Tuesday, 12 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death, on 1 November 1985, of Joseph Francis Fitzgerald, member of this House for the Division of Phillip from 1949 to 1955 and senator for New South Wales from 1962 to 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and family. It is a matter of great regret to honourable members on both sides of this House to learn of the death of a former colleague, Joseph Francis Fitzgerald. Joe Fitzgerald had a distinguished parliamentary career and he gave a lifetime of service to the Labor movement. Joe Fitzgerald was deeply versed in the history and philosophy of the Australian Labor movement. Like so many of his generation, his social awareness and his concern for fellow Australians was developed and then honed by the harshness and the difficulty of the Great Depression of the 1930s. From 1949 until 1955 he served as the member for Phillip, then one of the most marginal seats in Australia. He was elected to and served in the Senate from July 1962 until the double dissolution in 1974, when he retired because of ill health. Within this House and later in the Senate he was respected for his integrity, his compassion and his gentleness. Joe Fitzgerald gave long and committed service to both Houses of this Parliament and his passing is our loss. On behalf of the Government I extend to his wife, Pat, his son Paul and all his family our sympathy and our regret. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As honourable members on both sides of the House would know, Joe Fitzgerald was a classic product of the Irish Catholic tradition of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. He gave his life to the ideals of the Labor Party as he saw them. He gave very long and distinguished service to the machine of the Labor Party and at a parliamentary level. He served, of course, as secretary to both the late Dr Evatt and the late Arthur Calwell when they were respectively leaders of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. He was a person who was very well liked by colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly those who came into contact with him in the various social and community activities to which he was attached and in which he was involved in Sydney. On behalf of the Opposition, I express support for this motion and extend our sympathy to his widow, Patricia, and the other members of the Fitzgerald family. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia, I would like to join in the condolence motion to the memory of the late former member and senator Joseph Francis Fitzgerald. Joe Fitzgerald, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) and I, were members of a parliamentary mission that went to South East Asia in 1966, many years ago. It was the first occasion that members of the Parliament had in fact visited Vietnam during the confrontation there. It was an occasion when I came to know Joe Fitzgerald particularly well. He was one who contributed according to his own political lights with very considerable depth and sincerity and provided a positive contribution towards not only the views and policies of the Australian Labor Party but also the well being and the benefit of those he represented. There is no doubt that, as an individual, he was likable. I found him a particularly charming colleague during that, at times, fairly harrowing journey. His political record, going back as it did into the days of the late H. V. Evatt and stretching through as a member of both this House and the other place, meant that he provided perhaps a greater understanding of the circumstances of the post-war development of politics in this country than almost any other individual. For that reason I would like, not only on behalf of the National Party but also personally, to join in these expressions of sympathy to his wife Pat, his son Paul and the family. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Speaker, I wish to join in the sentiments expressed in respect of this motion. The late Joseph Francis Fitzgerald was a personal friend of mine for many years. He was the first member for the Federal seat of Phillip which was formed in 1949 and he represented that constituency from 1949 to 1955 and then sat in the Senate from 1962 until 1974. I fully endorse what has already been said by the previous speakers, but I would like to add two matters which I know are related to Joe Fitzgerald's efforts to assist not only his constituency but also the Australian Labor Party. Joe Fitzgerald gave distinguished service in both Houses of this Parliament, but he did a lot of work outside this Parliament. He was an executive of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia at a very early age and was very dedicated to the union movement. He had a strong union background. One of his favourite sayings was: `I would prefer to be called dishonest rather than disloyal when it comes to union matters'. He was an executive officer of the Henry Lawson Labour College. He was President and Secretary of the Youth Organising Committee and he also served in other areas such as local and charitable organisations. He took a very keen interest in the life saving movement, was interested in the Matthew Talbot Hostel and was very interested in those who were mentally and physically handicapped. From that honourable members can see the wide diversity of interests that this great man had. He was a great asset to the Labor Party and is a great loss to the nation. I wish to extend my condolences to his widow Pat and to the family. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Mr Speaker, I would like to join others in conveying my sympathy to the family of the late Joseph Fitzgerald. He married a Narrabri girl, Pat Delaney, who comes from a very well known family in the Narrabri district. They were friends of my family. Joe Fitzgerald visited my area on many occasions. I developed a very warm affection for him. I extend my sympathy to Pat and the members of his family. He was a very great Australian. Ms McHUGH(Phillip) —I rise to pay my own personal tribute and that of members of the Australian Labor Party in my electorate to the very first member for Phillip. The strength and traditions of the Party in our State of New South Wales and particularly in the electorate of Phillip have a continuity which means that the links between the older and newer generations are binding. Joe was very much a part of that. He was a great campaigner and we, as campaigners in the electorate, have always had a very great deal to learn from him. He first was campaign director for Jessie Street when she ran for the adjoining electorate of Wentworth and very nearly won it. When Joe won the electorate of Phillip when it was first made a seat, Jessie was actually standing for the seat too, but not for the Labor Party. He then was campaign director for Joe Riordan, another former member for Phillip. I was very much involved in the campaigns in 1972 and 1974. Joe Fitzgerald's severe disability, as a result of a stroke, did not, in any way, impede his activities. Indeed, one of the things he was very involved in was the rehabilitation committee for disabled persons which was established by the Labor Government in 1974. His continued commitment after his stroke showed that it did not limit his activity in any way at all. It was a matter of great pride for me that, at the declaration of the poll for Phillip in 1983, all three former Labor members for Phillip were present, that is, Joe Fitzgerald, Syd Einfeld and Joe Riordan. It was at my first campaign dinner that Joe Fitzgerald was presented with life membership of the Australian Labor Party by Premier Neville Wran. At Joe's funeral last Monday week it was Joe Riordan who gave the eulogy. So, along with all Party members and former representatives of the seat of Phillip, I extend my condolences to his widow, Pat, and say that we will never forget his loyalty to the Party. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister concede that the failure of his Government to respond effectively to the massive depreciation of the Australian dollar earlier this year is a factor in the present weakness of our currency? If so, will he seek a renegotiation of the prices and income accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the extent necessary to achieve effective discounting rather than inflict still higher interest rates on the entire Australian community by maintaining the accord in its present form? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is no. The arrangement which has been made and endorsed by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its national wage case decision should be put into proper perspective. It is the case that the unions and Government have agreed to argue before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a 2 per cent discount at the next national wage case. It should be understood that, on the current calculations, that would represent about the maximum discount that would be obtainable then if the Commission were to follow its past practices in regard to this sort of issue. Therefore, when one also understands that under the agreement negotiated between the Government and the ACTU there will be the further moderating impact of their agreement on the national productivity case, which will be spread over a considerable period, and the further commitment of the ACTU to no extra claims, it can be seen that in the economic circumstances confronting this country a much better result will be produced than the alternative which is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition-the failed Treasurer, who has the worst economic record in the history of this country-would have us believe that in place of this effective arrangement the country would be better served by his deregulated approach, which would guarantee a massive wages explosion and infinitely greater pressure both on interest rates and on exchange rates. The people of Australia repudiated the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government for his incompetence and they continue to repudiate him now for his lack of basic understanding of the operations of this economy. Mr SCOTT —Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to an announcement by the Premier of South Australia on 1 November this year of a $32.5m exploration development on Pitjantjatjara land in South Australia? Will the Minister advise the House of the Government's reaction to the proposal and its implications for future development on Aboriginal land? Mr HOLDING —I would have thought that this Government and all honourable members, irrespective of political disagreements, would have welcomed the announcement which was made and which was really a landmark decision in respect of the relationship between Aboriginal people and those mining on their land. This agreement has to be seen against the background that approximately two years ago a major Australian resource developer walked off that land and resigned its exploration lease on the basis that it did not feel that it could carry out exploration under the terms that were sought. It was generally critical of the provisions of the land rights Act that applied in South Australia. That action meant that considerable pressure was applied on the South Australian Government to make amendments to that Act. Those attempts were resisted by the South Australian Government. What did occur was quite significant. Miners, largely overseas companies with experience in dealing with mining on the land of indigenous people, with the assistance of the South Australian Government, reached an agreement in something under 18 months with the Pitjantjatjara people which meant that no up-front money would be paid. Just on $32.5m will be spent on exploration in an area of approximately 21,000 square kilometres of Pitjantjatjara land. The Aboriginal community involved understands that if nothing is found it will get nothing; on the other hand, there are conditions in the agreement giving it an equity base, which means that the sacred sites of the community and its concern for certain areas of that land will be fully maintained. This is a very important development. I do not think that this agreement could have been reached if it had not been for the very positive and imaginative approach which was taken by the South Australian Government and by Mr Bannon and his Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Payne. I make what I think is an important comment and adopt it as representing the position of the Government. I refer to a quote from Mr Lester, the Chairman of the Aboriginal company which represents the Pitjantjatjara people, who responded to the agreement that was made. He said: Today's agreement demonstrates that the aspirations and concerns of Aboriginal people and the mining industry need not be mutually exclusive. Given good faith on both sides and an imaginative approach to problem solving, they can both be accommodated. There was an imaginative approach. There was positive support from the South Australian Government, and an agreement which I believe is in the interests of all South Australian people and the rest of the Australian people has been successfully negotiated. Mr N. A. BROWN —Does the Treasurer recall warning us in his Budget Speech that, as a result of the depreciation of the dollar, the Government would modify its support for full wage indexation and that if it did not, Australia would lose its competitive edge for years to come? Is it not now clear on today's evidence that the Government should honour its Budget commitment to achieve a full discounting for the price effects of the devaluation? Will this be done? If not, what does the Treasurer now propose to do to prevent even further erosion of our competitive edge as a result of wage indexation decisions? Mr KEATING —I did say that and we did do that. That is the effect of the matter. When I made the statement in the Parliament, I said for the benefit of the dullards on the other side that the Government was faced with the prospect of full indexation for the March and June quarters as distinct from a discount of one per cent off the September case and one per cent off the April case. The influence on the longer run inflationary effects over the following two years was a decimal point of difference. I told honourable members that, but apparently they do not want to listen. Mr N. A. Brown —But you said `the two cases'. Mr KEATING —Yes, we are supporting the discounting of 2 per cent off the April wage case, to meet that inflationary effect, and the deferment of the productivity case for another 12 months, which will also reduce costs. The fact of the matter is that since the depreciation began in February this year there has been no wage response until this month, in the face of a 20 per cent depreciation. There has been no wage response for that period. This is all occurring in the climate of an economy which is growing very strongly. Mr Hodgman —Strongly downhill. Mr KEATING —Let me modify that-an economy which is growing exeedingly strongly. The Liberals pretend that in some way they could operate as though the wage outcomes which exist in the economy at the moment are their base point for the kind of mad experiment that they would try again. We would have already had massive wage increases this year in the face of this depreciation, had the accord not been in place. As far as the Government is concerned, we believe that we have the appropriate policy package in place to meet the depreciation-a dramatic windback in the deficit, a windback in the public sector borrowing requirement, discounting off the April wage case and a deferment of the productivity case. Of course, since then we have tightened monetary policy. Mr Howard —Record real interest rates. Mr KEATING —I find it curious that the Leader of the Opposition should keep talking about real interest rates. He is bemoaning the effect of interest rates on disposable incomes while in the same breath saying that we should have a wage cut. This shows the hypocrisy and opportunism of the Opposition. The supposed dry new Liberal Leader, the fellow who was going to give us rational economic policy, is telling us that we are exacting higher interest rates and therefore reducing disposable incomes, while in the same breath he says that we should have a wage cut. Either he is in favour of reducing disposable incomes in the face of this economic condition, or he is not. To make this sleazy point continually about, as he calls it, fronting up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which, put in its proper language, means giving everyone in this country a wage cut, means that he prefers a wage cut but he does not want to see the appropriate monetary policy put in place. That just gives some indication of the nonsense of the Opposition's policy. It has no policy. It is all right for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to ask questions about wages policy, but his Party has no wages policy. In the face of this sort of growth it would have massive wage confusion and chaos in the labour market, as every employer knows. If the Opposition is thinking of making any ground with the employers of this country, who have had profit shares lifted to their highest levels since 1968-69, who are seeing record profits being posted every week and the stock exchange breaking its record four times in a month, the honourable member is most mistaken if he thinks he will be listened to. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Can the Minister inform the House of the present state of negotiations between the Federal and Queensland State governments on financial aid to the Australian sugar industry? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. Questions on the sugar industry come only from my side of the House, and that is mainly due to the fact that the National Party of Australia is in disarray and is dismayed by the antics of the minority National Party Government in Queensland. Queensland has an interesting government. I understand that now pubkeepers are going to be able to identify child molesters as they come through the door. They are pretty clever up there. Perhaps we could go back a little. The Queensland Premier and the Prime Minister met in April this year and it was agreed that to try to get an agreed position between the Queensland Government, the Commonwealth Government and the sugar industry-that is, the millers and the cane growers-we would set up a committee with agreed terms of reference, with a secretariat to be provided by the Queensland Government and with the chairman of that committee, who ended up being Mr Savage, to be selected by the Queensland Government. At the end of 100 days the two governments and the industry reached an agreement. For the last 40 of the 100 days there was ongoing discussion at all levels in government and in the industry itself. This Government was in a situation to respond to the findings of that committee when it came down with its report in August. The Cabinet had taken certain decisions with respect to assistance at that time. The minority National Party Government in Queensland, for reasons of its own, decided that it would walk away from that piece of paper and generally disseminate it to the industry, even though the industry, of course, knew exactly what was in it. We have had a process since then of reaching the lowest common denominator approach on every substantive issue. The Cabinet met in Townsville, on 23 September, I think it was. Again, the Hawke Labor Government, recognising the problems of the sugar industry, took further steps and made them virtually public, to the extent to which we would be prepared to go. We indicated then that it was the Commonwealth position that there be a little bit more