ian Scott, Barber Professor of Law at the Birmingham Institute of Judicial Administration. Professor Scott is a member of the Lord Chancellor's Committee of Inquiry into Civil Justice in England and Wales. He will be examining ways of reducing delays in the Court and of assessing, allocating and disposing of the work of the court. (Question No. 840) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) How many instances of multiple voting were ascertained in each electoral division in the last three federal elections. (2) Have all instances of multiple voting been investigated in the 1984 election: if so, how many in each division were as a result of (a) clerical error, (b) action on the part of the voter, or (c) the actions of a person or persons unknown. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following information on `multiple voting' in the last three general elections is supplied by the Electoral Commissioner: Following a general election the Electoral Commission conducts a `mark-back' of certified lists of voters marked in polling booths against a master list in each electoral Division, to ascertain the electors who did not vote, and the electors marked as having voted more than once. For the 1980 and 1983 general elections the majority of cases of `multiple voting' apparent after the mark-back procedure were attributed to clerical error, usually as a result of the wrong name being marked on the certified list as having voted. In a minority of cases electors admitted voting twice or strong evidence suggested that electors had voted twice. Table 1 shows the incidence of `multiple voting' in these two categories for the 1980 and 1983 elections. At these two elections there were no standard procedures for defining clerical error and such cases were decided according to the discretion of the relevant Divisional Returning Officer. For the 1984 general election the initial processing of multiple voters was done in much the same way as for the two previous elections. However, in an attempt to obtain more meaningful information, the Divisional Returning Officers were asked to repeat the exercise where possible or to reconstruct it, so as to divide the cases of multiple voting apparent after the mark-back into four categories: Dual Voter/Non Voter Matched; Evidence Inconclusive; Elector Admitted Voting Twice; and Investigation/Prosecutions Being Pursued. The first category refers to entries on certified lists where it appears that an elector who was marked as having voted twice was matched after consideration of non-voters replies against an elector with a similar name who was marked as not having voted at all. The entries in this category are clear cases of clerical error. The other three categories are self-explanatory. On past experience it is probable that most entries in the Evidence Inconclusive column were also the result of clerical error. Table 2 show the incidence of `multiple voting' in the 1984 election. It should be noted that those cases of `multiple voting' attributable to clerical error did not result in electors actually voting more than once; these figures relate to errors made in marking certified lists in polling booths or transcribing details during the mark-back. There was only one known case of `multiple voting' attributable to the actions of a person or persons unknown in the last 3 general elections: in the Division of Cowan in Western Australia in 1984, where two declarations votes were received in the same name. The case has been investigated by the Australian Federal Police and remains unsolved. TABLE 1 18 October 1980 Election Clerical Error Apparent Multiple Voting 5 March 1983 Election Clerical Error Apparent Multiple Voting NEW SOUTH WALES Banks... 31 . . 34 . . Barton... 22 . . 49 . . Bennelong... 44 . . 101 . . Berowra... 31 . . 32 1 Blaxland... 34 1 13 . . Bradfield... 9 . . 49 . . Calare... 51 1 33 . . Charlton *... . . . . . . . . Chifley... 33 . . 7 . . Cook... 14 . . 43 . . Cowper... 44 . . 33 . . Cunningham... 41 . . 42 . . Dobell *... . . . . . . . . Dundas... 25 . . 48 . . Eden-Monaro... 47 1 60 . . Farrer... 64 . . 90 . . Fowler *... . . . . . . . . Gilmore *... . . . . . . . . Grayndler... 11 . . 4 . . Greenway*... . . . . . . . . Gwydir... 59 . . 60 . . Hughes... 14 . . 23 . . Hume... 52 1 25 2 Hunter... 77 . . 48 . . Kingsford-Smith... 30 . . 29 . . Lindsay *... . . . . . . . . Lowe... 10 . . 20 . . Lyne... 81 . . 108 . . Macarthur... 65 . . 29 . . Mackellar... 24 . . 57 . . Macquarie... 24 . . 39 . . Mitchell... 27 . . 16 . . Newcastle... 18 5 12 . . New England... 25 1 34 . . North Sydney... 58 . . 106 . . Page *... . . . . . . . . Parkes *... . . . . . . . . Parramatta... 8 . . 16 . . Paterson +... 83 . . 35 . . Phillip... 46 . . 14 . . Prospect... 25 . . 67 . . Reid... 21 2 13 . . Richmond... 22 2 11 . . Riverina +... 71 . . 70 . . Riverina-Darling *... . . . . . . . . Robertson... 50 1 65 . . St. George... 53 . . 49 . . Shortland... 38 . . 64 . . Sydney... 19 . . 47 . . Throsby *... . . . . . . . . Warringah... 22 1 25 . . Wentworth... 54 . . 75 . . Werriwa... 26 . . 31 . . STATE TOTAL... 1603 14 1826 3 VICTORIA Aston *... . . . . . . . . Balaclava +... 65 . . 79 2 Ballarat... 74 . . 61 . . Batman... 31 . . 18 . . Bendigo... 119 . . 91 . . Bruce... 52 . . 28 . . Burke... 27 . . 44 . . Calwell *... . . . . . . . . Casey... 34 . . 50 1 Chisholm... 26 . . 19 1 Corangamite... 78 . . 64 . . Corio... 122 . . 73 . . Deakin... 13 . . 20 1 Diamond Valley +... 6 . . 6 . . Dunkley *... . . . . . . . . Flinders... 21 . . 8 . . Gellibrand... 38 . . 28 . . Gippsland... 113 . . 69 . . Goldstein *... . . . . . . . . Henty... 25 . . 33 . . Higgins... 89 . . 32 . . Holt... 28 . . 47 . . Hotham... 23 . . 15 . . Indi... 67 . . 28 . . Isaacs... 45 . . 20 . . Jagajaga *... . . . . . . . . Kooyong... 52 . . 41 . . Lalor... 68 . . 82 2 La Trobe... 36 . . 17 . . McEwen *... . . . . . . . . McMillan... 46 . . 46 . . Mallee... 78 . . 105 . . Maribyrnong... 98 . . 100 . . Melbourne... 28 . . 17 . . Melbourne Ports... 50 . . 50 . . Menzies *... . . . . . . . . Murray... 118 . . 57 . . Scullin... 21 . . 20 . . Streeton *... . . . . . . . . Wannon... 43 . . 33 . . Wills... 72 . . 82 . . STATE TOTAL... 1806 . . 1483 7 QUEENSLAND Bowman... 21 2 49 . . Brisbane... 42 . . 144 1 Capricornia... 20 2 46 . . Darling Downs +... 23 1 76 . . Dawson... 14 . . 29 . . Fadden... 11 . . 30 . . Fairfax *... . . . . . . . . Fisher... 28 . . 18 . . Forde *... . . . . . . . . Griffith... 4 . . 40 . . Groom *... . . . . . . . . Herbert... 27 . . 43 . . Hinkler *... . . . . . . . . Kennedy... 42 1 81 5 Leichhardt... 9 . . 22 1 Lilley... 24 . . 12 1 McPherson... 163 . . 90 1 Maranoa... 42 . . 20 1 Moncrieff *... . . . . . . . . Moreton... 27 1 31 1 Oxley... 15 . . 36 2 Petrie... 29 . . 16 1 Rankin *... . . . . . . . . Ryan... 12 . . 12 . . Wide Bay... 8 . . 43 . . STATE TOTAL... 561 7 838 14 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Brand *... . . . . . . . . Canning... 83 . . 118 . . Cowan *... . . . . . . . . Curtin... 32 . . . . 1 Forrest... 55 . . 17 . . Fremantle... 33 . . 71 . . Kalgoorlie... 120 . . 34 . . Moore... 131 . . 29 2 O'Connor... 82 . . 45 1 Perth... 57 1 122 . . Stirling... 21 . . 23 . . Swan... 35 . . 51 . . Tangney... 114 . . 94 . . STATE TOTAL... 763 1 604 4 SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adelaide... 29 . . 24 . . Barker... 34 . . 40 . . Bonython... 34 . . 15 . . Boothby... 2 1 16 1 Grey... 26 . . 58 . . Hawker... 27 . . 59 1 Hindmarsh... 19 . . 23 1 Kingston... 13 . . 9 . . Makin *... . . . . . . . . Mayo *... . . . . . . . . Port Adelaide... 29 . . 39 . . Sturt... 16 . . 17 . . Wakefield... 14 . . 12 . . STATE TOTAL... 243 1 312 3 TASMANIA Bass... 68 1 83 . . Braddon... 30 . . 47 . . Denison... 8 . . 14 . . Franklin... 14 . . 15 . . Lyons *... . . . . . . . . Wilmot +... 65 . . 65 . . STATE TOTAL... 185 1 224 . . AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Canberra... 43 . . 25 1 Fraser... 10 . . 26 . . TERRITORY TOTAL... 53 . . 51 1 NORTHERN TERRITORY Northern Territory... 54 . . 38 . . AUSTRALIAN TOTAL... 5268 24 5376 32 TABLE 2 1 December 1984 Election (position as at 23.8.85) Total No. of Cases Dual Voter/ Non Voter Matched Evidence Inconclusive Elector Admitted Voting Twice Investi- gations/ Prosecutions Being Pursued NEW SOUTH WALES Banks... 28 . . 28 . . . . Barton... 9 . . 9 . . . . Bennelong... 76 42 33 . . 1 Berowra... 30 2 27 . . 1 Blaxland... 63 29 34 . . . . Bradfield... 45 21 24 . . . . Calare... 31 6 25 . . . . Charlton*... 19 1 18 . . . . Chifley... 33 8 25 . . . . Cook... 9 . . 9 . . . . Cowper... 37 6 31 . . . . Cunningham... 74 5 68 . . 1 Dobell*... 15 5 10 . . . . Dundas... 51 . . 51 . . . . Eden-Monaro... 15 13 2 . . . . Farrer... 14 4 10 . . . . Fowler*... 26 . . 26 . . . . Gilmore*... 56 . . 56 . . . . Grayndler... 4 . . . . 3 1 Greenway*... 34 19 15 . . . . Gwydir... 102 63 39 . . . . Hughes... 13 . . 13 . . . . Hume... 52 49 3 . . . . Hunter... 24 2 20 2 . . Kingsford-Smith... 31 26 5 . . . . Lindsay*... 55 55 . . . . . . Lowe... 144 64 80 . . . . Lyne... 26 . . 26 . . . . Macarthur... 12 . . 11 1 . . Mackellar... 69 . . 69 . . . . Macquarie... 59 1 56 2 . . Mitchell... . . . . . . . . . . Newcastle... 39 38 . . 1 1 New England... 28 9 19 . . . . North Sydney... 15 2 11 1 1 Page*... 40 . . 37 3 . . Parkes*... 20 12 8 . . . . Parramatta... 10 5 5 . . . . Paterson+... . . . . . . . . . . Phillip... 41 . . 41 . . . . Prospect... 7 7 . . . . . . Reid... 8 . . 8 . . . . Richmond... 14 13 . . 1 . . Riverina+... . . . . . . . . . . Riverina-Darling*... 29 28 . . 1 . . Robertson... 21 5 16 . . . . St George... 19 . . 19 . . . . Shortland... 24 22 2 . . . . Sydney... 10 3 7 . . . . Throsby*... 87 5 82 . . . . Warringah... 26 . . 26 . . . . Wentworth... 15 11 3 1 1 Werriwa... 12 4 8 . . . . STATE TOTAL... 1,721 585 1,115 16 7 VICTORIA Aston*... 42 10 32 . . . . Balaclava+... . . . . . . . . . . Ballarat... 56 40 13 3 3 Batman... 54 30 23 1 1 Bendigo... 80 79 . . 1 . . Bruce... 10 8 2 . . . . Burke... 27 10 17 . . . . Calwell*... 108 102 5 1 1 Casey... 25 22 3 . . . . Chisholm... 9 2 6 1 . . Corangamite... 136 79 56 1 . . Corio... 99 69 30 . . . . Deakin... 29 29 . . . . . . Diamond Valley+... . . . . . . . . . . Dunkley*... 14 13 1 . . . . Flinders... 50 33 17 . . . . Gellibrand... 31 30 1 . . . . Gippsland... 120 60 60 . . . . Goldstein*... 40 22 17 1 . . Henty... 53 39 14 . . . . Higgins... 12 3 9 . . . . Holt... 17 15 2 . . . . Hotham... 56 42 14 . . . . Indi... 40 18 22 . . . . Isaacs... 42 26 15 1 . . Jagajaga*... 49 33 15 . . 1 Kooyong... 32 . . 32 . . . . Lalor... 80 6 74 . . . . La Trobe... 50 49 . . 1 . . McEwen*... 10 6 4 . . . . McMillan... 144 132 12 . . . . Mallee... 75 63 12 . . . . Maribyrnong... 82 66 14 2 2 Melbourne... 28 25 3 . . . . Melbourne Ports... 67 5 59 . . 1 Menzies*... 9 2 7 . . . . Murray... 48 28 20 . . . . Scullin... 129 91 38 . . . . Streeton*... 35 26 9 . . . . Wannon... 139 76 63 . . . . Wills... 100 67 32 . . 1 STATE TOTAL... 2 227 1 456 753 13 10 QUEENSLAND Bowman... 67 26 41 . . . . Brisbane... 69 18 49 2 . . Capricornia... 68 28 39 1 . . Darling Downs+... . . . . . . . . . . Dawson... 11 . . 11 . . . . Fadden... 48 33 14 1 . . Fairfax*... 16 2 14 . . . . Fisher... 14 2 12 . . . . Forde*... 69 53 12 4 . . Griffith... 70 33 37 . . . . Groom*... 64 42 20 2 . . Herbert... 60 37 22 1 . . Hinkler*... 56 32 24 . . . . Kennedy... 82 50 32 . . . . Leichhardt... 135 97 36 2 . . Lilley... 65 36 25 4 . . McPherson... 102 42 59 1 . . Maranoa... 135 104 31 . . . . Moncrieff*... 22 10 12 . . . . Moreton... 59 12 46 1 . . Oxley... 67 44 23 . . . . Petrie... 42 29 12 1 . . Rankin*... 76 69 7 . . . . Ryan... 12 . . 12 . . . . Wide Bay... 26 3 22 1 . . STATE TOTAL... 1 435 802 612 21 . . WESTERN AUSTRALIA Brand*... 73 45 28 . . . . Canning... 94 83 11 . . . . Cowan*... 143 91 51 . . **1 Curtin... 159 127 32 . . . . Forrest... 37 31 6 . . . . Fremantle... 176 145 29 2 . . Kalgoorlie... 101 62 39 . . . . Moore... 114 79 35 . . . . O'Connor... 59 38 20 1 . . Perth... 103 85 18 . . . . Stirling... 111 99 12 . . . . Swan... 53 47 6 . . . . Tangney... 66 63 3 . . . . STATE TOTAL... 1 289 995 290 3 1 SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adelaide... 26 4 22 . . . . Barker... 38 . . 38 . . . . Bonython... 19 1 18 . . . . Boothby... 22 16 6 . . . . Grey... 59 43 16 . . . . Hawker... 39 5 32 2 . . Hindmarsh... 17 . . 17 . . . . Kingston... 41 14 27 . . . . Makin*... 11 . . 9 2 . . Mayo*... 11 11 . . . . . . Port Adelaide... 26 . . 26 . . . . Sturt... 27 4 23 . . . . Wakefield... 7 7 . . . . . . STATE TOTAL... 343 105 234 4 . . TASMANIA Bass... 45 45 . . . . . . Braddon... 57 51 5 1 . . Denison... 62 55 7 . . . . Franklin... 66 63 3 . . . . Lyons*... 68 68 . . . . . . Wilmot+... . . . . . . . . . . STATE TOTAL... 298 282 15 1 . . AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Canberra... 9 5 4 . . . . Fraser... 13 8 5 . . . . TERRITORY TOTAL... 22 13 9 . . . . NORTHERN TERRITORY Northern Territory... 64 45 19 . . . . AUSTRALIA TOTAL... 7 399 4 283 3 047 58 18 Notes: Those Divisions marked with * were created in the 1984 Redistribution and those marked + were abolished. **One case in the Division of Cowan in Western Australia has been investigated and found to be a case of personation (see text). (Question No. 1160) Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (a) Departmental Manual entitled `Procedures for Handling Parliamentary, Ministerial and Cabinet Papers' was issued in 1978, supplemented by the following two Departmental Parliamentary Instructions: 1/84 Time Limits for Response to Ministerial Correspondence 1/85 Responsibilities of the Ministers Assisting the Minister for Defence A second edition entitled `Manual of Ministerial and Parliamentary Procedures' was issued on 9 August 1985. (b) Yes; formally in the Manual (i) for routine correspondence-15 working days from receipt of the representation in the Department to presentation to the Minister or Ministers Assisting for approval. Shorter target times are provided to departmental action areas for more urgent representations. (2) Yes; approximately 60 percent. (Question No. 1380) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the value of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea (a) in current prices, (b) in constant prices and (c) as a proportion of total Australian overseas aid, in each year since 1972-73. (2) What was the value of Australian overseas aid in each year since 1972-73. (3) What was the value of Papua New Guinea government receipts in each year since 1972-73 and what proportion was contributed by Australian budget support. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Table 1 gives the answers to (1) (a), (b) and (c) and (2): Table 1 AUSTRALIAN AID TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA, 1972-73 TO 1985-86 Australian Aid to PNG Australian Aid to PNG (c) Aid to PNG as a Proportion of Total Aid Total Aid (a) (current $m) (constant $m) (%) (Current $m) 1972-73... 144.3 324.3 65.8 219.2 1973-74... 177.1 345.9 66.9 264.9 1974-75... 168.8 279.0 50.4 334.6 1975-76... 211.9 304.0 59.5 356.0 1976-77... 226.4 292.5 58.6 386.2 1977-78... 219.4 263.1 51.5 426.1 1978-79... 237.2 263.6 50.6 468.4 1979-80... 235.6 235.6 46.3 508.7 1980-81... 245.1 222.0 43.2 568.0 1981-82... 252.9 208.0 38.4 658.0 1982-83... 274.9 204.2 36.9 744.6 1983-84... 302.3 208.8 32.4 931.8 1984-85... 320.2 208.3 31.7 1,011.4 1985-86 (b)... 326.4 198.2 31.8 1,025.9 (a) Total aid includes administrative costs from 1980-81, and the Commonwealth contribution towards the cost of educating students from developing countries in Australia from 1983-84. (b) Budget estimate. (c) Calculation based on ABS implicit price deflator for expenditure on GDP (1979-80=100). Source: ADAB Table 2 provides the answer to (3): Table 2 AUSTRALIAN GRANT AID AS A PROPORTION OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA GOVERNMENT RECEIPTS, 1972-73-1985 PNG Government Receipts (a) (Kina (b) M)Australian Grant as Proportion of PNG Receipts (Kina (b) m) (%) 1972-73... 178.8 47.9 1973-74... 269.5 49.4 1974-75... 333.9 46.8 1975-76... 340.6 35.1 1976-77... 401.9 43.5 1977 July-Dec (c)... 202.3 43.3 1978... 460.3 37.4 1979... 459.5 38.1 1980... 517.2 33.8 1981... 565.9 32.6 1982... 590.0 33.7 1983... 618.3 34.5 1984... 699.9 33.1 1985 (d)... 755.7 32.4 (a) PNG Government receipts cited here include internal revenue and the Australian grant-in-aid, but exclude borrowings. (b) Kina was used exclusively in PNG from 1 January 1976. However, PNG Budget papers now quote all figures in kina, even prior to 1976. (c) Six month transitional period between the July-June financial year and the calendar year basis now used. (d) PNG Budget estimate. Source: Papua New Guinea Budget Paper, ``Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the Year Ending 31 December 1985''. (Question No. 1533) Mr Andrew asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: 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 Parliament on (i) 30 May (ii) 31 May and (iii) 1 June 1985 by the Australian Federal Police and (b) what was the cost of those extra staff. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) 3 (ii) 4 (iii) Nil (b) $878.28. (Question No. 164) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) How many former public service employees are in receipt of an invalid pension under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. (2) What is the current annual cost of these pensions. (3) How many recipients of the invalid pension applied in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984 to the Superannuation Board for re-employment in the Public Service and how many successfully obtained employment in the Public Service. (4) Of those applicants who were unsuccessful in obtaining re-employment in the Public Service, how many were unsuccessful in obtaining employment for medical reasons. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As at 30 June 1984, the total number of persons formerly employed in the Australian Public Service and by Commonwealth statutory authorities who were in receipt of invalidity pensions under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976 was 26,173. (2) The annual cost of these invalidity pensions as at 30 June 1984 was $310,127,987. (3) Invalidity pensioners who desire to be re-employed in the Australian Public Service and Commonwealth statutory authorities would normally approach the various Commonwealth employers direct rather than the Commissioner for Superannuation who does not therefore have records of such approaches. However, the Commissioner is empowered by section 74 of the Superannuation Act to require invalidity pensioners who have not attained the age of 65 years to provide information about employment and to undergo medical examinations. During the 1982-83 financial year 936 pensioners were medically examined and of these 126 were considered fit to resume duty. Thirty-five pensions were cancelled, 29 after the pensioners recommenced public service or statutory authority employment and six because offers of employment were not accepted by the pensioners. In 1983-84, 601 pensioners were medically examined and of these 90 were considered fit to resume duty. Forty-nine pensions were cancelled, 36 after the pensioners recommenced public service or statutory authority employment and 13 because offers of employment were not accepted by the pensioners. (4) During 1982-83 810 pensioners who were medically examined were not considered fit to resume duty. In 1983-84 the relevant figure was 511. (Question No. 205) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided an answer to the honourable member's question-this response relates to the Finance portfolio including the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-as follows: (1) Nil. (2) No. The Department's clients do not generally include persons who require assistance with language. On the infrequent occasions where assistance is required, special arrangements can be made. (3) N/A. (Question No. 366) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: (i) Chairman: Mr L. J. Willett (ii) appointed on 12 October 1984 until 1 June 1985 (i) Part-time Member-Government Nominee: Mr R. C. Davey (ii) appointed on 1 July 1984 until 31 March 1985. Mr Davey was reappointed on 28 March 1985 for the period 1 April 1985 to 30 September 1985 (i) Part-time Member-Association Nominee: Dr H. G. Scott (ii) appointed on 12 October 1984 for a period of 3 years. Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office: (i) Commissioner for Superannuation: Mr R. C. Davey (ii) appointed on 27 May 1976 for a period of seven years from 1 July 1976. Mr Davey occupied the position on an acting basis from 1 July 1983 until his re-appointment on 21 December 1983. Mr Davey's re-appointment is until 2 January 1990. Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust: (i) Presiding Officer: Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon. P. A. Walsh (ii) The Minister for Finance, whoever it may be from time to time, is responsible for presiding over meetings of the trust. (i) Members: Senator the Rt Hon. R. G. Withers Senator the Hon. D. McClelland The Hon. J. C. Moore, MP Dr R. E. Klugman, MP (ii) Members of the Trust are selected by the respective Houses of Parliament and remain members whilst they continue to be a Senator or Member of Parliament. (1) (b) Nil (2) Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: Chairman: (a) $61,129 plus an allowance of $1,900. (Mr Willett, because of his status as a former departmental head, retains that rate of remuneration). (b) Capital city $100, other than a capital city $80 per overnight stay. Part-time Members: (a) $8,823 (Mr Davey, because of the provisions of section 7 (11) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, does not presently receive remuneration for his duties as a part-time member of the Trust). (b) Capital city $100, other than a capital city $80 per overnight stay. Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office: Commissioner for Superannuation: (a) $56,840 plus an allowance of $1,355. (b) Capital city $100, other than a capital city $80 per overnight stay. Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust: (a) No additional remuneration is payable to the Presiding Officer or members. (b) No additional travelling allowance is payable to the Presiding Officer or members. (Question No. 431) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The memorandum was distributed to all staff of the Department and the Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust on 18 June 1984 under cover of a staff notice which listed the names and telephone numbers of local work place delegates. Staff of the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office were similarly informed in a staff bulletin issued on 17 July 1984. (3) Constructive action which has been taken to encourage union membership includes the incorporation of segments in induction workshops where workplace delegates discuss the role and purpose of applicable unions and the display of publicity material and provision of relevant information throughout the organisation. The internal telephone directory contains a listing of workplace delegates. (Question No. 607) Mr Cadman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of the officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Four officers of the Department of Finance and the Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their place of residence on a permanent basis. (b) Nil. (2) The level and designation of each officer is as follows: (a) Secretary (b) Chairman, Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (c) Deputy Secretary, Senior Executive Service Level 6 (d) Division Head First Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Service Level 4 (e) Computer Systems Officer Grade 3 (Project Manager, ADP Network Re-equipment Team, Fyshwick) (3) The vehicles are used by the officers identified and by other officers in the course of the Department's work; there are not adequate facilities for garaging them at the sites where they are used, and they are driven to and from work by the officers identified. (Question No. 775) Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) What amount was loaned or granted by the Commonwealth to the Tasmanian Government or the Beaconsfield municipality for the development of the Legana industrial estate. (2) On what conditions was the money loaned or granted. (3) What is the annual service cost and what government body pays it. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A loan of $195,374.50 was paid to the Tasmanian Treasury on 19 June 1981 for the development of the Legana industrial estate. (2) The loan was paid under an agreement with the State of Tasmania, which provided for: (a) dollar for dollar funding of the cost of certain works to develop the estate subject to financial assistance in respect of individual development activities being limited to 60 per cent of the original estimate of costs; (b) an overall limit of $200,000 on assistance from the Commonwealth; (c) repayment of the loan in twenty equal half-yearly instalments (which commenced 15 July 1981) at an annual interest rate of 13.1 per cent on outstanding balances. (3) Annual interest costs to the State are disclosed in Budget Paper No. 7, `Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1984-85'. To date they are: $'000 1981-82...14 1982-83...22 1983-84...20 1984-85(est.)...17 Payments are made by the Tasmanian Treasury. (Question No. 1466) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (4) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The attached table contains the information requested for the instrumentalities within my portfolio. A B C D E F G H I Name of Publica- tion Date Estab- lished Produc- tion area i) Staff involved ii) Staff time involved Frequency of Publica- tion i) Printer Print run Circulation i) To whom ii) Where Editorial Control Objectives Cost i) Printing ii) Administrative iii) other DEPARTMENT OF THE SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE DOSMOS News 22 March 1985 Public Relations i) PR Officer ii) 2 days per fortnight Fortnightly i) Photo- copied ii) 300 i) staff in DOSMOS in outriders ii) Canberra and State locations Senior Assistant Secretary, Opera- tions Unit Enhance staff relations and internal understanding of portfolio Not available AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Platypus Jan 1984 Information Office i) 3 ii)Not available 4-5 times a year i) Canberra Publishing &Printing through AGPS ii) 3,500 i) AFP staff, law enforcement and Government agencies ii) in Australia and overseas (staff only) Editorial Board Provides information &education material and discussion of law enforcement issues i) ii) $20,000 iii) Not available AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION AEC Newsletter June 1975 Information Branch i) Publication Officer ii) 5 Days per issue Quarterly i) AGPS ii) 1,000 i) AEC Staff ii) Head office and State Branches Assistant Commissioner-Information Enhance staff relations and understanding of Commission i) $1200 pa ii) iii) Not available NATIONAL POLICE RESEARCH UNIT NPRU Review May 1985 Research i) 6 ii) 60 staff days per annum Twice yearly i) Varies according to quotes ii) 3,000 i) to police officers, academic institutions and libraries ii) in Australia and overseas Director Provide information and educational material i) $15,000 pa ii) $3,000 iii) $5,900 Funded two-thirds from State sources NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Nil AUSTRALIAN POLICE COLLEGE Nil COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION Nil AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE Nil ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL Nil REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL Nil (Question No. 1534) Mr Andrew asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August: What was the cost of (a) transport and (b) travelling allowance for the assembly and dispersal of Members and their personal staff for the sitting of the House of Representatives on Friday, 31 May 1985. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) As the honourable member will be aware there are a number of alternative modes of transport that a parliamentarian or a staff member may utilise when travelling to or from Canberra within the entitlement. For example, travel may be undertaken by air, rail, coach or private vehicle as well as by utilising the entitlement to official car transport. My Department has no control over the submission of invoices for such travel by companies and as such it would be necessary to examine accounts extending over several months in an attempt to identify costs associated with the May 31 sitting. There are also the difficulties of ascertaining the point where a member commenced travel to Canberra, particularly in instances where the member was not travelling from home base, and in determining whether such travel was primarily for the purpose of attending the May 31 sitting. In the light of the foregoing I am not prepared to authorise the considerable expenditure of time and money which would be required to identify the costs requested by the honourable member. (b) Payment of travelling allowance for Members of the House of Representatives is the responsibility of the Speaker. (Question No. 133) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) What are the defined functions of (a) the Ministerial Media Group (MMG) and (b) the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS). (2) When was each established. (3) What has been the cost each year since its establishment. (4) What programs has each been involved with since inception. (5) What relationship do (a) the MMG and (b) the NMLS have with (i) each other, (ii) the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) and (iii) the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS). (6) Of the functions performed by the MMG which are also performed by (a) the NMLS (b) the ICB and (c) the AGAS, and what functions are unique. (7) Of the functions performed by the NMLS which are also performed by (a) the ICB and (b) the AGAS, and which are unique. (8) Are the press secretary positions, advertised for the MMG on 23 February 1985 in various newspapers, new or are they to fill vacancies. (9) What are the (a) salaries, (b) designations and (c) duties of the staff employed by (i) the MMG and (ii) NMLS. (10) Does he anticipate any rationalisation of the functions of AGAS, ICB, AIS, AGPS, MMG and the NMLS now that they all come under his portfolio. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The MMG comprises those journalists designated as Press Secretaries and attached to the staff of individual Ministers and those journalists who provide general media assistance to Ministers. (1) (b) The NMLS assists the Government in communication matters and the dissemination of policy to the media, community organisations and interest groups and provides liaison between Commonwealth government and the media in each State. (2) The MMG was established in April 1983 and the NMLS in May 1983. (3) The expenditure incurred is set out in the following table: MMG NMLS $ $ 1982/83... 26,301 1,167 1983/84... 460,045 934,012 1984/85... 700,522 1,177,114 (4) Such programs as are required by the exercise of their functions. (5) (a) and (b) (i) Since May 1985 the MMG and the NMLS have come under the control of a single Director, who is responsible for the overall supervision of both groups to ensure that their activities are properly integrated and co-ordinated. (ii) and (iii) None. (6) (a) See answer to 5 (a) and (b) (i) above. (6) (b) and (c) None. (7) (a) and (b) None. (8) A combination of new positions and vacancies. (9) (i) MMG Staff (b) (a) Designation Salary ($) (as at 15 July 85) Director... 46,019 Journalists, Grade A2... 34,099 Journalist, Grade A1... 30,702-31,860 Secretary/typist... 16,301-19,070 (c) The duties are to provide media assistance to their assigned Ministers. This includes writing news releases, answering media questions, liaison with the media, drafting speeches. (9) (ii) NMLS Staff. (b) (a) Designation Salary ($) (as at 15 July 85) Head of Service... 45,905 Journalists, Grade A2... 34,099 Journalist, Grade A1... 30,702-31,860 Secretary/typist... 16,301-19,070 Clerical Assistant, Grade 2... 13,546-14,215 Research Officer... 20,033-26,680 (c) The duties are to provide accurate and timely information on Government policies and programs to the media and to interest groups and community organisations throughout Australia. (10) Since 1 March 1984 AGAS has been incorporated into ICB to effect a rationalisation of the functions of these two Branches of my Department. A review of AIS conducted by the management consultants, Price Waterhouse, is currently under consideration by my Department. The functions of NMLS and NMG are under review. (Question No. 1153) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored: if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. (a) Instructions have been issued from time to time detailing and/or updating procedures for the handling of Ministerial representations. These instructions have generally been issued as staff circulars within the department. A substantial diversion of resources would be necessary to identify precisely the actual dates of issue of all these notices. Their issue, however, has been a constant reminder to staff to deal with Ministerial representations expeditiously. The last such notice was issued on 30 May 1985. (b) A formal target time does exist within my Department. It is presently 21 days. However, some kinds of representations (for example, those requring consultation with or advice from other portfolios) often cannot be dealt with within this period. 2. Performance monitoring does take place within my Department and monthly reports are provided of long outstanding representations. Since the beginning of 1985, 2492 representations have been received and 1513 or 61 per cent were dealt with by the end of May. Of the remaining 979 some 644 were outstanding for less than one month. (Question No. 1325) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) What were the 1984-85 Budget allocations for (a) the National Media Liaison Service and (b) the Ministerial Media Group. (2) What was the cost of each agency in 1983-84 and what was the expenditure for (a) wages, (b) programs and (c) administration. (3) What staff changes have occurred in each agency since January 1985. (4) Have any vacancies arisen from resignations in 1983-84. (5) Are there currently any vacancies; if so, in which positions. (6) What are the classifications and salary levels of appointees since January 1985 and what are the terms and conditions of their appointment. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's is as follows: (1) (a) $1,381,400; (b) $799,100. (2) NMLS...MMG (a) $70,540...$336,323 (b) Nil...Nil (c) $31,313...$141,516 (3) Following is a summary of staff changes- Position Commenced Resigned Transferred to Ministerial Staff position Assistant Private Secretary... 1 1 . . Journalist A2... . . . . 2 Journalist A1... . . . . 3 Director... 1 . . . . Journalist A2... 4 4 . . Journalist A1... . . . . 3 Secretary/typist... 5 3 . . Research Officer... 1 1 . . (4) Yes. (5) Nil for NMLS; MMG has five vacancies-1 Journalist A2, 2 Journalist A1 and 2 Secretary/Typist. (6)...Salary Range Classification...($ per annum) Director...46,019 Journalist A2...34,099 Journalist A1...30,702-31,860 Assistant Private Secretary...20,033-20,636-21,237-21,839 Research officer...22,533-23,135-23,736-24,339 25,088-25,885-26,680 Secretary/typist...16,301-16,717-17,135 17,959-18,513-19,070 Journalists working for the MMG and the NMLS are employed in accordance with the Journalists (Australian Government Departments and Instrumentalities) award 1985. Other staff are employed under the same terms and conditions as apply to Ministerial and Office-holders staff. (Question No. 1454) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign cost for each campaign or study. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) to (4) My Department has an advertising budget to meet its responsibilities in administering Canberra. No advertising campaigns have been commissioned or conducted by the Department since March 1983. The three largest single commitments of funds were to publicise the introduction of Roundabout Traffic Signs to Canberra in March 1984 at a cost of $3840, the introduction of lead free petrol into the Australian Capital Territory in June 1985 at a cost of $7248 and the introduction of school traffic zones throughout Canberra in September 1985 at a cost of $3695. No market research agencies were employed to advise on the preparation or placement of those advertisements and no research studies were commissioned or conducted on any matters relating to advertising. (Question No. 1467) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: 1. What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. 2. For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives, and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. FISC-A Financial Management Information Service Circular Issued by the Department of Finance. 2. (a) June 1983 (b) Financial Management Improvement Branch (c) 1 officer, 10 percent of whose time is involved in its production (d) 4 issues per year (e) Reproduction Centre, Department of Finance-Print run of 4,000 x 8 (f) Commonwealth Departments and Statutory Authorities, State Government Departments and instrumentalities, Universities, Overseas Offices, copies on request et cetera (g) Assistant Secretary, Financial Management Improvement Branch (h) Inform departments and agencies about issues and developments in financial management (i) Approximately $3,500 per annum It should be noted that Budget Documents and related papers and statutorily required documents such as the Commonwealth Government Statement of Financial Transactions and Annual Report etc were considered to be outside the coverage of the question. (Question No. 1538) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Has a notice headed `Restricted issue-P118A paper ruled A4-pads' been circularised through his Department stating that (a) the defence store had excessive stocks of unruled writing pads, (b) to enable stocks to be exhausted in the interest of economy, these pads had recently been issued in lieu of ruled pads, (c) this measure would continue until further notice and (d) users should limit their demands to unruled pads and ruled templates had been produced to minimise inconvenience; if so, what was the cost of the templates. (2) Has the cost of defence officials ruling up their own note pads with the template provided been calculated; if so, what is the cost. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Department of Defence has circulated, in the Australian Capital Territory, a notice requesting officers to exercise due economy in the use of ruled writing pads because of an over-stock situation of unruled paper. Unruled pads are made from stationery such as obsolete letterheads, which has become obsolete, and which would otherwise be pulped. The paper is guillotined to remove the unwanted printed portion. Over a period of time the Department has produced 45,000 unruled pads which, for the time being, are being issued in lieu of rule pads. As a ruled pad costs 76c this measure enables a saving of over $30,000 to be made. The cost of the templates, which were produced in-house, was $150. (2) The templates are reusable. They are placed under the sheet on which the officer writes. They avoid the need to draw lines. Question No. 8) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Were amendments to sub-sections 113 (1) to (3) of the Insurance Act 1973 proclaimed in 1980. (2) Does sub-section 113 (4) deal with the collection of statistics disclosing the volumes of business approved for placement overseas outside the provisions of the Insurance Act. (3) Did the Insurance Commissioner in his annual report 1981-82 state that industry statistics now covered the operation of sub-sections (1) to (3) of the Act; if so, can he now indicate what the precise effect these proclaimed sub-sections have had on the industry. (4) Are these sub-sections effective despite the failure to proclaim sub-section (4); if not, why not. (5) Is it a fact that sub-section (4) must be proclaimed if the industry is to be afforded the opportunity to evaluate and enable it to make meaningful and constructive decisions and submissions, and, in particular, to enable governments to respond to industry needs. (6) Will he take immediate steps to proclaim sub-section (4) of the Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Section 113 of the Insurance Act 1973 was amended by section 32 of the Insurance Amendment Act 1977. Sub-sections (1) to (3) of section 113 as amended were proclaimed on 31 August 1980 and came into effect on 3 November 1980. (2) Sub-section 113 (4) of the Insurance Act 1973, if proclaimed, would require intermediaries to furnish statistical information on business placed by them with overseas insurers not authorised under Australian legislation and to provide the insured with a prescribed notice informing him that his insurer was not so authorised. (3) While the 1981-82 Annual Report of the Insurance Commissioner contains some information on the operation of section 113, it does not include any reference to industry statistics of relevance to that section. (4) Sub-sections 113 (1) to (3) of the Insurance Act 1973 prohibit intermediaries from entering into insurance contracts in Australia as agents of overseas insurance companies not authorised under Australian legislation, unless exempted by the Treasurer. Exemptions have been granted to allow access to overseas insurance markets but these are subject to the condition that, inter alia, the insured acknowledges in writing that his insurance cover may be provided in whole or in part by an overseas insurer. Sub-sections 113 (1) to (3) operate independently and the effectiveness of these sub-sections is not affected by the non-proclamation of sub-section 113 (4). (5) and (6) Sub-section 113 (4), as currently framed, would not provide an adequate basis for the collection of statistics on placements of insurance business overseas as it would not allow account to be taken of certain market practices, including the various capacities in which an insurance agent may operate. The provisions are being examined against the background of the costs and benefits of providing for statistical collections in this general area and of the regulatory system reflected in the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984. (Question No. 119) Mr Slipper asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Courier-Mail of 25 February 1985 in which the Premier of Queensland advised that some Labor States and the Commonwealth were bent on financial discrimination against Queensland in tax-sharing arrangements. (2) Is it a fact that Queensland (a) did not receive its proper allocation of tax-sharing funds recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in 1982 and (b) has actually been deprived of $51m for 1984-85 and a total of $855m since 1977-78. (3) Will he ensure that all moneys owing to Queensland are paid forthwith. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) Queensland's allocation of tax sharing grants since 1982-83 has been made on the basis agreed at the June 1982 Premiers' Conference, viz:- * that the relativities recommended by the Grants Commission (slightly modified to take account of prior agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of South Australia and Tasmania under the hospital cost-sharing agreements) were to be phased in over the course of the three years 1982-83 to 1984-85; and * that each State's tax sharing grant would be subject to a real terms guarantee to the annual level of tax sharing payments during the phasing-in of the relativities. Those decisions, which were taken to cushion the potentially adverse impact on the financial position of the three smaller States of immediate introduction of the new relativities, represented a compromise which all States agreed to in the context of the overall Commonwealth/State financial bargain decided at that Conference between the then Commonwealth Government and the States. That bargain followed the provision by the Commonwealth of additional grants in 1981-82 in recognition of the likelihood that, following the further review of relativities decided at the June 1981 Premiers' Conference, relativities would be adjusted in favour of the three most populous States. Queensland's share of that additional grant was $20.5 million. It should be noted that the arrangements resulted in Queensland's share of the grants being higher compared with the share it received in the years immediately prior to 1982-83. Moreover, since 1982-83 Queensland's tax sharing grants have, in fact, been increasing faster than those paid to all other States and in 1984-85 they increased by 11.9 per cent, compared with an average increase of 4.7 per cent for the other States. In the period 1977-78 to 1981-82 Queensland's tax sharing grants were supplemented, in each year, by a special grant paid on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The effect of this arrangement was that Queensland's share of total general revenue grants was determined on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission. (3) All amounts due to Queensland under the tax sharing arrangements have been and will continue to be paid in accordance with agreed schedules. (Question No. 259) Mr Connolly asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/vidoes were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) Nil. (Question No. 429) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Treasury (2) No. (3) The Treasury has taken steps to facilitate union membership in the Department including: Provision for union delegates to address Departmental induction courses and provision of union membership material to officers joining the Department; use of Departmental noticeboards to display union material and the display of such material at the Department's personnel counter; access to Departmental typing, photocopying and telephone facilities for union delegates; access to the Department's registry distribution system for the circulation of material to union members; and access to the Department's staff list. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2) No. However, the memorandum was brought to the attention of union delegates in each ABS office during June 1984. (3) An arrangement has been made with union delegates enabling them to participate in ABS training courses for new officers, with the objective of encouraging union membership. Union literature is distributed to all new staff and their names are provided to the unions to facilitate initial contact. Notices are placed in the ABS Staff Gazette from time to time, giving details of union delegates in the ABS offices. The ABS also provides printing facilities for unions to publish regular newsletters which include membership information. Such information is also prominently displayed on office notice boards. All of these initiatives are ongoing and several commenced before receipt of the Public Service Board memorandum of 1 June 1984. Australian Taxation Office (2) A circular drawing attention to the Public Service Board's policy of encouraging staff to join an appropriate union was issued to Australian Taxation Office staff progressively from 21 June 1984. (3) No additional action has been taken. Issue of the staff circular referred to is considered sufficient. Commonwealth Banking Corporation (2) The Federal Government's support for representative bodies of employees and its declared policy of encouraging members of the staff to join the appropriate union was conveyed to all Corporation staff by means of a Circular Letter dated 24 August 1984 over the signature of the Managing Director. (3) In the abovementioned Circular Letter, the Managing Director also took the opportunity to make it clear that Corporation management's policy is one or encouraging membership of the Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association (CBOA) as exemplified by its willingness to deduct related fees from salaries/wages. This policy of encouraging union membership is a long-standing one and involves an arrangement for bringing the benefits of CBOA membership to the attention of all newly recruited staff. Reserve Bank of Australia (2) No. (3) A copy of the Public Service Board Circular covering encouragement of union membership was provided to the Bank by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on the basis that it would be used as a guide in determining appropriate action in respect of union membership. Since arrangements consistent with those suggested were already in place in the Bank no action was required. Royal Australian Mint (2) The Board's Memorandum was, upon receipt, circulated to representatives of staff associations for their information. Public Service Board Bulletin No. 52 of June 1984 was also circulated to all staff notice boards. (3) No additional action has been taken as a consequence of the Board's Memorandum, other than detailed above. Information to new employees regarding membership of staff associations/unions has been an integral part of the Mint's induction process for a number of years. Each new recruit receives a conditions of service handbook which has also been issued to all staff since 1976 which encourages staff to join the appropriate union or association. Additionally, recruits are issued with a list which details staff association/union representatives and, where provided by associations/unions, handouts in the form of information sheets are given to prospective members. Prices Surveillance Authority (2) The Public Service Board's memorandum was brought to the attention of staff by means of its circulation throughout both Authority offices on or about 7 June 1984. The Authority did not issue a separate statement to staff on the issue. (3) The Authority has taken reasonable steps to encourage union membership including the following: new recruits are provided with union membership information; an officer of the ACOA in Sydney was invited to visit the Authority's newly-established office to meet new recruits on 23 November 1984; union material is distributed and placed on noticeboards for the information of all staff; workplace union representatives are allowed access to office telephone, photocopying and registry facilities. (Question No. 446) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister's Department since April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1-6) See attached schedule. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED FROM 1 APRIL 1983 Name of Consultant Consultancy Engagement Length of Consultancy Fees Paid or to be Paid Consultant's Background Whether the merit principle was applied Urwick International Pty Ltd Undertake a risk analysis of the Department's central computers and communication network 2 months $46,185 Extensive public and health sector experience in similar projects PSB endorsed Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) To supply, demonstrate and provide expert advice on the ECRI devices, computer software and related data. Provide copies of technical systems users and training documentation of the ECRI system to aid departmental staff in the evaluation of the system 10 days $15,992 Expertise in ECRI systems for devices data base Yes, only suitable available company Hungerford Hancock and Offner Investigation of the financial status of Kirribilli Private Hospital 2 weeks $5,840 Extensive experience in hospital auditing, hospital systems, practices and problems and has previously undertaken assignments for both the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments Yes, successful tender, most competitive quote on basis of relevant experience Coopers and Lybrand Investigation of financial liability of three private hospitals 6 weeks $8,700 Extensive experience in hospital auditing, hospital systems, practices and problems and has previously undertaken assignments for the Department Yes, successful tender, most competitive quote on basis of relevant experience Touche Ross Services To examine financial arrangements with the States for Quarantine operations 3 months $48,000 Relevant experience on similar projects PSB endorsed Urwick International Pty Ltd To lead Stage 1 of the Management Information Systems/Objectives Project 25 weeks $84,750 Extensive public and health sector experience in similar projects PSB endorsed Urwick International Pty Ltd To review the needs of training and development 3 months $35,035 Leading consultant; has previous relevant experience in performing similar reviews in the Government sector PSB endorsed Spectrum Research Pty Ltd To examine the health needs and well being of older Australians 4 months $105,000 Extensive experience in the gathering of information and a good grasp of the subject matter PSB endorsed Dr L. Smith To assist in developing Aboriginal health statistics 26 days $9,130 Recognised expert in the field of Aboriginal health statistics PSB endorsed Computer Sciences of Australia Pty Ltd Assess the feasibility of an information system on the health aspects of toxic substances 7 weeks $14,000 Experience in the field of information sciences, project development and implementation. The company is familiar with the Department's procedures and standards and has undertaken a number of systems surveys and feasibility studies PSB endorsed P. Kenny Development and implementation of a national education campaign aimed at reducing drug abuse problems 6 months $24,000 plus designated expenses Extensive consultancy work in the public and private sectors Yes. Only suitable person available within the time frame. G. Frape Development and implementation of a national education campaign aimed at reducing drug abuse problems 6 months $24,000 plus designated expenses Extensive consultancy work in the public and private sectors Only suitable person available within the time frame. G. J. Fuller Provision of advice on the professional/scientific aspects of amalgamation of the Launceston General Hospital and Commonwealth Pathology Laboratories 7 days $3,799 Experienced pathologist with extensive background in the administration of a regional pathology service. Yes. Dr Fuller has directly relevant experience in the operation of a comparable regional pathology service in NSW. Dr D. Dewhurst Examination of facilities and the operation of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance facilities in Canada and the USA. 22 days $14,283 Relevant technical expertise in biomedical engineering and radiology and a sound understanding of the local requirements for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners PSB endorsed Dr S. Thompson Provision of expert advice on the review of research on the effects of noise on people 5 days $8,925 Experience in this field. Undertook similar project for the US Environmental Protection Authority PSB endorsed Pak-Poy and Kneebone Pty. Ltd. Assess the feasibility of developing information systems relating to Aboriginal health 9 days $4,300 Specialist consultant in engineering, management and data processing. Information management experience is wide-ranging, spanning technical, commercial, industrial and Government administrative areas PSB endorsed Pak-Poy and Kneebone Pty. Ltd. Assess the feasibility of developing information systems relating to communicable diseases 5 days $2,350 Specialist consultant in engineering, management and data processing. Information management experience is wide-ranging, spanning technical, commercial, industrial and Government administrative areas PSB endorsed Instat (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. Provision of specialist advice on the use of mathematical statistics for epidemiological studies From September 1983 with a guaranteed minimum of 500 hours $50,438 Statistical expertise particularly in epidemiology PSB endorsed Dr D. W. Hill Evaluation of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging equipment 28 days $13,076 Extensive experience as biological engineer in the United Kingdom with wide experience in scanning techniques of diagnostic imaging PSB endorsed Computer Sciences of Australia Pty. Ltd. To assist in developing a national therapeutic products register 4 months $75,000 Experience in project management, systems analysis and design programming and systems implementation, text retrieval systems and sound experience in IBM technology PSB endorsed Computer Sciences of Australia Pty. Ltd. Conduct ADP audit of data base management systems 36 days $18,000 Combination of experience in ADP audit and high level of technical expertise PSB endorsed Centre for Applied Business Research Undertake a multistaged investigation into the staffing and quality of care in nursing homes throughout Australia See comments next column $78,667.81 An amount of $300,000 was appropriated for this consultancy. The nursing homes function has transferred to the Department of Community Services Extensive experience in investigations into the complex problems of the public sector covering a wide range of areas PSB endorsed Parkhill, Lithgow and Gibson Provision of data on the costs of providing diagnostic services in public hospitals 1 month $8,920 Previous experience in providing data on Victorian hospitals PSB endorsed Nickolas Clarke and Associates Study of Specialist incomes 12 weeks $20,000 Extensive experience in investigations into the complex problems of the public