restructuring proposed by the industry than had been agreed to at that time. We were referring particularly then to the Queensland Cane Growers Council meeting of a few days before, and that we are involved in the full package of Savage recommendations. Again, they are the substantive issues: That there be price support, that there be restructuring in the industry, that there be rural adjustment assistance on farms, and that there be more attention paid to research; all of those things in a package. As the Queensland Government buys the sugar and legislates for the sugar industry-and it is the second biggest industry in that State-we believe that the two State governments involved should also contribute some money towards the price support, since the three governments were involved together in putting this all in place. On 26 September I met with Mr Hallam-and he can negotiate for the New South Wales Government-and we reached agreement on restructuring, price support and rural adjustment. I then met with Mr Turner, the Queensland Minister, who told me that he had no room to move whatsoever on price support because the Queensland Premier would not allow him to negotiate on that; but we negotiated on restructuring and rural adjustment. The New South Wales Government has come back to us and said that it will go along with all that was agreed to on 26 September. Mr Braithwaite —For how much? Mr KERIN —Two dollars for one; exactly the same as we put to the Queensland Government. The Queensland Minister has walked away from that agreement. But the Queensland National Party has been misrepresenting this so much-particularly Mr Menzel, one of the National Party members; the rest are pretty silent-that I thought the best thing to do was to put all the cards on the table. I wrote to every cane grower-I think it was last week-and contacted in writing the key organisations setting out again in full the Commonwealth position on the whole situation. The Prime Minister, of course, wrote to the Premier also trying to encourage him to take this industry seriously and to take into account the needs of the industry for the sake of his State. Quite frankly, I do not think the Queensland Premier of that minority National Party Government understands the sugar industry. There will be discussions and negotiations tomorrow. I hope those discussions and negotiations are on the basis of interests. I hope we are not going to have sterile arguments about maintaining positions. I hope that the two governments and the industry are going to work together to solve the problems of the sugar industry. I see from this morning's newspapers that the State has rejected the sugar scheme. I am not saying whether all the newspaper reports are true, but I think it is a pretty sad day when the National Party in Queensland looks like it is preparing the ground to walk away from this industry due to the antics of the Premier of that minority Government. Mr CARLTON —I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer to Budget Paper No. 1, page 70, which shows that one of the parameters used in the calculation of the Budget figures is a trade weighted index of `around 68'. Given that the trade weighted index fell to below 60 at the end of his overseas trip and that so far this year the trade weighted index has averaged well under the Budget forecast and is now more than 10 per cent below the forecast, I ask: First, what will be the effect on the Budget forecasts, especially the deficit, of the lower TWI; and secondly, will the Budget figures be recalculated on a new trade weighted index basis in the mid-year review, and, if so, will the Treasurer make the results public? Mr KEATING —It will obviously have some influence on the Budget deficit. We are not in the habit, as other governments have not been in the habit, of recalculating Budget figures in the course of the year. Of course there is a mid-year Budget statement, and there will continue to be in the normal course of events. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the disgraceful actions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio station 2JJJ in Sydney in broadcasting sections of a Higher School Certificate examination paper? Has the Minister been advised of the anguish this has caused thousands of young people in New South Wales? Will the Minister have the Australian Federal Police investigate this deplorable affair, and in particular whether there has been any breach of any Commonwealth law, including the copyright law? Mr DUFFY —It is a pity that the honourable member for Grayndler could not get his facts correct before he asked the question. On the information available to me radio station 2JJJ was in fact involved in the controversy referred to but I am advised that, contrary to claims made by some people, including the honourable member for Grayndler, no HSC questions were quoted in last Friday's broadcast by that station. If the honourable member for Grayndler has any evidence of any criminal activity on the part of the station I would be pleased if he would inform me. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct a question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to the Prime Minister's admission last Friday in South Australia that government policies have pushed up interest rates and that Australia will have to live with these interest rates for an indefinite period. In the light of these admissions by the Prime Minister, does the Minister stand by his statement of 31 October 1985 that interest rates will fall? If so, when will they do so? Mr WEST —The fundamental point that the honourable member for Boothby and the Opposition should understand is that the Australian economy is in very sound shape. Unemployment has been reduced to 7.8 per cent, the domestic deficit has been reduced to $1.4 billion and we have in place a wage policy that allows for a two per cent discounting in next April's wage case. It is certainly true that the balance of payments position is taking time to turn around. I remind the House that when this crowd opposite left office it left us with an inflation rate in excess of 10 per cent and an unemployment rate in excess of 10 per cent. Now the unemployment rate is down to 7.8 per cent. We have created almost 500,000 new jobs and we have a domestic deficit of only $1.4 billion. As the Treasurer has said-and I support him completely-the Government is running a firm monetary policy in the interests of stabilising the exchange rate, that is resulting in high real interest rates; and there is no doubt about that. Housing interest rates are now impacted against the ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent. I say to the honourable member for Boothby that the banks have been lending very strongly. This was particularly so in 1984-85. In fact, home lending in that financial year was at a record level. For the first two months of this financial year, lending was still very high. Furthermore, we are going through a period of particularly high bank profitability. At the moment the banks are meeting the challenge of a regulated housing interest rate in a situation of high real interest rates by increasing the percentage of their total lending to housing, and I thank them for doing that in a difficult situation. It has enabled this Government to say to people borrowing for homes that, despite the difficulties we are going through, we will not deregulate housing interest rates. I say to the people who are already in their homes, having borrowed from the savings banks, that we will not deregulate and that their interest rates will not exceed 13 1/2 per cent. In the longer term it is perfectly obvious that the benefits of depreciation will flow through to the balance of payments, and when that situation improves, as I expect it to and as the Government expects it to in time, the exchange rate will of course trend upwards and interest rates will trend downwards. That will be very good news for those with current home loans or for those seeking new loans. Mrs KELLY —Has the attention of the Minister for Territories been drawn to recent Press articles, including one last Saturday in the Canberra Times, which demonstrate a strong growth in the economy in the Australian Capital Territory? Does the Minister agree that this growth points to the success of the Government's economic policies and initiatives? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware of the very strong growth in the economy of the Australian Capital Territory. I think it is fair to say that that is obvious to anyone and probably the envy of every other member in this Parliament. Canberra has been growing, on a population basis, at around double the national average. It is also important to note that the growth in employment and investment in Canberra has been predominantly in the private sector, rather than in the public sector as has been the case in the past. This reflects the Government's policy of encouraging a more balanced employment base in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory, for most of its life, has been substantially an area of public investment and dominated by the public sector. In the 2 1/2 years since the election of this Government there has been a substantial growth in private investment in office buildings and in other areas of commercial activity in Canberra, to the extent that we are close to achieving a 50:50 split between public and private sector employment in the Australian Capital Territory. This would have been thought unachievable a few years ago. Despite the very substantial growth in employment throughout the rest of Australia, it is fair to say that the Australian Capital Territory is well in advance of other areas in employment opportunities, economic activity and the very low level of unemployment which is currently below 4 per cent. This is well below the national average. There is a participation rate in employment of something in excess of 70 per cent, which is well above the national average. The honourable member for Canberra and for that matter the honourable member for Fraser are in a very fortunate position. They have the most prosperous electorates in Australia and their prospects while this Government remains in office are extremely good. Mr HUNT —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerned that the recent 3.8 per cent wage rise and the retrospective 2.6 per cent rise will flow across the board to the rural sector at a time when farmers are facing a net fall in real income of between 18 and 26 per cent in 1985-86 and are suffering from near record interest rates? If he has not made any assessment of the effect of these recent wage increases on employment in the rural and small business sectors, will he do so? Mr WILLIS —It is always said after any national wage increase, by those who opposed the increase in the first place, that there will be some adverse economic impact. That is always the line run by the Opposition and by private employers. I guess it is an understandable reaction. But it is not a correct reaction. Of course, they said the same sorts of things after the 2.6 per cent increase earlier this year. Since that 2.6 per cent increase, which we were told by members of the Opposition would do devastating things to the Australian economy and would increase unemployment, we have had growth in employment in Australia of 150,000 jobs. We were told that that 2.6 per cent would create more unemployment and bring the economy to a halt. We have to treat with a large grain of salt their remarks about the impact of national wage increases on the economy. Wage increases in this country have been running at extremely low levels historically. In the 12 months to June of this year we have had a rate of increase in wages of 3 1/2 per cent-the lowest rate of increase in wages for a couple of decades. The situation is not one in which high wage increases are occurring. With the national wage system and indexation, the increases come in half-yearly amounts. They are not dotted across the landscape month by month in the way that would happen in a deregulated system. Thus, when they are granted, they are very visible. But that does not mean that large wage increases are occurring. In the course of this financial year the level of wage increases has been 3.8 per cent in the recent national wage case, and presumably will be around 2 per cent or less in the next case, given the 2 per cent discounting. That is the only wage increase that there will be coming through national wage increases under the wage indexation system. If the productivity case produces anything it will do so after the end of this financial year. If the agreement between the Government and the unions is endorsed by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission its implementation will be extended over two years, so there will be a very gradual phase-in of anything from that area. I think in all that there is an acceptance by the parties involved, by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and by the Government, that we have to be extremely careful on wages policy to make sure that wages do not create an economic problem and that they are conducive to the continued economic recovery of this country and to the maintenance of strong growth of the economy which, of course, was basic to the accord in the first place. Encompassed in that, of course, is a recognition of the fact that there are varying degrees of prosperity throughout the economy and some sections will be more prosperous than others. At present, rural industries are going through a tough time with some real reductions in income occurring, although the devaluation should do something to reduce the potential reductions that would otherwise have occurred. It is open to employers in rural industries, if they believe that they do not have the capacity to pay a national wage increase, to make an application to the Commission for that not to apply. They have the capacity to make that application to the Commission. It has happened in some industries in some States. It is also a fact that the last national wage increase in the rural industry was delayed considerably before it was finally passed on. So there is a capacity, under the system as it is operating, for those sections of the community which believe that they do not have the capacity to pay an increase to put that argument to the Commission. If they can establish a case they can get some relief from that wage increase. It will obviously need to be an exceptional case for that to apply and they will need to make their case well. Nevertheless, the capacity is there under the system as it operates. Mr CLEELAND —Will the Special Minister of State advise the House whether, under current electoral laws, a government can be elected on a minority vote? Mr YOUNG —This Parliament can be very proud of the laws that were passed by the Parliament in 1983 which gave members of the Federal Parliament and the Australian people the best, the fairest, the most just and the most equitable electoral laws in this country. By virtue of a recognition of this by the Liberal Party of Australia, under the then leadership of the honourable member for Boothby, and succeeding Labor Governments, when the South Australian people go to the elections on 7 December they will do so again under fair and equitable electoral laws. The party that receives the majority of votes will be the government of that State and that will be the case in Australia in future. I contrast that with what has happened in the north of Australia, in Queensland. Honourable members might have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition, who when he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition had a position on everything, now has a position on nothing. He has not said a word about the worst gerrymander that has been imposed on the people of this country by virtue of the new electoral laws and the new redistribution in Queensland. The National Party of Australia can now rule in Queensland in its own right with just 35 per cent of the vote. In view of all the offers that were made over the years by the Australian Labor Party to the Liberal Party in the Queensland Parliament to join with it at least to establish a decent electoral system in that State, members of the Liberal Party in Queensland must now be scratching their heads as to why they did not take that opportunity. Let us have a look at what has happened in Queensland. This redistribution will do nothing other than make sure that the Nationals can rule in their own right after the next Queensland election. Mr Ian Cameron —Why shouldn't we? Mr YOUNG —The interesting thing about the comment by the honourable member for Maranoa is that if the team opposite ever got back into power we can imagine the Leader of the Opposition standing up to the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition would capitulate and we would have the 20 per cent discrepancy between the urban and rural seats back in the Federal Parliament. The quotas run from 8,000 in a seat called Balonne in Queensland to 21,000 in Townsville East. One would not need to be Einstein to work out who will hold Townsville East and what party will win Balonne. But it goes further than that. The total redistribution in Queensland is carried out in secrecy. The Cabinet appointed the three commissioners. The commissioners draw the boundaries and hand the results to the Premier who takes them to Cabinet and they are finally approved by the Governor in Council. There is no way of finding out what changes are made in Cabinet. The hearings of the redistribution commissioners are not open to the public so no one knows what goes on before the commissioners. Just to put the icing on the cake, the National Party of Australia will not make its submission public. So the National Party will not make its submission public, the hearings of the commissioners are not open to the public, Cabinet can make changes without reference to the parliament and no one in the State of Queensland knows what is going on. One should contrast the behaviour of the Queensland National Party Government with its gloating and boasting about how much support it has from the people in Queensland. If it is true that Premier Bjelke-Petersen has so much support in Queensland, why is he not game to face a decent electoral system? Can he not achieve 50 per cent plus one of the votes in that State? It is to be hoped that the people of Queensland will put the priority of a decent democratic system above the parochialism being presented to them by Bjelke-Petersen at the next State election. Hopefully, members of the Liberal Party in Queensland will have enough guts to vote with the Labor Party to give themselves a decent system. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to the Minister's comments on 7 November to the effect that if the current depreciation of the dollar were sustained the Government would have to revise its wages policy. I ask the Minister: In his judgment, what long term level of the Australian dollar on a trade-weighted index basis would trigger such a revision of the Government's wages policy? Mr WILLIS —What an absurd question! What a ridiculous question to ask! There is no doubt that the policy adopted by this Government to adjust its wages policy in respect of the devaluation which occurred earlier this year was a most appropriate adjustment to wages policy, one which will fully reflect the impact on the economy of price increases coming from that devaluation and, therefore, through the adjustment to wages policy will make the appropriate adjustment to enable us to get the inflation rate back to the level at which it was prior to that devaluation. That is something which was put by us in the national wage case and which was essentially accepted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It was fully supported by submissions made by the Business Council of Australia, which put forward its estimate of the price effects of devaluation. With the 2 per cent discounting put forward by the Government and the rest of the adjustment in respect of productivity, that meant that the Business Council of Australia endorsed our projections of inflation in this country which were put in that case. It is quite clear that we made the appropriate adjustment. That adjustment will involve having 2 per cent off the next case and, as I mentioned in reply to an earlier question, a delayed implementation of any productivity case outcome and a long delayed or extended implementation of any increase that comes forward. It is suggested by members of the Opposition that this is an inadequate response and what we need, therefore, is something which would get a much greater effect on wages policy. It is far too early to decide that. We have no intention of adjusting wages policy because of any temporary movements in the exchange rate. We will certainly have to maintain our present position and watch what happens to the exchange rate over time. If it becomes necessary over time to adjust any aspect of our policies given the continuance of an exchange rate that is less than anticipated in the Budget we will look at what is needed to be done. In all of this discussion one should not escape consideration of what would be happening in this country if we had this devaluation and members of the Opposition were now in government. To get an adjustment of wages policy in a deregulated wages system they would have to deflate the Australian economy. There is no other way that they would be able to achieve the adjustment of wages policy. They would not have an accord; they would not have a system whereby they could go to the Arbitration Commission in the context of an accord and achieve some agreed or not agreed reduction even from the Commission because they would have a deregulated system in which the national wage increase was non-existent. In that situation the only way that they would be able to force a wage response down in the light of that devaluation would be by a massive deflation of the Australian economy. The only way in which they could make the adjustment to wages policy would be by much higher interest rates than we have at present, a tougher budgetary policy, much higher unemployment and much higher profitability. The accord gives us the capacity to make the appropriate adjustment to wages policy and maintain all of the benefits of growth-to maintain growth of the economy, to maintain employment growth, to keep getting unemployment down and to maintain profitability. In that respect it is obviously infinitely preferable to the Opposition's alternative. Mr DUNCAN —Is the Attorney-General aware that Senator George Georges has been prevented from taking his place in the Senate due to the actions of the Queensland Police, including the actions of the Queensland Special Branch? Does the Attorney-General know whether the Senate has been notified at all by the courts or the Queensland Attorney-General as the law of this Parliament requires? What implications does this have for the privileges of members of parliament going about their business as members of parliament? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am aware that Senator Georges has been unable to attend the Senate either yesterday or today because he has been under detention in Queensland. The reasons for it are rather serious from the point of view of the privileges of the Senate. I also understand that the Senate has not been informed as to the reasons for Senator Georges's detention. Accordingly, it is contrary to the normal parliamentary convention that where a member of parliament is detained no information is given to the Presiding Officer of that particular House. I hope that will be corrected. From the point of view of the merits of the situation, I understand that Senator Georges was making a speech in front of a building yesterday morning. Mr Tuckey —On a Senate sitting day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He was making a speech yesterday morning before the Senate commenced. On that basis the issue was whether he was in breach of a Queensland law. When a suggestion was made to the Inspector of Police that he arrest Senator Georges, he declined so to do. A further request was then made to what are called the Special Branch officers, and they then arrested the senator. When he was under detention, it is alleged that a demand was made that he be fingerprinted in order to establish his identity. It is a bit surprising to think that nobody knows Senator Georges's identity, whether it be in Canberra or in Queensland. However, the matter came before the court this morning when the magistrate, I am informed, ordered Senator Georges's release but, most disturbingly, he has not been released as of yet, as I understand it, because the police then disputed the terms of the magistrate's order. Senator Georges has been detained pending further clarification of the order. I understand a motion is to be moved in another place this day on the basis of the implications of this affair and whether there has been a breach of privilege of the honourable senator's rights in parliament. I find it extraordinary to think that Senator Georges has been detained on what might be called a minor offence if in fact it is proved. I find it outrageous to think of fingerprinting being obligatory when the question of identity is certainly not in challenge. I find it incredible to think that when the magistrate ordered Senator Georges's release he still has not been released. One would hope that the Queensland authorities will have an immediate look to see whether justice has been upheld in that State. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the year 1984-85. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General, accompanied by the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Report of the Auditor-General, accompanied by the Financial Statements prepared by the Minister for Finance, for the year ended 30 June 1985, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honour- able members, I present the Department of the Special Minister of State annual report for 1984-85. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 12AA of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 12G of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Academic Salaries Tribunal annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present volume 3 of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report for the 1985-87 triennium, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972, I present the Australian Dairy Research Committee annual report for 1984-85. 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) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955, I present the Tobacco Industry Trust Account annual report for 1984-85. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for 1984-85. The report covers those matters on which I am required to report pursuant to section 64 (2) of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 and pursuant to section 41 (2) of the First Home Owners Act 1983. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903, I present the annual report on the Royal Military College of Australia covering the period 1 February 1984 to 31 January 1985. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Finance annual report for 1984-85. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for September 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —On 1 December 1983 I advised the House that I would provide a statistical summary of accidents involving the Australian National Railways Commission indicating the nature of the accidents and the regions in which they occurred. For the information of honourable members, I now present a report covering the 1984-85 financial year and the period January 1984 to June 1984. The summary covers all fatalities and injuries involving the Commission's operations as well as fatalities involving its employees. Full details of all fatalities are provided. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on apples and pears. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. 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 Snowy Mountains Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Aussat Pty Ltd annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the second report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on remote commercial television services for the north-east region. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 38 (4) of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, I present a variation of the statement of conditions which came into operation on 1 November 1985 setting out the terms and conditions of insurance provided by the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present an amending agreement which finalises arrangements between the Commonwealth and Western Australia in relation to financial assistance provided for approved Western Australian Urban Lands Council programs of land acquisition and development undertaken by the State or an authority of the State. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present an amending agreement which finalises the arrangements between the Commonwealth and Victoria in relation to the financial assistance provided for the approval of programs of land acquisition and development undertaken by the Urban Land Authority of Victoria. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The misrepresentation occurs in last Sunday's edition of the Sun-Herald dated 10 November in an article by Neil O'Reilly and Sue Javes under the heading `Loans affair: who spilled the beans?' Amongst a number of other things, the article states: At least four former ministers, including Mr Jim McClelland and Mr Lionel Bowen, believe the story to be basically correct. The story is that there was a mole in the Whitlam Cabinet who gave information to the Opposition. There is understandable concern amongst members of the Connor family and the Stewart family because a further suggestion was made that the alleged mole is now deceased. The two Ministers in the Whitlam Government who are deceased are Mr Connor and Mr Stewart. According to the article, Mr Kevin Stewart, the brother of the late Frank Stewart, who was a colleague of mine, said: My brother was greatly outraged by the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. He was a man of absolute honesty and integrity . . . I think it's a preposterous situation. The article went on: Mr Bowen, now Deputy Prime Minister, said he believed the reports of the mole were `pretty right'. I want to make it very clear that neither Neil O'Reilly nor Sue Javes ever spoke to me-they have yet to speak to me-about the article. I also want to make it very clear that the article apparently arose because of an article by Mr Peter Bowers which appeared the previous day in the Sydney Morning Herald. Peter Bowers had not spoken to me nor did he refer to me in the article. I thank him for correcting the situation. In the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, 11 November, he wrote that I believed it was an incorrect report. The Sun-Herald also stated: In the interview Hay and Buckley said their initial information on the loans affair had not come from a politician. If I had been asked about that I would have said: `That is right'. I am alleged to have said that the reports of a Minister or Ministers in the Whitlam Government being moles were pretty right. That is not true. I have never said it. I would not have said it. I know that Sir Phillip Lynch said that he received the information from a member of the Treasury. He admitted that in King's Hall. If I had been asked about that I would have said: `Yes, the mole came from the Treasury. Sir Phillip Lynch had the information and boasted about it. That is a known fact'. To that extent the reference to a mole is correct, but it relates to Sir Phillip Lynch having received information from a Treasury official. I hope that in future people who write these articles will at least have the courtesy to consult me in advance. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make two personal explanations. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, twice-among other occasions, but I will deal with only two today. Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member to proceed. Mr PEACOCK —On the last day of sitting of the House of Representatives, 17 October, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), among other things, accused me of not being up to date in relation to the debate about the strategic defence initiative. In particular, he said that I had missed the United States' reinterpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and he quoted Mr Robert McFarlane, the United States national security adviser, to support his views. I did not miss Mr McFarlane's statement. It is the Foreign Minister who has fouled up by his failure to keep up. In his eagerness to disparage the Reagan Administration and to undermine its position on nuclear issues he got it wrong. The comment which he alleged that I missed and which he quoted had already been placed at the very highest level in the proper context days before the Foreign Minister selectively misused the quotation. On 11 October no one less than President Reagan, and on 14 October Secretary of State Shultz, made it crystal clear that while the ABM treaty could be construed as ambiguous the strategic defence initiative nevertheless would be conducted in accordance with the restrictive interpretation of the treaty's obligations. As a consequence-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that the reason for his making a personal explanation is to correct where he has been misrepresented. Mr PEACOCK —Essentially, I have dealt with that matter. I now come to a second matter. Mr Hayden —Really? Mr PEACOCK —I shall send the Minister a copy of the statement; it is obvious his Department did not. I come to an article in today's Australian Financial Review, written by Mr Peter Robinson. He assumed a position with the Whitlam Government as an Industries Assistance Commissioner in 1974. I think he stayed on during the early period of the Fraser Government, resigning in 1977 or 1978. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I trust that the honourable member is coming to his personal misrepresentation. Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Mr Robinson is consistent as a deregulator in the economic sphere, but he is also a consistent supporter of the Australian Labor Party on foreign policy. He has accused me today of a number of things, including inconsistency in foreign policy. Among his assertions, he accuses me of being happy to put pressure on the New Zealand Government and of trying to mediate to find a solution. I am seeking just that. Unlike Labor and Mr Robinson, I am not in favour of doing nothing while our most basic defence treaty unravels. Furthermore-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not continue in that vein. I have been quite strict in my application of the definition of personal explanations. If they are not completely devoted to correcting a personal misrepresentation; they open up debate which is not in the spirit of the indulgence given or of the Standing Orders of the House. I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to relate what he is saying to the personal misrepresentation. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Robinson, in his second accusation, accuses me of wanting to involve Australia in exerting diplomatic pressure on the Marcos regime to bring about the necessary political and economic reforms to try to prevent a communist takeover. I am seeking just that. Unlike Labor and Mr Robinson, I am not in favour of doing nothing-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now quite clearly indicating that the gentleman he is quoting is by no means misrepresenting him. I suggest that he get to the misrepresentation; otherwise I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —The third allegation that Mr Robinson makes is that he accuses me of doing nothing on South Africa. He is wrong. Our record of constructive pressure on the South African Government remains and, again, unlike Labor and Mr Robinson, I do not think it is helpful to the cause of peaceful change to set about destroying the South African economy. So in regard to the accusations made, I am not inconsistent, and neither, in the field of foreign affairs, is Mr Robinson. In his adherence to Labor foreign policy, he is nothing if not consistent. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the matter. He will resume his seat. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PETER FISHER —On Friday, 18 October, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Open Question, the proposed visit to South Africa by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and me was debated. During that program Alan Ramsey made two comments, the first being: I don't think the two National Party MPs would worry if they embarrassed the PM, but it's another question as to embarrassing Australia. The purpose of the visit was to seek information and to assess objectively the role for Australia in encouraging reform in that country. I will be producing a public report that, hopefully, will add at least to my understanding of the difficulties and complexities of the South African situation. Mr Ramsey also said that there was no announcement about this visit and that `the Press had found out only yesterday'. On 10 September, four and a half weeks before my intended visit, I wrote to and informed the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) of my then known itinerary, as is required when a member uses his entitlement for overseas travel. Some three weeks before the visit, I advised the Department of Foreign Affairs and asked for a briefing paper on South Africa so that I would be fully aware of the current Australian Government policy. I also asked Foreign Affairs to arrange an appointment with Australian Embassy officials in Pretoria. Both requests were met. In the week prior to leaving for South Africa, I issued a Press release which was widely published throughout my electorate and western Victoria. A live interview was also conducted on ABC radio station 3WV prior to my leaving and was broadcast throughout Victoria. I resent any suggestion that this visit should not have been made or that it was not publicly announced, or that it will in any way embarrass Australia. Mr COHEN(Roberston-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COHEN —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr COHEN —In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 November 1985 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), in an attempt to explain his own origins and political affiliations, stated that there were four millionaires in the Australian Labor Party. He then proceeded to name the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and me as two of them. There may be a humourous side to this, but there is also a serious one. I did consider suing the honourable member for flattery. However, apart from the concern that has been expressed by, and might I say the bewilderment of, my bank manager, my wife and, not least, my business partner, who has been checking the till meticulously during the past few days, the point I make is that there is a serious side to this matter about which I am very concerned. Obviously, the claim that a member of parliament is a millionaire may bring into play some question of safety and security for both him and his family. Mr Tuckey —Take my word for it, it does not. Mr COHEN —It is also acknowledged that the honourable member takes fairly serious steps to protect himself. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed the Minister some latitude on this matter. Mr COHEN —Mr Speaker, let me say that the claim made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not even remotely correct. What is also serious is that the honourable member, for reasons best known to himself, has obviously done no research and has made these allegations without the slightest knowledge of my personal affairs. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 dipicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr N. A. Brown,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Charles,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur,Mr Mildren,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scholes,Mr Shipton and Mr Willis. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Slipper and Dr Watson. 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 world peace initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, word 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 health food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. 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 Reparing 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 recyling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewerage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing national employment programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton 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 world peace 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 health 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 Reparing 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 recyling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewerage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing national employment programs giving 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 Carlton,Mr Dawkins,Mr Hurford,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Howe,Mr Mildren and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in their 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 enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Fife and Mr Miles. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Dawkins and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government recognise that the people of Australia are of one voice and are no longer prepared to be denied the right to work because of industrial disruption or heavy-handed trade union tactics. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Hicks and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Hollis,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. 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 effect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduce the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your petitioners therefore 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 and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew and Mr Rocher. 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 unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interest of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that:- This country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at it's source, as follows: firstly a 2% annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6%. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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. 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 objection is made to any proposal for the extension of the Port Wakefield Proof and Experimental Range. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that no such extension shall take place and that such a proposal will be rejected by Parliament. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objection- able Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board, 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 organizations 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. (2) Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and (3) Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The right of egg farmers to run their own business unemcumbered by state and federal government controls. That the federal Hawke government aided and abetted by the NSW Wran government- (1) Has bankrupted and imprisoned Martin Tebbutt poultry farmer, (2) Has further bankruptcy actions on five other egg farmers. (3) Has caused imprisonment of 13 other people on egg board related matters. (4) Since inception of government hen quotas, some 2,100 egg farmers have left the industry in ten years (averaging 4 farmers per week). (5) The hen quota system hailed as the family farmer's saviour has become his executioner. That these methods of administration are equally capable of application to other agricultural industries with similar interference with our rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will release Martin Tebbutt from jail, order all bankruptcy proceedings be dropped, severely reprimand the egg board concerned and allow all egg farmers to only pay the egg board if they use it (User-Pays). And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawke. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned ask the Federal Government to provide the necessary funds to keep the Occasional Child Care Centre open. The Centre provides a necessary and important service to our community. by Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undernamed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement incomes policies are piecemeal, inequitable and discriminate against people who save towards achieving reasonable self-reliance in their retirement and 2. the Government's assets test legislation is particularly inequitable and its effects are especially discriminatory against farmers. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to: 1. repeal the assets test legislation; 2. institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems; and 3. following the receipt of the report of such an inquiry implement a retirement incomes policy which is fair and equitable, encourages self-provision and will be non-discriminatory in its operation and impact. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. And your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ``Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of state, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-`God save the Queen'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June, 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency will be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable 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 further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Federal Government funding 1984-85 has allowed an increase in quality care and education for thousands of Australian Children. Proposed funding cuts 1985-86 will withdraw Commonwealth support for Pre-School. Growth of Child Care facilities will be slowed. Quality child care is essential to the effective participation of a large part of the work force. Scarce and higher cost child care will put a great burden on low income families. Many single parents may be forced to leave the work force and depend on Social Security payments. We strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to re-allocate funds to support Pre-School education and to meet community demands for a quality child care system and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow. 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 for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens and residents of Australia and/or victims of the Hanoi Communist regime, shows that: (i) The current Hanoi Communist Government are the most repressive rulers in the history of Vietnam. Ten years after the so-called ``liberation'' of South Vietnam by force, the Hanoi ruling clique continues to violate basic Human Rights and imprison several hundred thousand innocent people without trials in their so-called ``re-education camps''. (ii) Hanoi is still following a policy of aggression with their troups in Kampuchea and Laos in defiance of World opinion. (iii) The Hanoi Communist Government is currently conducting the most sustained and aggressive dry season offensive since the initial invasion of Kampuchea. (iv) Aid of any kind, including the educational exchange program will be considered by the Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their aggressive policy against the peoples of Indo-China. (v) The supposedly insignificant act of the Australian Government in granting the 22 Communist cadres disguised as students to enter Australia on student visas, is: being seen by Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their policy; a provocative and insensitive act against the 80,000 Vietnamese in Australia, who have suffered at the hands of the repressive Vietnamese Government; presenting inacceptable settlement problems to the Vietnamese Community in Australia who want to live peacefully in their new homeland. Your petitioners therefore pray that Australia: (i) Ceases forthwith all forms of aid to the Hanoi Government including those educational ties and exchanges as the peace and freedom loving traditions of the Australian people should not be seen-through their government-as supporters of that cruel and repressive regime. (ii) Returns immediately their 22 disguised students back to their Socialist paradise. (iii) Joins the free world to condemn the Hanoi Government of their Human Rights violations in Vietnam and their invasion of Laos and Kampuchea and their incursion into Thai territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. 