sector at state and federal levels covering a range of areas of the economy including health, transport, education, telecommunications and welfare PSB endorsed Dr J. Harley Review of quarantine activities undertaken at Australian ports of entry 3 months on a part-time basis $19,626 Relevant medical administration experience PSB endorsed Dr J. Harley To review and report on the role of Commonwealth Medical Officers employed by the Department 20 days $13,415 Relevant medical administration experience PSB endorsed Logica (Aust) Pty Ltd Development of a National Registration and Inquiry System (NRIS) for the Natural Disaster Organisation 6 months $80,000 An international systems company working in the broad field of information technology, providing consultancy, software services, systems supply and products to clients in Government, industry and commerce Yes. Most cost effective of five companies considered Nicholson &Partners Pty. Ltd Investigation into clinical details and audiological determinations for computerisation of NAL Hearing Centre 1 month $18,500 Systems Consultants, designers, engineers, analysts and programmers concentrating on cost effective solutions to a wide range of problems in hospital, medical, education and laboratory applications PSB endorsed Professor G. Benness Examination of facilities and the operation of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance facilities in UK, USA and Europe 4 weeks $16,169 Relevant technical expertise in biomedical engineering and radiology and a sound understanding of the local requirements for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners PSB endorsed Mr J. Martin To facilitate a residential workshop at Bundanoon for Senior Pharmacists of Central and Regional Officers of the Department 4 days $1,500 Experienced in administration management and staff development with a working appreciation of Public Service procedures Yes. Most experienced of the consultants available Dr C. Burton To facilitate a workshop on Equal Employment Opportunity for Senior NSW Managers 1 day $800 Has had extensive consultancy experience in Equal Employment Opportunity and has written and delivered numerous papers on the subject Yes. Of the many consultants considered Dr Burton was the best qualified of those available P. Hanford To conduct workshops in Career Planning for the staff of the Training and Development Section 4 days $2,859.04 Extensive training, development, career planning and administative experience in the Public Service and Private Enterprise Yes. The program proposed in conjunction with Mr Robson was the most compre- hensive and effective of those considered P. Robson To conduct workshops in Career Planning for the staff of the Training and Development Section 4 days 2,859.04 Extensive training development, career planning and administrative experience in the Public Service and Private Enterprise Yes. The program proposed in conjunction with Mr Hanford was the most comprehensive and effective of those considered. Prof. D. Dirks As guest speaker to present papers and participate in discussions at the National Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Aid Conference 5 days $2314 Highly experienced and well known research worker. Has published extensively and has made noteable contributions to the field of hearing aids Yes. Internationally recognised in field of expertise and has influenced NAL's work in this area Prof. H Levitt As guest speaker to present papers and participate in discussions at the National Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Aid Conference 5 days $2612 Highly experienced and well known research worker. Has published extensively and has made noteable contributions to the field of hearing aids Yes. Internationally recognised in field of expertise and has influenced NAL's work in this area Prof. G. Studebaker As guest speaker to present papers and participate in discussions at the National Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Aid Conference 5 days $2612 Highly experienced and well known research worker. Has published extensively and has made noteable contributions to the field of hearing aids Yes. Internationally recognised in field of expertise and has influenced NAL's work in this area Mrs N. Norton As guest speaker to present papers and participate in discussions at the Nationsl Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Aid Conference 5 days $2314 Developed the first aural rehabilitation techniques for the cochlear implant program in Los Angeles Yes. Internationally recognised in field of expertise and has influenced NAL's work in this area P. Boas To explore training needs of RSI sufferers and their managers 1 day $970 Has undertaken similar work with private associations and State Government Departments with success Yes. Only experienced and cost effective person available T. Dalmau To discuss program design and integration for the Manager Training Program and the Managing Charge proposal 1 day $925 Extremely highly regarded and has undertaken similar work for other Government Departments and private associations Yes. Only experienced person available at the required time Pak-Poy and Kneebone Pty Ltd Specification of requirements for an integrated register of Health Care Providers 1 month $7900 Specialist Consultant in Engineering, Management and Data Processing. Information management experience is wide-ranging, spanning technical, commercial, industrial and Government administrative areas Yes. Most cost effective of four companies considered Ernst &Whinney Services Pty Ltd Independent review of proposed methodology for processing advance payment of Pharmacists' Claims 5 days $6762 Considerable experience in independent analysis of financial and automated systems Yes. Selection was based on the understanding of the assignment demonstrated in the response and the availablilty of sufficient qualified staff to ensure completion in the required time. W. D. Scott To determine standard costs in nursing homes 12 months $296 855 Leading consultant has extensive experience in accounting reviews Yes. Most competitive and experienced of the tenders invited Dr. J. Best (Diagnosis Pty Ltd) To advise in relation to a meeting between the Department, Commonwealth Agencies and the Australian Medical Association on the matter of fraud and over-servicing 4 1/2 days $3741 Formerly Deputy Secretary General of the Australian Medical Association Yes. Only suitable person available within the time frame. (Question No. 577) Mr Cadman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Treasurer's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Treasurer, are provided with credit cards. (2) Which companies are used to provide these cards (for example, American Express, Diners Club). (3) Who pays the membership and service fees. (4) At what level is an officer entitled to credit cards. (5) What limits are placed on the usage of the cards. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question as at 16 April 1985 is as follows: Central Treasury (1) 3. (2) American Express International-Corporate Card System (Amex), Diners Club International-Government Card Plan (Diners Club). (3) The Department of the Treasury pays membership fees only. (4) All Senior Executive Service officers are entitled to credit cards. Other officers may apply if justification can be provided in accordance with the guidelines to Section 34 of the Finance Directions. (5) Amex and Diners Club cards are subject to the limitations placed on the cards by Amex or Diners Club. Officers are responsible to meet all expenditure charged to their card account. Expenditure of an official nature incurred by the use of the credit cards is subject to normal reimbursement procedures to which the disciplines of the audit Act and other relevant procedures are applied. Other charges, including interest, that the officer incurs in using these cards are the personal responsibility of that officer. Australian Taxation Office (1) 26. (2) American Express International. (3) All Senior Executive Service officers and any other officer who can establish a justifiable need in accordance with the guidelines to Section 34 of the Finance Directions. (5) No limits are placed on the usage of a card since each officer is personally liable to meet all charges other than the annual membership fee. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1) Five officers held credit cards which had been issued on the authority of the Australian Statistician, for the purpose of facilitating the performance of official duties. (2) The five cards were provided by American Express International. (3) The ABS pays the annual membership fee for each card. The card holder pays all other fees. (4) Credit cards are provided regardless of the level of the officer, but subject to approval by the Australian Statistician and on the basis that official duties carried out by the officer are facilitated by the use of the credit card. (5) A credit card provided to an ABS officer is a personal card issued in the officer's name. The ABS is not liable for any expenses charged against the card and places no limits on the card holder in his/her use of it. The credit cards issued so far have been to officers who were undertaking overseas travel for official purposes. Royal Australian Mint (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Prices Surveillance Authority (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Reserve Bank of Australia (1) Eleven, of which eight are issued for temporary use. (2) American Express International. (3) Reserve Bank of Australia. (4) Entitlement is not based on status. (5) Cards are made available for convenience in meeting expenditures incurred when on official business. Any non-official expenditure is for the officer's account. Commonwealth Banking Corporation (1) 163 staff members are currently holding credit cards used for business related expenses. (2) Bankcard, Mastercard and American Express cards are the only credit cards currently used for this purpose. (3) Membership fees are not applicable to Bankcard and Mastercard credit cards issued in Australia. Nor are service fees/credit charges applied in the case of these Corporation staff business cards (see also Item 5). In respect of American Express cards, all membership and related service fees are paid for by the Corporation. (4) Credit cards for business use by Corporation staff at various management levels have been utilised for some time. Authorisation of such cards is governed by the degree of expenditure necessarily incurred by the cardholders on behalf of the Corporation while the type of card issued ilargely dependent on the proposed usage and travel requirements (i.e. within Australia or overseas). (5) Within the Corporation credit cards of the type under reference are instruments for convenience of payment and their usage is limited to authorised expenditure incurred on behalf of the Corporation. (Question No. 605) Mr Cadman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Treasury 1. (a) 4. (b) - 2. Secretary and Deputy Secretary. 3. The three Deputy Secretaries are authorised to garage vehicles at their places of residence. These vehicles are used as courier vehicles during normal business hours. Australian Taxation Office 1. (a) 137. (b) approximately 1650 officers may be permitted to garage a vehicle occasionally. On any day, approximately 80-90 vehicles could be garaged temporarily at officers' private residences, mainly for the purpose of facilitating field operations. 2. Clerical Assistant Grade 4 and above. 3. The great majority of vehicles are garaged by officers who drive direct from their homes to field work. In a small minority of cases, officers who garage vehicles at home drive them to and from the office. Australian Bureau of Statistics 1. (a) 1. (b) Approximately 100. 2. Clerical Administrative Class 2/3 and above. 3. With the exception of the Australian Statistician and, in special circumstances only, Senior Executive Service officers, ABS officers do not use Commonwealth vehicles for the purpose of transport to and from work. Royal Australian Mint 1. (a) Nil. (b) Nil. 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable. Prices Surveillance Authority 1. (a) Nil. (b) Nil. 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable. The Commonwealth and Reserve Banks Vehicles owned by the Commonwealth and Reserve Banks are not registered as Commonwealth vehicles. (Question No. 659) Mr Rocher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Figures refer to average staffing levels. Australian Bureau of Statistics (a) 3,388. (b) 3,436. Australian Taxation Office (a) 14,268. (b) 14,733. Prices Surveillance Authority (previously Petroleum Products Pricing Authority) (a) 20. (b) 17. Commonwealth Banking Corporation (a) 31,646. (b) 31,353. Reserve Bank of Australia (a) 3,539. (b) 3,462. (Question No. 687) Mr Rocher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Figures refer to average staffing levels. Department of the Treasury (a) 520. (b) 527. Royal Australian Mint (a) 313. (b) 300. (Question No. 896) Mr Cadman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) With respect to the garaging of Commonwealth vehicles at officers' places of residence, is any officer permitted to use the allotted vehicle on other than work days, that is, at times when the officer is not on duty. (2) In the case of a vehicle garaged in the Australian Capital Territory, may the officer use the vehicle for recreation purposes outside the Territory. (3) Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority reporting to the Minister issued guidelines for the use of these vehicles; if so, what are the terms of the guidelines. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Treasury (1) No. (2) No. (3) Yes. The Secretary to the Treasury has issued internal instructions governing the use of official vehicles. The terms of the Secretary's instructions are derived from the relevant rules set out by the then Department of Administrative Services in its publication ``Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority''. Australian Taxation Office (1) No. (2) No. (3) Yes. The Commissioner of Taxation has issued internal instructions governing the use of official vehicles. The terms of the Commissioner's instructions are derived from the relevant rules set out by the then Department of Administrative Services in its publication ``Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority''. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1) No. (2) No. (3) Yes. The Australian Statistician has issued a reprint of `Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority' (Published by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services) to users of the Commonwealth vehicles in question. (Question No. 1099) Mr Price asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid each year by the Federal Government to (a) Blacktown City Council and (b) Penrith Council, since the introduction of revenue sharing of personal income tax (PITS). (2) What has been the percentage increase in real money terms each year. (3) In the year that the percentage of PITS was increased, what was the increase and what position in percentage terms did the increase represent. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). The following table shows the amounts of grants allocated to the Blacktown City Council and Penrith City Council from the total of grants paid to the State of New South Wales under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, and the total amount of grants provided to all States for local government under the Act. The table also shows the percentage increase in payments in each year deflated by the implicit price deflator for gross non-farm product. Under the Act, personal income tax sharing payments to local government were initially set at 1.52 per cent of personal income tax collections. This was increased to 1.75 per cent in 1979-80 and to 2.00 per cent from 1980-81. Blacktown City Council Penrith City Council Total Grants Real Increase (a) Real Increase (a) Real Increase (a) ($'000) % ($'000) % ($'000) % 1975-76... 1,250.0 450.0 79,908 1976-77... 1,800.0 29.4 800.0 59.7 140,000 57.4 1977-78... 2,016.0 3.5 940.0 8.5 165,328 9.1 1978-79... 2,190.0 1.7 1,026.0 2.2 179,427 1.6 1979-80... 2,628.0 9.3 1,305.0 15.9 221,739 12.6 1980-81... 3,005.0 3.6 1,734.2 20.4 300,786 22.9 1981-82... 3,459.9 3.1 2,023.9 4.5 350,865 4.4 1982-83... 4,139.3 7.8 2,532.4 12.7 424,486 9.0 1983-84... 4,519.3 1.5 2,778.6 2.0 459,335 0.6 1984-85... 4,796.2 0.6 2,995.6 2.2 486,534 0.4 (a) deflated by the implicit price deflator for gross non-farm product. (Question No. 1142) Mr Macphee asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Does the Government remain committed to equality of opportunity for men and women; if so, why does the Australian Bureau of Statistics continue to gather statistics on married women in the paid workforce and not gather statistics on married men in the same circumstances. (2) Does the Government also remain committed to ratifying International Labour Organisation Convention No. 156 regarding workers with family responsibilities; if so, why does the Bureau concentrate on a particular gender in the paid workforce rather than on the category of workers with family responsibilities. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In its monthly labour force survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics collects data on both married men and married women in the paid workforce. Statistical estimates of the labour force status of civilians aged 15 years and over, cross classified by sex and marital status, are published each month in `The Labour Force, Australia' (ABS Catalogue No. 6203.0). (2) Yes. The ABS collects data on both males and females employed in the paid workforce. The statistical bulletin referred to in part (1) above includes, among other data, information on the labour force status of married couple families, other families with a male head and other families with a female head. (Question No. 1289) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agencies. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The portfolio is basically concerned with fiscal and monetary policy matters. Neither the Treasury nor statutory authorities within the portfolio conduct specific programs under which organisations may apply for Commonwealth funding. The paper `Issues in 1984-85 Grant-in-Aid (GIA) Assessment' has been drawn to my attention. (Question No. 1328) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) When did (a) Mr T. Carroll of 66 Foamcrest Avenue, Newport, New South Wales apply to the Government for legal aid and (b) the Government decide to grant him legal aid. (2) Under what scheme or guidelines was the legal aid granted and what are the details of the scheme or guidelines under which the legal aid was granted. (3) What is the maximum amount of legal aid to Mr Carroll for which the Government is committed. (4) Was Mr Carroll subjected to the provisions of any means test before the Government decided to grant him legal aid; if so, what means test. (5) What conclusions did the Government come to after subjecting Mr Carroll to a means test. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) On or about 13 May 1985-a precise record is not available. (b) On 21 May 1985 the Prime Minister informed Mr Carroll that the Government was prepared to provide legal assistance to him. (2) The grant of assistance was made pursuant to the power of the Attorney-General to authorise financial assistance towards legal costs and related expenses pursuant to item 165-3-03 in the Attorney-General's Department appropriations in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1984-85. (3) The grant of assistance was confined to the cost of an opinion by senior counsel advising on the legal and financial problems encountered by Mr Carroll in relation to his former sponsorship. (4) No-in certain circumstances it is well established that financial assistance towards legal costs is granted without regard to the means of the applicant. (5) See answer to (4). (Question No. 1348) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: 1. What types of and in what quantities are small arms being produced at St Marys and Lithgow munitions factories. 2. For what purpose are each of these small arms generally used. 3. Are any of the arms exported; if so, to which countries and what is the value of the exports. 4. Does he have any knowledge of the use to which these arms are put and can he give an assurance that the arms are not used in internal government military campaigns against civilian residents. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. No small arms are produced at the St Mary's Munitions Filling Factory. Production of small arms is undertaken at the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, but its production is currently confined to the overhaul of 7.62mm L1A1 rifles and spares production, which equates to approximately 1500 equivalent complete weapons per annum for 1985/86. 2. The L1A1 7.62mm rifle is a self loading military rifle and is used by Defence and Police forces. 3. Australia has been exporting the 7.62mm L1A1 rifle and spares manufactured at the Small Arms Factory Lithgow since the sixties. During the last five years the value of exports have amounted to: rifles-$1.154m rifle spares-$1.379m The rifles and spares have been exported to some 35 countries, and in the period 1980-1985 to 21 countries which are as follows: Anguilla Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belize Brunei United States Canada Fiji Hong Kong Jamaica Kenya Trinidad United Kingdom Malaysia Mauritius New Zealand Oman Papua-New Guinea Singapore South Korea Because of the security requirements of the countries concerned I am not able to make public the quantities of small arms exported, by country, without clearance from these countries. Enquiries for the export of rifles and spares are diminishing as countries commence to change to smaller calibre weapons. Approval from the Department of Foreign Affairs is required before any defence related material is exported from Australia. 4. Generally the refurbished L1A1 rifles and spares are supplied to both the Australian and Papua New Guinea Armies for military use. However, modified 7.62mm rifle bodies are being produced for a commercial customer in the United States of America, the bodies being modified to prevent possible conversion to automatic operation. At present no rifles are being exported to any of the countries that I have previously mentioned. (Question No. 1373) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) contains no mechanism for price adjustment based on exchange rate movements and (b) manufacturers and suppliers of pharmaceuticals to the PBS are seriously affected by exchange rate fluctuations as imported materials represent an average of 40 per cent of total input costs. (2) What is the likely impact of devaluation on (a) the availability of imported pharmaceuticals and (b) the cost of pharmaceuticals. (3) How many applications for price increases for PBS pharmaceuticals involving the cost of devaluation are currently outstanding. (4) What action has he taken to grant relief to pharmaceutical manufacturers seriously affected by the impact of the devaluation during 1985. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau when considering applications for price increases takes into account movements in costs including some elements of costs resulting from changes in exchange rates. (b) Obviously exchange rate fluctuations affect the cost of imported components of pharmaceuticals. However, companies are affected to varying degrees depending on whether products are fully imported or basic raw materials only are imported. (2) (a) Devaluation in itself appears to have had little, if any significant effect on the availability of imported pharmaceuticals. (b) Generally the cost of pharmaceuticals has increased as a result of devaluation. (3) In recent months the prices of 1605 products have been reviewed with account taken of cost movements including those stemming from devaluation. There are still 69 products to be reviewed. (4) The current series of price reviews have resulted in price increases which will increase Government expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits by approximately $14.8m per annum. (Question No. 1520) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985. Further to his answer to question No. 760 (Hansard, 23 May 1985, page 3156), will he provide: (a) details of when and where his Department conducted the more than 200 seminars on the assets test, and (b) as detailed as possible an account of the publicity costs associated with these seminars. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) As I indicated in my reply to question No. 760 (Hansard 23 May 1985 page 3156), the figure given in relation to the number of seminars was an estimate only and no statistical information, such as locations and dates of seminars, was kept. (b) The cost of publicising the seminar was included in general publicity costs and is not able to be separated from the figure given in my earlier reply. (Question No. 1543) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: With respect to farmers in the electoral division of Tangney who have had their pensions cancelled or reduced up to 20 August 1985 (a) who made the valuations of their assets; (b) on what were the valuations based; (c) were the farms inspected or was any other method used to confirm the valuation; (d) what net income could be expected from the farms in 1984/85 as a percentage of the valuations; and (e) what was the current market rental value of each of the properties deemed to be. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) In accordance with the emphasis on pensioner self-assessment, wherever possible the pensioner's estimates of the value of their assets were accepted. Some checking was required for certain items, e.g. the value of shares were checked against current share listings in the financial press. For cases where pensioners owned real estate (other than the home) and the total value of their assets would cause reduction in pension, or where the total value was within $20,000 of the allowable limit, or where the departmental officer was not satisfied with the pensioner's estimate, the real estate values were checked by officers of the Valuations Branch of the Australian Taxation Office. (b) The valuations were based on: Information provided by the pensioner on the Statement of Assets form; and, in the case of real estate, on recent sales information for the area; local knowledge of the area; and where possible external inspections. (c) Where possible external inspections of properties were carried out but due to the restrictions of time the majority of cases were checked against information available in the Valuations Branch offices, e.g. statutory valuations, recent sales information for the area, etc. Where the pensioner was not satisfied with the valuation, provision existed to query it with department's review officer. If the matter could not be resolved to the pensioner's satisfaction, arrangements were made for an on-site valuation by a professional valuer from the Taxation Office. However, on-site valuations have not been undertaken without the pensioner's specific authority. (d) This information is not available-estimated net income of the properties was not calculated as part of the assets test processing. (e) This information is not available-current market rental value of properties was not calculated as part of the assets test processing. (Question No. 152) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the task force which inquired into the categorisation of private hospitals did not make any inspection of Queensland private hospitals, or take evidence from sources within Queensland. (2) What action is he taking to ensure that he is fully informed on Queensland's situation before any decision is made. (3) In view of the fact that the task force's report is based only on selection data, will the Government now reject the recommendations of the task force. Mr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Task Force had planned to visit a number of private hospitals in Queensland and arrangements for appropriate hospitals to be visited were being made through the Queensland Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association. However, the time of the proposed visit coincided with the annual conference of the Australian Private Hospitals Association being held in Sydney and the hospital representatives were attending that conference. In the circumstances, arrangements were made for representatives of a number of Queensland private hospitals, as referred to in the report of the Task Force, to meet the Task Force in Sydney. The hospital representatives produced written material and had substantial discussion with Task Force members. A representative of the Queensland Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association made these arrangements and was present at the discussions. (2) I believe that the Task Force was adequately informed. Subsequently, my Department asked each private hospital in Australia for views on the report of the Task Force. Many Queensland hospitals responded, as well as groups representing the interests of Queensland hospitals. (3) I refer the honourable member to my answer to parts (1) and (2) of question No. 151 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 369). (Question No. 154) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: When are decisions expected on the `Report of task force established to review private hospital categorisation arrangements'. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to parts (1) and (2) of question No. 151 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 369). (Question No. 676) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full-time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statutory Authorities (a) 1983 Full-time Statutory Authority Employees Full-time Departmental Staff (b) 1984 Full-time Statutory Authority Employees Full-time Departmental Staff ACT Architects Board... . . . . . . . . ACT Bush Fire Council... . . 2 . . 2 ACT Electricity Authority... 745 . . 818 . . ACT Fire Brigade... 200 8 218 8 ACT Fire Brigade Appeal Board... . . . . . . . . ACT Fire Brigade Promotions Appeal Board... . . . . . . . . ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority... 46 10 43 8 Agents Board of the ACT... . . 1 . . 1 Building and Construction-Long Service Leave Board... . . 6 . . 6 Canberra Commercial Development Authority... 19 . . 15 . . Canberra Public Cemeteries Trust... 1 1 1 1 Canberra Retail Markets Trust... 2 . . 2 . . Canberra Theatre Trust... 25 . . 25 . . Consumer Affairs Council... . . 1 . . 1 Design &Sitting Review... . . . . . . . . Milk Authority of the ACT... 3 . . 3 . . National Capital Development Commission... 314 . . 329 . . National Exhibition Centre Trust... 5 . . 6 . . Parliament House Construction Authority... 38 . . 47 . . Plumbers, Drainers &Gasfitters Board... . . . . . . . . Surveyors Board... . . . . . . . . (Question No. 1294) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant In Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and that so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agency. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Resources and Energy administers the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration (NERD&) Program under which applications may be submitted for grants in support of energy research, development and demonstration projects. The Joint Coal Board has in place a welfare grants program. Under The Coal Industry Act 1946 of NSW and the Commonwealth, the Board has responsiblities to promote the welfare of workers engaged in the coal industry in NSW. One method by which the Board discharges this responsibility is through the making of grants which benefit the domestic welfare of mineworkers and the welfare of the communities in which they live. The procedure is for an organisation to apply to the Board for a welfare grant towards the cost of a particular project. The Board does not make welfare grants for the funding of an organisation itself. (2) Yes, but for general information only. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs had advised my Department that the information paper had some limited circulation amongst Grant-in-Aid agencies, some of whom have taken up its invitation to comment on the issues raised, and that the paper: expresses the Government's policy to provide services and facilities to encourage and assist migrants to settle into the Australian community, building where possible on community networks through: sensitising and developing Australia's mainstream services to ensure that they provide equitably for all members of the community, and developing special arrangements, where necessary, to overcome disadvantages faced by particular groups in society. suggest that the needs of the aged, to the extent that they apply equally to Australian-born and overseas-born should be met by adapting mainstream resources rather than through the establishment of separate services of a permanent nature. does not assert that all established ethnic community organisations must in future seek funding from mainstream sources. (3) The types of grants awarded under the NERD& Program have no perceived direct relevance to the needs of migrant organisations. Applications for grants are assessed against published criteria. No preferential treatment is given to any applicant. The Joint Coal Board is not aware of any applications for welfare grants being made by migrant organisations, at least in recent years. Processing of a grant application always involves personal consultation with the applicant during which the proposed project is discussed in detail with a Board Officer with local knowledge. Applications for grants are usually made by small organisations with special needs and without expertise in making approaches to Governments for funds. The Board is confident that the special needs of welfare grant applicants are properly and sensitively considered. (Question No. 620) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Officers permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles from the Department and from the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority total: (a) 213 (b) 102 (2) The levels vary from Departmental Secretary and Senior Executive Service officers to various professional, technical and clerical staff, for example, Community Nurses, Quarantine Officers. (3) Yes. (Question No. 1178) Mr Andrew asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: Will he bring up to date the answer by his predecessor to Question No. 1377. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The introduction of a national identification scheme was raised by the Government in the White Paper presented to the recent Taxation Summit meeting. The Government still has the matter under consideration. (Question No. 9)) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Further to his answer to part (1) of question No. 305 (Hansard, 5 June 1984, page 2936), what action has been taken against any merchant bank for any role it may have played in handling cheques that were part of `round robin' tax avoidance schemes. (2) If no action has been taken (a) what cases are still under investigation and (b) what was the outcome of the investigation referred to in his answer. (3) Further to his answer to part (3) of the question, has the question of the need for legislative action to strengthen or further clarify the Commissioner of Taxation's powers pursuant to sections 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act been resolved; if so, in what way was it resolved. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The investigation I referred to in my answer to part (1) of Question No. 305 (Hansard, 5 June 1984, page 2936) has now been substantially completed. Charges have been laid against a number of persons and court proceedings are pending. The Commissioner of Taxation advises that as far as he is aware this is the only case of this kind under investigation. (3) The question of whether there is a need for legislative action to strengthen or further clarify his powers pursuant to sections 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act is still being examined. (Question No. 162)) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: What has been (a) the total income tax receipts from the Australian Capital Territory and (b) the average income tax receipts for taxpayers in (i) the ACT and (ii) Australia, in each year since 1970-71. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) It is not possible to provide information relating to income tax receipts from the ACT in the financial years prior to 1976-77 as details of such receipts were not maintained separately from total New South Wales receipts. However, details of total and average tax assessed in respect of returns of individual taxpayers, insofar as those details are available, for each income year since 1970-71 and in preliminary results for the 1983-84 income year are as follows: Income year Total net tax assessed to ACT residents Average net tax assessed per taxpayer ACT Australia $m $ $ 1970-71... * * 527 1971-72... * * 630 1972-73... * * 725 1973-74... * * 965 1974-75... * * 1,184 1975-76... * * 1,644 1976-77... 243.1 2,723 1,945 1977-78... 257.3 2,791 1,995 1978-79... 274.6 2,953 2,216 1979-80... 313.6 3,258 2,504 1980-81... 356.1 3,596 2,773 1981-82... 437.5 4,223 3,177 1982-83... 502.0 4,696 3,408 1983-84+... 535.0 5,037 3,773 * Not available. + Assessments issued to 30 April 1985. (Question No. 194)) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the amount of revenue collected from taxpayers with earnings above twice average earnings had dropped from approximately 53 per cent of total revenue from personal income tax in 1956-57 to 16.5 per cent in 1981-82, (b) the share of income declared by those earning more than twice average earnings had dropped from 27 per cent to 10 per cent between 1956-57 and 1981-82, and for those earning more than 3 1/2 times average earnings the corresponding figures are 13 per cent and 3 per cent, (c) the top marginal tax rate collected only 3.4 per cent of total personal income tax revenue in 1981-82 and (d) the effective tax base for individual income tax was less than half of total household receipts in 1981-82, as stated in the Parliamentary Library, Legislative Research Service Discussion Paper No. 3 of 1984. (2) Are there comparable figures available for any years later than 1981-82. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) (a) The amounts of net tax assessed for taxpayers with earnings above twice the annual equivalent average ordinary time weekly earnings for full time adult persons expressed as percentages of total net tax for individual taxpayers is of the order of: 52 per cent for 1956-57, 17 per cent for 1981-82, 16 per cent for 1982-83, and 15 per cent for 1983-84. (b) (i) The share of income declared by those with taxable incomes of more than twice the annual equivalent of average weekly ordinary time earnings for full time adult persons expressed as percentages of total taxable income for all individual taxpayers is of the order of: 25 per cent for 1956-57, 10 per cent for 1981-82, 11 per cent for 1982-83, and 8 per cent for 1983-84. (ii) The corresponding percentages for those with taxable incomes of more than 3 1/2 times the annual equivalent of average weekly ordinary time earnings for full time adult persons expressed as percentages of total taxable incomes for all individual taxpayers are of the order of: 13 per cent for 1956-57, 2 per cent for 1981-82, 2 per cent for 1982-83, and 2 per cent for 1983-84. (c) The tax applicable to the taxable income component to which the top marginal tax rate applies, expressed as a percentage of the total net tax assessed for individual taxpayers is of the order of: 4 per cent for 1981-82, 6 per cent for 1982-83, and 6 per cent for 1983-84. (d) Using the methodology in the Parliamentary Library, Legislative Research Service Discussion Paper No. 3 of 1984, the effective tax base for individual income tax was less than half of total household receipts in 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. (Question No. 329)) Mr Duncan asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many officers were employed in the Investigation Branch of the Taxation Office on 30 June 1984. (2) What is the total annual cost of the operation of the Investigation Branch. (3) What amount was recovered by the Investigation Branch in 1983-84. (4) What amount was collected as a result of (a) court orders and (b) voluntary repayments. (5) What were the sources of these recoveries? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During 1983-84 total staff usage on income tax audit/investigation activities in branch offices of the Australian Taxation Office was 1,167 man years. (2) Total direct salary costs and overheads of the operation of these activities in the 1983-84 year was estimated at $43m. In addition, there were flow on costs in other areas of the Taxation Office resulting from these activities, estimated at $6.5m. (3) The amount of tax and additional tax raised in assessments completed as a result of audit/investigation of income tax evasion during the 1983-84 year was $253,101,476. This figure does not include tax and penalty raised in assessments in tax avoidance cases, trust stripping cases or cases under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act. It was necessary to divert 374 of the abovementioned 1,167 man years to these other activities during 1983-84. (4) No data was kept in 1983-84 on the proportion of tax raised that was collected by court order or voluntary repayments. (5) No data was kept by the Taxation Office to indicate the sources of the amounts collected. (Question No. 466)) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Is he able to say what the top marginal rates of income tax are in each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The maximum marginal rate of income tax imposed by the Federal (Central) Government in each of the OECD countries in 1983 (the latest year for which comprehensive figures are available) is set out below. Country Maximum marginal tax rate Per cent Australia... 60 Austria... 62 Belgium... 72 Canada... 34 Denmark... 39.6 Finland... 51 France... 65 The Federal Republic of Germany... 56 Greece... 60 Ireland... 65 Italy... 65 Japan... 75 Luxembourg... 57 The Netherlands... 72 New Zealand... 63 Norway... 41 Portugal... 80 Spain (1982)... 68.47 Sweden... 54 Switzerland... 11.5 Turkey... 65 United Kingdom... 60 United States... 50 It should be noted, however, that direct comparisons of the top marginal rates of income tax in OECD member countries are difficult to make due to, among other things, the existence of income taxes levied by various levels of government, the imposition of additional levies on income for social security and other purposes and the level and range of income at which the top marginal rates of income tax apply. (Question No. 548)) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Is there an Australian Migration office in South Africa; if so, what guidelines are applied to applicants. (2) How many (a) South African citizens and (b) citizens from other African countries have migrated to Australia in the last 10 years. (3) How many have applied for permanent residency or Australian citizenship in the past 10 years. (4) How many of these applicants were (a) accepted, (b) rejected and (c) are still outstanding. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are two Australian Migration Offices in South Africa; located in Pretoria and Capetown. The same migration guidelines apply in South Africa as apply elsewhere in the world. The guidelines are to be found in Migrant Entry Handbook. (2) Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics sourced data, for the ten years period July 1974 to June 1984: (a) 19,750 South African citizens and (b) 8,107 citizens from other countries in the African region migrated to Australia. (3) During the period July 1977 to June 1984 applications lodged for permanent resident status following entry for temporary residence included: (a) 595 South African citizens and (b) 705 citizens of other African countries. Such information was not recorded prior to July 1977. Information concerning applications lodged for Australian citizenship is not available. (4) (a) Applications approved for permanent resident status following the entry for temporary residence between the financial years 1974-75 and 1983-84 included: 630 South African citizens and 538 citizens of other African countries (Note-because of time lags between application and approval the relationship between the number of applications and the number of approvals is not precise) Preliminary figures for persons granted Australian citizenship in the same period included: 11,082 persons formerly of South African citizenship and 8,854 persons whose countries of former citizenship were in the African region. (b) Citizenship refusal statistics are not collected on the basis of country of prior citizenship. (c) Figures not available. (Question No. 571)) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Can he explain why 200 taxation Form S Explanatory Notes written in Italian, arrived at the Lismore Post Office, N.S.W. on 5 October 1984. (2) Why were these forms despatched after the closing date for filing 1984 returns. (3) Were any similar forms sent to other post offices after the closing date for filing returns; if so, how many were sent, to which post offices and in what language or languages were they printed. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In line with Taxation Office policy to assist non-English speaking persons to complete their salary and wages income tax returns, guidance notes in various ethnic languages are made available to all Taxation Offices and to select Post Offices. A supply of Notes has been provided to the Lismore Post Office as it is known that there is a sizeable Italian community in the region. However, due to the late passage of complex law which had to be accurately reflected in return forms and instructions, printing and delivery of those forms and instructions was much later this year than is normally the practice. (2) Yes. Although income tax returns are required to be lodged by 31 August unless prepared by a tax agent, supplies of forms and instructions remain available in post offices until end of October to cater for those taxpayers who for one reason or another do not lodge their returns by 31 August. (3) Yes. For NSW the information is as follows: POST OFFICES SERVICE ETHNIC GROUPS New South Wales Post Office Italian Serbo Croat Spanish Yugoslav Arabic Metropolitan Bankstown... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Campsie... . . . . . . . . . . 350 Chester Hill... 200 . . . . . . 250 . . Coogee Hostel... . . . . . . 250 . . . . Drummoyne... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Dulwich Hill... 200 . . . . . . 250 350 Earlwood... 200 . . . . . . . . 350 Five Dock... 200 . . . . . . . . 350 Greenacre... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Kingsford... . . . . . . . . . . 350 Lakemba... 200 . . . . . . . . 350 Leichhardt... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Leichhardt Hill... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Miller... 200 . . . . . . 250 . . Punchbowl... . . . . . . . . . . 350 Redfern... . . . . . . . . . . 350 Surry Hills... . . . . . . 250 . . . . Yagoona... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Country Ashford... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Bentley... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Bilambil... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Billinudgel... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Burringbar... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Casino... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Crabbes Creek... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Cringila... . . . . 250 . . . . . . Georica... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Goolmangar... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Goonellabah... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Griffith... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Hanwood... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Leeton... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Lismore... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Lismore Heights... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Marayong... 200 100 . . . . . . 350 Marayong South... 200 100 . . . . . . 350 Mooball... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Murwillumbah... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Nimbin... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Port Kembla... 200 . . . . . . 250 . . Rock Valley... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Rossmore... 200 100 . . . . . . 350 Stokers Siding... 200 . . . . . . . . . . The Channon... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Ulladulla... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Warrawong... 200 . . . . 250 250 . . Wollongong... 200 . . . . 250 250 . . Wollongong East... 200 . . . . . . 250 . . Yenda... 200 . . . . . . . . . . Yoogali... 200 . . . . . . . . . . (Question No. 778)) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: How will the early retirement lump sum payment for Australian National Railways Commission employees recently announced by the Minister for Transport be taxed. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian National Railways Commission's Separation Gratuity Incentive Scheme has been approved by the Commissioner of Taxation as an approved early retirement scheme for the purposes of section 27E of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Subject to certain tests being satisfied, a payment under an approved early retirement scheme, to the extent that it exceeds the amount the retiree could reasonably be expected to have received if he or she had ceased employment at the same time otherwise than in accordance with the early retirement scheme, qualifies for a concessional basis of assessment in that only 5 per cent of the excess is included in the retiree's assessable income. As the law now stands, one of the tests referred to-a premature retirement test-requires that termination of employment occur before the time when it could have occurred by reason of the employee having attained a particular age or completing a particular period of service. This means that, under the existing law, where an employee has an option to retire at a certain age (as is understood to be now the case with ANRC employees), termination must occur before that option becomes exercisable for any part of an approved early retirement scheme payment to qualify for concessional tax treatment. However, an examination of the effect of the premature retirement test in relation to a wide range of applications for approval of early retirement schemes has made it clear that the existing premature retirement test is too restrictive. For that reason the Government has introduced into the Parliament amending legislation (the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1985, introduced on 23 May 1985) that will ease that requirement of the income tax law. The proposed amendment will provide for access to the concession if termination of employment occurs before age 65 and before the date on which termination would necessarily have to occur by reason of the employee having attained a particular age or completing a particular period of service. In other words, the availability of an option to retire at a particular time before age 65 will not preclude the application of the concession. The amending legislation will not come into effect until it has been passed by the Parliament and receives the Royal Assent. However, the particular amendment is to apply with effect from 1 July 1983. The Commissioner has advised that, subject to the amendment being enacted, the conditions applicable to the National Railways Scheme are such that the whole of the early retirement gratuity payable, being additional to the benefits to which a retiree would otherwise have been entitled on termination of employment, would be eligible for the special 5 per cent basis of assessment. (Question No. 1103)) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) What is the corporate structure of the organisation known as `Pat Dukes Nurses' Agency', of 280 Pitt Street, Sydney. (2) What is the purposes of the organisation and when was it established. (3) Who is the chief executive and who are the beneficial owners. (4) Is he able to say whether this organisation has satisfied the requirements of the Commonwealth and NSW Governments for the necessary registration procedures and the provision of routine corporate, finance, tax and employee information; if they remain unsatisfied, why is this so. (5) Since 1980, with which hospitals that have been in receipt of Commonwealth and State funding, and with which other hospitals and health institutions has Pat Dukes Nurses' Agency had contractual and organisational arrangements and what are those contracts and arrangements. (6) How many nurses have been involved in these contracts and arrangements since 1980, and what corresponding amounts have been involved. (7) Has it been the practice of the organisation to charge nurses a fee of 10% of each nurse's total earnings, to charge hospitals a fee of 10% of the nurses earnings for placement of nurses, and then to indicate to nurses that only one fee of 10% is being received by the organisation in respect of their work. (8) Is it the practice of the organisation to receive payment from hospitals for work previously and satisfactorily performed by nurses and then to withhold those funds for months before actual payment to the individual nurses; if so, how many nurses have been subjected to these witholding arrangements since 1980, what amounts are involved and what has happened to that money between receipt from the hospitals and the payment to nurses. (9) Has this organisation refused to issue appropriate and complete financial and other documentation to both nurses and hospital for work undertaken and have receipts and accounts taken the form of unsigned and undated plain scraps of paper, not on any form of letter-headed paper. (10) Will he ascertain from the Treasurer, whether the Agency has satisfied the requirements of the Income Tax Assessment Act since the organisation was established. (11) Is he able to say whether (a) the Commonwealth and (b) the NSW Governments believe it is appropriate for this organisation to continue to be involved in the provision of services for publicly funded and other hospitals; if not, what course of action is proposed. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (9) and (11) My Department has no dealings with Pat Dukes Nurses' Agency and I am consequently unable to provide answers to these parts of the question. I suggest the honourable member raise them with the Minister for Health in the NSW Government which has responsibility for the provision of services in hospitals there. (10) Advice received from the Office of the Commissioner of Taxation states that the secrecy provisions of the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. The Commissioner is therefore unable to answer this part of the question. (Question Nos. 1129 and 1130) Mr Wright asked the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) When will the Government have enacted throughout Australia the model uniform Food Bill and the companion model regulations, approved by the June 1980 Health Ministers' Conference. (2) Is he able to explain why only Queensland has legislated on this matter to date. (3) Is he prepared to pursue the issue of a model uniform Food Act at the next meeting with his State ministerial counterparts. Dr Blewett —The honourable member has asked identical questions of both the Attorney-General and me, as indicated by the above question numbers. With the concurrence of the Attorney-General, I provide the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) Enactment throughout Australia of Model Food Legislation is the responsibility of the individual State and Territory Governments. I am unable therefore to advise when all States and Territories will adopt Model Legislation. (2) While I am unable to explain why only Queensland has legislated on this matter to date, I am aware that South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia have passed the legislation, South Australia and Tasmania are awaiting proclamation. New South Wales has the legislation drafted to go to the next session of Parliament, and the Territories have the matter currently with their legal draftsmen. (3) Yes, I am prepared to pursue the matter with my State Ministerial counterparts and in fact, I raised the issue at the recent Australian Health Ministers' Conference in Brisbane on 16-17 May 1985. The Conference agreed on a plan of action to facilitate the automatic adoption of uniform legislation by all States and Territories. In June 1985 the Government agreed to my joint proposals with Senator Button for the achievement of uniform food standards. These proposals involve the State and Territory Governments agreeing to adopt automatically by reference, the food standards issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council unless otherwise decided by a Commonwealth/States Ministerial Council, the National Food Standards Council. The establishment of this Council was further discussed at the Australian Health Services Council meeting in June 1985. An agreement between the Prime Minister, Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is currently being developed by my Department and the Attorney-General's Department. It is proposed that the national Food Standards Council will commence operation from 1 January 1986. (Question No. 1143)) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: Has the Government granted, or does it intend to grant an entry visa to Mr Faris Glubb; if so, can he say whether this is the same Faris Glubb who is reportedly an active member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation through its affiliate the Palestinian Writers Union and who has recently reaffirmed his support for the PLO and its aims. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has not granted a visa to Mr Faris Glubb, a member of the Palestinian Writers and Journalists Union. Mr Glubb re-applied for a visa to visit Australia in March of this year. The Government has not yet taken a decision on Mr Glubb's application. (Question No. 1146)) Mr Price asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to May 16. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Within my portfolio formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Public Service Board and the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Other authorities which are involved in handling Ministerial representations follow procedures consistent with those applying within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or provide the Department with input to replies which are prepared in the Department. The answer to the remaining parts of the honourable member's question in respect of each of the three bodies which have formal procedures are- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: 1 (a) The instructions are titled `Ministerial Corres- pondence Procedures' and were last issued in March 1984. (b) (i) and (ii) Target times are not provided in the procedures either formally or informally. Correspondence is to be handled without delay, but the drafting of replies often depends upon information being supplied by other agencies. (2) Not applicable, in view of answer to 1 (a) and (b) above. Public Service Board: 1 (a) The instructions are titled `Procedures for Handling Representations and Similar Ministerial Correspondence'. The instructions are updated regularly, most recently on 3 April 1985 when improved monitoring procedures were instituted. (b) Target times for answering representations are set formally. Correspondence from Ministers and Members of Parliament is to be answered within three weeks of receipt. Target times for urgent matters are as required. (2) Performance is monitored; overall 20 per cent of representations met their targets in 1985, to May 16. With the introduction of improved procedures on 3 April 1985, this has increased to 37 percent. Australian Bicentennial Authority: 1 (a) The Authority follows as closely as possible the procedures set down in the Ministerial Correspondence Procedures of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (b) In addition target times are set formally. The Authority aims to respond to all Ministerial representations within four weeks of receipt. (2) Performance is monitored; 54 per cent of representations met their target to 16 May 1985. Of the remainder 32 per cent required advice from areas outside the Authority's National Office where the reply is prepared. (Question No. 1190)) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) How many works permits and other visas entitling visitors to work in the tourist and entertainment industry have been issued to women from South-East Asia in the last 12 months. (2) In which States are these women employed. (3) What are the visitors countries of origin. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand the honourable member is interested in figures relating to persons from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Most recent figures show that in the financial year 1984/85 the following numbers of temporary residence visas were issued in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand for the holders to work in Australia as entertainers: Country No. of visas issued Indonesia... 20 The Philippines... 5 Thailand... 57 Visitors to Australia are not permitted to engage in employment and visas are endorsed accordingly. People who enter Australia for short or long-term periods to engage in employment, enter as temporary residents. Although statistics are kept at overseas posts for visas issued to temporary residents, they are not separated by sex or country of origin. Statistics are not maintained for temporary residents in specific industries but are recorded by occupation. Figures, therefore, are not available for persons employed in the tourist industry. Policy provides for the entry of entertainers to work in Australia provided they are sponsored by an enterprise or person of good standing and reputation. (2) Statistics are not maintained for temporary residents' state of intended residence. (3) See answer to (1). (Question No. 1209)) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 May 1985: What is the current cost per taxpayer for the administration, including collection, of personal income tax. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information on the cost per taxpayer for the administration, including collection, of personal income tax is not maintained by the Australian Taxation Office. However, related information maintained by the Australian Taxation Office indicates that for the financial year ended 30 June 1984, there were 9,334,000 income tax returns lodged. This figure represents current and prior year income tax returns lodged by individuals, partnerships, companies, trusts and superannuation funds. The net cost of collecting income tax for the financial year ended 30 June 1984 was $314,589,004. By dividing the net cost of collection figure by the number of tax returns lodged, the Australian Taxation Office can say that the average cost (per income tax return lodged) was $33.70. (Question No. 1223)) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) At which Australian Embassies are framed photographs of the Prime Minister and himself displayed in public areas. (2) Was the decision to hang these photographs publicly a ministerial decision; if so, who gave the directive. (3) Are framed photographs of Her Majesty the Queen displayed in public areas of these Embassies; if not, will he ensure this is done. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- Algiers Prime Minister only Amman Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Bahrain Prime Minister only Beijing Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Belgrade Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Berne Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Bonn Prime Minister only Brasilia Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Brunei Foreign Minister only Brussels Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Chicago Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Damascus Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hanoi Prime Minister only Honolulu Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Houston Foreign Minister only Kathmandu Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Kingston Prime Minister only Lagos Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Lima Prime Minister only Los Angeles Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Lusaka Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Madrid Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Moscow Prime Minister and Foreign Minister New York CG Prime Minister and Foreign Minister New York UN Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Nicosia Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Noumea Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Osaka Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Port Moresby Prime Minister and Foreign Minister San Francisco Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Singapore Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Stockholm Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Suva Prime Minister only Tarawa Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tel Aviv Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Vientiane Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Washington Prime Minister and Foreign Minister (2) No. There is no formal requirement to display portraits of the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in Australian posts abroad. Portraits are distributed as requested by each overseas post. (3) Framed photographs of Her Majesty the Queen are displayed in public areas of a number of Australian overseas posts, although there is no formal requirement to do so. Portraits of Her Majesty are displayed in non-public areas at a number of other overseas posts. It is not practical in all instances to display portraits in public areas. (Question No. 1229)) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 May 1985: (1) When were (a) personal income tax, (b) sales tax, (c) death duties, (d) gift duties, (e) pay-roll tax and (f) entertainment tax, first introduced and by which Government. (2) What were the reasons for the introduction of each tax as stated by the then Government. (3) At the time of the introduction of each tax did the then Government state that it was intended as a temporary or permanent impost. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (a) Federal personal income tax was introduced in 1915 by the Fisher Government. (b) Sales tax was introduced in 1930 by the Scullin Government. (c) Estate duties, also known as death duties, were introduced in 1914 by the Fisher Government. (d) Gift duty was introduced in 1941 by the Curtin Government. (e) Pay-roll tax was introduced in 1941 by the Menzies Government. (f) Entertainment tax was introduced in 1916 by the Hughes Government. (2)- (a) Personal income tax was introduced to provide ``. . . additional revenue necessary to meet the great and growing liabilities created by the First World War . . .''. (b) Sales tax was introduced ``. . . because of the state of the Commonwealth finances.''. (c) Estate duty was ``. . . imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.''. (d) Gift duty was introduced for a twofold purpose ``. . . namely, revenue protection and revenue production.''. (e) Pay-roll tax was ``. . . intended to provide additional revenue for the payment of cash allowances for the benefit of children.''. (f) Entertainment tax ``. . . was part of a scheme . . . for raising money for the purposes of paying the war expenses.''. (3)- (a) Not specified. Described by the then Attorney-General as ``a war measure, designed to meet the present circumstances''. (b) The then Treasurer said: ``How long it will operate I cannot say. I do not assert that it is temporary or emergency legislation.''. (c) The then Attorney-General said: ``I do not pretend that, in its present form, it ought to be permanent, though that is not a declaration that probate, estate, or succession duties will not form a permanent part of the Commonwealth scheme of taxation''. (d) Not specified at the time of introduction, but subsequently in 1951 the then Treasurer stated that Gift Duty was not intended as a temporary measure, but its primary purpose was to protect the revenue from other sources, particularly income tax and estate duty. (e) The then Minister Assisting the Treasurer said: ``No'' in response to the question ``(Is) this tax intended to be a temporary tax?''. He later added ``. . . I do not hold out hope to employers that this tax will be imposed for only a short time.''. (f) Not specified. Government members' speeches referred to the tax as necessary ``to meet the extra demands of the war'' and ``to meet a special emergency''. (Question No. 1435)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used: (a) what was its name; and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was: (a) the cost; and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (4) Since the creation of the Department of Community Services on 12 December 1984, one activity of the type outlined in the honourable member's question has been undertaken. On 7 May 1985 a public relations company and a design studio-Neilson McCarthy &Partners Pty Ltd and Corporate Graphics-were jointly awarded a consultancy to develop a communication strategy and visual identity for the Department. Specifically, the consultancy involved the design of a logo, design and production of brochures and a newsletter, design and production of stationery and development of an information strategy. The consultants were selected from the tenders of agencies recommended by the Australian Government Advertising Service, with advice from the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The total cost of the exercise was $69,930. (Question No. 1501)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or automatic data processing hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life, and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Brands of computer or ADP hardware. IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION Processors Peripherals Word Processors Micro-computers IBM Prime PERQ AWA IBM Memorex Telex Raytheon Calcomp Tektronix Systems Technology AWA DEC Wang Lanier Rank Xerox Raytheon IBM HP Apple Wang In addition there are numerous small ancillary items of various brands. IN RELATION TO THE SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION HP HP DEC Direct MPI Epsom Intergraph Olivetti IBM HP IMS National NEC Oki IN RELATION TO THE HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION Datapoint Datapoint (2) For each major system. IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION The table below provides answers to questions 2 (a) to 2 (d). In this table `anticipated life' is quoted as the number of years now remaining before replacement is assessed as being warranted on economic grounds. In addition to the major processor systems identified below minor systems and peripheral equipment including disk drives, tape drives, controllers and terminals essential for the functioning of the major systems have been progressively installed from December 1981 at a hardware cost totalling $13.728 million and with an `anticipated life' ranging from one to eight years. Equipment Principal current function Date of installation Cost $ Anticipated life (a) (b) (c) (d) IBM 3081... Interactive system to service professional technical and management functions throughout the Department Sept. 1984 4.906 5 yrs IBM 3033... System to be recommissioned for the above functions Dec. 1981 2.631 2 yrs IBM 4331... (8 units) To handle time critical applications (including accounting and wages) in each State Dec. 1981 2.562 2 yrs IBM 4341... A pilot system for distributed processing located in Melbourne using the MVS operating system for technical and management tasks and to provide back up of critical systems July 1983 0.324 3 yrs Prime 2250... Pilot system in the WA Region to provide evaluation of Computer Aided Drafting in a production environment Aug. 1984 0.230 4 yrs ICL PERQ... (10 units) Single user Technical/Graphics workstations now used in Central Office and the Vic/Tas, SA/NT and ACT Regions July 1983 0.300 3 yrs AWA-XL40... (5 units) Data entry equipment for the 4331 Regional computers in WA, Vic, SA, NSW and ACT. July 1981 0.319 2 yrs (e) In 1983 a major study by consultants recommended that the Department should adopt a policy of distributed data processing. Further studies in 1984 considered the capacity of the existing network and defined a number of strategic options for the introduction of distributed processing. Specific technology plans and business cases are now being developed to demonstrate the essential need for an expansion of the Department's computing facilities which will provide replacement of some systems and increase the life of other systems by increasing their capacity. IN RELATION TO THE SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION The only major system is the HP3000 Processor: (a) Principal function: Main processor for commercial (payroll, costing, ledger, drawing index etc.) and technical (engineering analysis, design etc.) systems. (b) Date installed: April 1977. (c) Hardware cost: $500,000. (d) Anticipated life: Central processor-nil. Peripherals 0-10 years. (e) Proposal for replacement is under consideration. IN RELATION TO THE HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION The only major system is Datapoint: (a) Principal function: Interactive system providing data entry, general business, statistical and accounting functions. (b) Date of major upgrade: August 1984. (c) Cost: $257,000. (d) Anticipated life: 5 years. (e) Replacement: Continuing review of system. (3) Is any major system shared. IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION The Department of Veterans Affairs shares the use of the IBM 3033 computer for the development of a patient care system. The Department of Transport shares the use of data base systems on the IBM 3081 for motor vehicles and sea transport systems. IN RELATION TO THE SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION The hardware and payroll software are shared with SMHEA. IN RELATION TO THE HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION No. (Question No. 1503)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or automatic data processing hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Brands of computer and ADP hardware which are in use in my Department and the authority responsible to me are as follows: Department In Australia: Mainframe Computer; Processor-Amdahl; Disk storage-National Advanced System, IBM, Memorex; Communications Processors-Amdahl; Magnetic tape units-Storage Technology; Printers-Storage Technology, IBM; Network Equipment-Raytheon, IBM, Memorex, Hewlett-Packard, Facom; Micro-computers-Sigma Data. Overseas: Mini Computer Equipment, Honeywell. Regional and Outposted-Micro-computers, Dulmont. Major system Function (a) Installation date (b) Hardware cost (c) Anticipated life (d) Replacement action (e) $ Registry... To control and track the movement of departmental nominal and subject files May 1982 136,450 Ongoing None in foreseeable future Adult Migrant Education Program... To administer English language training of migrants through State Education Authorities July 1985 420,300 Ongoing None in foreseeable future Citizenship... To administer processing of applications for Australian citizenship 1984 238,000 Ongoing None in foreseeable future Movement Control System To track and report on the movement of passengers and crew in and out of Australia September 1982 271,390 Ongoing Major upgrade envisaged in 1986-87 to facilitate better Data Entry Services Personnel and Establishment Information System To record and report on administration of personnel within the Department January 1983 34,900 Ongoing None in foreseeable future (3) The eleven Honeywell systems (Overseas) are used by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Trade for general office automation such as Word processing, Library systems, Trade information, Travel diary and Accounting purposes. The Department's main use is on the Visa Registry System. The Adult Migrant Education System is shared by the State Education Departments. Statutory Authority Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. (1) Wang office computer, President personal computers. (2) (a) Word processing and data analysis; (b) 1981; (c) $146,500; (d) Until 1987; (e) Re-placement is planned in 1987-88. (3) No. (Question No. 1553)) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Will the Decca position fixing system for Port Hedland be switched off; if so, (a) when and (b) why. (2) Will methods be available to sea-going vessels to keep on course in the strong tidal currents when the channel at Port Hedland is upgraded, and the Decca system is no longer operating. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes-anticipated mid-1986; (b) The extended channel will be marked by fixed structures with a dual band beacon on the outer-most mark and consequently the Port Hedland Decca chain will no longer be required. These arrangements have been endorsed by the commercial shipping industry. (2) Yes. (Question No. 1568)) Mr Smith asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) (i) Compensation-Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $69,544 and, for the most part, covered regular on-going compensation payments (amounting to $51,438) made to seven former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals, etc. relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 53 officers and comprising 165 individual transactions. (ii) Legal expenses Amount Recipient Service $ 5,052 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees-Mr T. Simos, Q.C. representing the Commonwealth re: Whitlam v. Australian Consolidated Press 1,378 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees-Mr L. Katz appearing with Mr Simos, Q.C. in above case 6,749 Australian Government Solicitor Legal costs and disbursements Commonwealth v. Carroll 1,300 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees-Mr S. Walmsley-Commonwealth v. Carroll 1,485 Mr L. Katz Expenses, fee-Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Toohey 272 Mr P. Graham, Q.C. Counsel fees and expenses-The Secretary, Attorney-General's Department and ors v. Hallows. (Counsel acted for five Departments-expenditure represents one-fifth of charges) 1,275 Australian Government Solicitor Counsel fees and expenses-Mr L. Katz Public Service Board and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Dr F. E. Peters-Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings (cost shared with Public Service Board-expenditure represents one-half of charges) (Question No. 1605)) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Why has $87,000 been appropriated for compensation and legal expenses for the Defence Service Homes Corporation in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 when, in 1984-85, no moneys were expended for these services. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: `Compensation and Legal Expenses' is a new item introduced in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. In 1984-85 funds for compensation and legal expenses were included in the appropriation for `Administrative Expenses'. Expenditure of $63,097 by the Corporation in 1984-85 is included in Sub-division 693.2 Administrative Expenses. (Question No. 1670)) Mr Hawker asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: Further to his answer to question No. 531 (Hansard, 13 May 1985, page 2245) can he now say (a) what the cost for the July Tax Summit was and (b) what part of the cost was for the use of Parliament House, for a forum of unelected Government appointed participants. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The estimated cost of the Taxation Summit is the figure shown in Appropriation Bill No. 2, Division 939.01, page 26. Details of this estimate, which were provided in my Department's explanations of the estimates tabled in the Senate on 22 August 1985, are: $ Transport... 150,000 Printing... 150,000 Catering and hospitality... 40,000 Office requisites, stationery etc.... 20,000 Fares... 20,000 Other... 20,000 400,000 Accounts for the Meeting are still being received. Expenditure to 16 September 1985 amounts to some $130,000. (b) Nil. (Question No. 1307)) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agencies. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Funding for organisations and/or individuals is available under the following programs: Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment-Commemoration of Historic Events and Persons, Control of Historic Shipwrecks, Australian Biological Resources Study, National Tree Program, National Estate Grants Program, Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations. AUSTRALIA COUNCIL Aboriginal Arts Board-Music, Dance and Drama, Community Festival and Ceremonies, Visual Arts, Literature and Aboriginal Writing, Multi-Arts Programs, Aboriginal Community Arts Officers, Film, Video and Radio, Major Aboriginal Arts Organisations. Crafts Board-Grants to Organisations: Craft Councils-basic annual grants, Assistance for Projects, Challenge Grants for Equipment, Local/ Regional Development Grants. Grants for Access and Education: Craft Residencies, Conservation and Curatorial, Publishing, Traineeships in Craft Related Areas, Craft in Public Places. Grants for Exhibitions: Exhibition Development, Local/Regional Access Exhibitions, National/State Exhibitions, Contemporary Craft Acquisitions, Special Projects. Community Arts Board-Residencies, Organisers, Events, Public Art, Workshops, Multi-Form and Innovative Activities, Activities throughout the year, Resource, Information and Network Development. Design Arts Board-Design Communication, Design Applications, Pilot Projects. Literature Board-Residencies: Writers in Residence in Tertiary Institutions, Playwrights in Residence, Dramaturgs in Residence, Screenwriting Attachments. Community Based Activities: Writers in the Community, Community Access Program. Book Publishing Subsidies, Literary Magazines, Literary Organisations, Promotional Grants. International Program: General Activities, Translation and Overseas Publications Program. Music Board-Composer Commissions, Composer in Residence, Publishing, Radio Projects, Community and Regional Music Co-ordination, Community Music or Arts Centres, Youth Music, Visiting Teachers, Composer or Musician in Residence in the Community, Pioneer Electronics Australian Award, Ensemble Development, Performance, Performance Bounty, Musician in Residence, Opera/Music Theatre Special Projects, State Opera Companies, International Touring, National Music Service Organisations, Australian Folk Trust, Innovative Projects, Improvement of Management. Theatre Board-General Support Grants for Companies, Project Grants for Companies, Project Development Grants, Playwrights in Residence. Training and Development Grants: Traineeships, Professional Service Assistance to Multicultural Dance Groups, Visiting Teachers. Communication Projects Grants, Interstate Movement of Artists. Visual Arts Board-Artists in Residence, Public Art, Assistance with Murals, Australian Contemporary Art Acquisitions, Australian Contemporary Art Special Purchase Program, Support for Contemporary Art Spaces and Organisations, Grants for Exhibitions, International Visitors Program, Publications. In addition to these programs offered by the Boards, applications from organisations may be be made to the Touring and Access Program, Amateur Groups Overseas Program and the Inter Board Committee. Australian Film Commission-Creative Development: Exhibition and Distribution of Films, Publications on Film Appreciation and Culture, Enhancement of Film Culture. Special Purpose Funding Program: Publications, Special Events, Travel and Study, Research and Development. The form of funding, whether by way of grant, loan or investment, is at the discretion of the Australian Film Commission. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Scientific Research Survey and Collection of Statistics Consultancy Program. Australian Heritage Commission-Australian Heritage Grants Program. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Research and Monitoring Program. National Library of Australia-Research and Development Program. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Scientific Research Consultancy Program. (2) Yes. (3) No special provisions other than the normal ones of equal opportunity and objective consideration of all proposals are considered either applicable or necessary for most of the bodies listed above. An exception is the Australia Council, which has taken steps to ensure that appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations through the provisions of the Multicultural Incentive Fund which encourages grants towards multicultural arts projects undertaken by organisations and individuals. The Council advertises its programs of assistance in the ethnic press and produces a promotional pamphlet detailing available grant programs in ten community languages. The Council employs two full time multicultural liaison officers who provide multicultural organisations and individuals with a special resource to service their needs in relation to the Council's programs of assistance A new initiative of Council is the establishment in February 1985 of the Multicultural Arts Committee consisting of representatives of each of the Boards of Council and practising artists in the area of multicultural arts from all States. This Committee provides a base to promote multicultural arts, within the programs of both Council and its Boards. (Question No. 1356)) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: What is the wholesale sales tax equivalent of the current protection for (a) clothing and (b) footwear. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: There are no current estimates of the wholesale sales tax equivalent of the protective regimes applying to the clothing and footwear industries. According to an Industries Assistance Commission background paper, prepared in December 1984, assistance arrangements for clothing and footwear products were estimated to have an impact on domestic prices equivalent to a sales tax of some 80 per cent. Since that paper was prepared, there has been a substantial depreciation of the $A. This would have acted to reduce the sales tax equivalent figure. (Question No. 1363)) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the June 1984 Annual Conference of Family Court Judges resolved that all Judges of the Family Court of Australia are gravely concerned at the present lack of court counsellors and registrars and other resources to deal adequately with the present volume of work, over the inadequate, crowded and insecure accommodation in the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane registries, the delays, risks, anxiety and costs which these deficiencies cause to the judges, staff and people using the Court, the potential damage to children when matters cannot be dealt with expeditiously and the way in which the situation is frustrating the policy and intention of the Family Law Act. (2) Was this resolution communicated to his predecessor by a letter, dated 2 July 1984, from the Chief Judge of the Family Court. (3) What steps have been taken or will be taken by the Government in response to the resolution. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Since June 1984 a number of actions have been taken in regard to the issues discussed in the Judges' resolution. These actions are a result of Government and Family Court initiatives and are not in consequence of the resolution. Details follow: (a) Additional staff have been allocated to the Family Court to alleviate the pressure of the workload on existing staff. During 1984-85, the Average Operative Staffing Level of the Family Court was increased by 58 staff units and in 1985-86 it has been increased by 17 to a total of 506. Approximately 55 of these units have gone or will go towards additional conciliation and counter/reception staff. (b) Arrangements have also been completed between the Public Service Board, the Attorney-General's Department and the Court to pay an allowance to Registrars who will exercise powers contained in Section 37A of the Family Law Act. The exercise of these powers by Registrars will free Judges from routine and procedural matters, allowing them to devote a greater proportion of their time to defended hearings. In this way, delays in defended hearings are expected to be reduced. (c) In addition, the Court is embarking on a program to introduce improved case management procedures at all of its Registries. These procedures are designed to enable the Court to control and monitor the passage of all cases through its system. Such a program is unique in Australian Courts and it is expected to cause a marked reduction in many of the delays and costs that have become associated with litigation in the Family Court. (d) The Department has obtained the consultative advice of Professor Ian Scott, Barber Professor of Law at Birmingham University and Director of the Birmingham Institute of Judicial Administration. Professor Scott is a member of the Lord Chancellor's Committee of Inquiry into Civil Justice in England and Wales. He will be examining ways of reducing delays in the Court and of assessing, allocating and disposing of the work of the Court. (e) (i) Moves have also been made towards extensive improvements to accommodation occupied by the Family Court especially in the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane registries. (ii) The Brisbane Registry is expected to occupy a new building early next year. The Registry will occupy part of the ground floor and all the remaining five office floors of the building, giving it an increase in size of about 94 per cent over its existing accommodation. The floor plan will be designed specifically to cater for the specialised requirements of the Family Court. Officers of the Court will be consulted over design plans and at all stages of the project and the same is true of other accommodation projects. (iii) Considerable expansion and renovation of the Sydney Registry accommodation is expected to be completed in October 1985. A major part of this project involves the floors containing court rooms. (iv) An additional two floors are to be leased in Marland House for the Melbourne Registry as well as extensive renovation and refurbishment of the existing area. The major part of the project is to provide more suitable court rooms and public waiting areas, as well as more suitable accommodation for Court Counsellors and their clients. (v) A number of security measures have been introduced or improved at each of the Registries. It is certain that security and other conditions for Judges, Court Staff and people using the Court will be considerably improved once the accommodation projects are complete. All these improvements are being undertaken with a view to reducing the delays, risks, anxieties and costs presently experienced by Judges, staff and people using the Court, as quickly as possible. (Question No. 1378)) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Does the Government oppose, support or is it neutral about moves to make self-employed Australians (a) employees or (b) members of a union. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government recognises that there are many self-employed Australians who are, on any definition, employers. The Government believes that such employers should not be eligible to join associations of employees registered under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (``The Act''). The rights of unions to enrol particular categories of labour, the regulation of their conditions of engagement and protection from coercion were examined by the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems (the Hancock Committee). The Committee recommended that the jurisdiction of the federal industrial tribunal be extended to cover disputes involving persons described by the Committee as `quasi-employees', that is, persons who contract for service of their labour only or for the provision of labour and equipment but are in all other respects employees. In so recommending the Committee said that it did not include in this category genuine independent contractors or small business owners, and that associations of employees registered under the Act should not be able to enrol as members persons who are not `employees' within the definition it proposed. The Committee also recomended that the provisions of the Act dealing with coercion be examined to ensure that they provide a remedy for `genuine independent contractors.' The Government is presently engaged in wide ranging consultations with interested parties on the recommendations of the Hancock Committee. We will be giving careful consideration to the results of these consultations before any final decisions are made as to the implementation of the Committee's recommendations. (Question No. 1385)) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to press reports claiming that the establishment of a waste disposal incinerator near Broken Hill, NSW, posed a potential problem to water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin. (2) Has the River Murray Commission considered the implications of this proposal; if so, what conclusion did they reach; if not, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The River Murray Commission has written to the New South Wales Government's Western Lands Commission, which has responsibility for land use and management in the region, noting that Rinex Environmental Services Pty Ltd intends to comply with the requirements of the New South Wales Dangerous Goods Act for the transport of materials to the proposed incinerator, and that exceptionally dangerous materials will be placed in double drums as an additional safety precaution during transport. The Commission has asked that its desire be recorded that all possible precautions are taken, both during transport and processing of waste materials, to ensure that contamination of tributaries of the River Murray does not occur. (Question No. 1427)) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports in the Federal Republic of Germany that the ingestion of Canthaxanthin can cause the accumulation of crystal-like deposites behind the eye and that this chemical is contained in many suntan pills and in some cosmetic preparations. (2) Will he arrange for his Department to obtain the evidence presented to the German Bundesgesundheitsamt on the effects of the chemical. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) My Department has received information from the Bundesgesundheitsamt. This was reviewed by the Adverse Drugs Reactions Committee at its last meeting in August. Recommendations from that Committee will be reviewed by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee on 20 September.