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 Duncan,Mr Porter,Mr Scott and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain Restaurant Employees of Parramatta, residents of the State of N.S.W. draws to the attention of the House the consequences of the tax package outlined by the Treasurer Mr Paul Keating. We believe that our employment is in jeopardy. The facts are simple-that since the decree of September 19th the dramatic downturn in trade has resulted in stand-downs. We realise our employers will be unable to continue their operations in a manner which will guarantee our employment. As representatives of the workforce we demand the security of our jobs. Many of us have spent years working in this industry whilst at the same time many of us are just learning the trade of our choice. Many would have difficulties gaining satisfactory employment in other industries. Our livelihoods and our standard of living are under threat. Do you realise that you have deliberately created unemployment in our industry? Where can we turn, what can we do? Are we to resort to the dole rather than being gainfully employed? Your petitioners therefore request that the full ramifications of the tax package be examined and consideration be given to modifying the proposal in a manner which will ensure our future job security. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change that may re-introduce Tertiary tuition fees. 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 Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Singleton respectfully showeth. That the Commonwealth Government has resolved that the Army School of Infantry currently located at Singleton, may be relocated to a site in the Bathurst-Orange district in conjunction with the Army School of Artillery. We hereby petition the Commonwealth Government to retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and to review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined Army Schools Complex. Should the School of Infantry be relocated from Singleton there will be a substantial social and economic loss to the Shire of Singleton and the Hunter Valley Region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House- Retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined Army Schools Complex. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students and staff of Soubirous College requests that the Government of Australia/U.S.A./U.S.S.R. do all in its power to end the arms race, which threatens our planet. As we remember the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we pray that our leaders will work with all their skills to prevent nuclear weapons ever being used again. As millions of our brothers and sisters starve, we must begin to use the earth's resources to build a just and peaceful world for all people regardless of race, religion or political viewpoint. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents in the electorates of Canberra and Fraser respectfully showeth that: 1. We are concerned at the continued existence of oversized classes in ACT government schools and the effects on our children's learning. 2. We state our strong support for the recommendations of the Review of Primary Education in the ACT to reduce class sizes. 3. We call upon the Federal Government to develop a timetabled programme to reduce class sizes in ACT government schools. As a first step we ask that funds be provided to ensure that (i) no kindergarten class has more than 20 pupils. (ii) no Year 1 or 2 class has more than 25 pupils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the price of petrol per litre in South Australia has risen several times recently beyond reasonable bounds, and that the Federal Government is receiving a benefit of $700 million per annum in wind-fall profits resulting from de-valuation of the Australian dollar on international markets; That the removal of rural freight subsidies on petrol products has also increased the price to consumers of petrol and diesel products. Your petitioners humbly pray that the price per litre of petrol should immediately be reduced and that the Federal Government should no longer follow the principle of International Parity Pricing. Your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Government's broken promises on interest rates. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.30) —It gives me no pleasure whatever to have to take the Government to task once again on its failure to meet its pre-election promise to reduce interest rates in Australia in 1985. Today's financial news was very bad indeed. Today we had the balance of payments figures for October and they showed that, instead of an expected balance of payments deficit of somewhere between $800m and $1,200m, we had in fact a deficit of $1,641m. That is the highest balance of payments deficit on record. It is up $575m on the September figure, which was a bad figure in itself, being more than $1 billion. Although the Treasurer (Mr Keating) claimed that the September figure was in line with Budget forecasts, he refused to issue the month-by-month forecasts, and I can see now why he did. If the balance of payments deficit has gone up by a further $575m in the course of the last month, there is no way in the world that it could be in accordance with the unpublished forecasts from the Budget. That is not the only bad economic news that we have before us at the moment. Three weeks ago we also had the news that our inflation rate was now 7.8 per cent-three times the inflation rate of Japan, our major trading partner, twice that of the United States and a full three percentage points and more above the average of all our major trading partners. If that was not enough, only last week the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, rubber stamping a deal done beforehand between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, awarded a full, across the board wage increase of 3.8 per cent to all workers in all industries, regardless of their productivity and regardless of their capacity to pay. Mr Hand —Hear, hear! A good decision. Mr CARLTON —`A good decision' says the honourable member for Melbourne; `a bad decision' says the whole of the rest of the world. Some measure of the world's view of these bad economic figures is found in the way in which the trade weighted index of the Australian dollar moved during the course of the Treasurer's overseas trip. If there is any shakiness in the currency, one of the things one does not do is to have the Treasurer re-arrange his program and rush to the overseas financial capitals in an endeavour to prop it up. Anyone in the world will say that, if one has some difficulty with one's currency, one should sit tight, be careful about what one says and not make sudden, unscheduled trips overseas to try to prop it up. What happened? Before the Treasurer went overseas the trade weighted index was standing at 63.8-that is not very good, as the Budget forecast for the TWI is, in fact, 68-and it dropped to 59.3 by the time he returned. In fact, it did not fall all that much before he got to New York, but after he had made his speech in New York it zoomed downhill. Then he made another speech in London and it dropped further. Mr Howard —It was the same speech. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the Leader of the Opposition says, it was the same speech. It was the speech that was written before the Treasurer left Canberra and before the fall in the dollar had occurred. Yesterday the trade weighted index stood at 60.2 and it will probably be down again tomorrow because of the bad economic news of the day. I remind the House that it was 60.2 yesterday, versus the Budget forecast of 68. I also remind the House that in Question Time the Treasurer admitted that the Budget deficit would blow out as a result of this fall and the TWI being less than forecast. However, the Treasurer said that he would not indicate or publish any figures on what that change in the deficit would be. What is the link between all these bad figures and interest rates? The fact of the matter is that they are inextricably linked with the level of interest rates. Under the accord, the Government cannot get a sensible wages policy. If one devalues, as the Treasurer has told us in his Budget Speech, one must ensure that the short term advantages one gets out of devaluation are not taken away in short term wage increases. It is essential that there be a discounting of any wage increases to take account of the devaluation. I would like to quote from the Treasurer's Budget Speech. It is a much forgotten document, because we have had a couple of financial statements since then, but on 20 August 1985 the Treasurer said: . . . we must stay competitive. And if we are to do that, we cannot afford to allow our production costs to rise above those of our competitors. If the initial and full price effects of the depreciation were to be transmitted to wages via indexation decisions, our cost increases would noticeably exceed those of our major competitors for years to come. I repeat the words `the initial and full price effects'. He went on to say: Our competitive edge would be lost. Our chances of improving our share of local and world markets would be diminished. Everybody in this House applauded that statement when it was made because it was a very sensible statement of economic policy following a devaluation. It was also dramatically important from the point of view of overseas confidence that the Government stood by that statement when it went to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission wage hearing in September. But unfortunately that resolve got lost along the way. The Treasurer had to go to the ACTU, and the ACTU would not have a bar of any discounting in the September-October hearings. It would not agree to that, and so the Treasurer had to accept a 2 per cent discounting six months later, in April-not an immediate discounting, not an initial price effect of the depreciation being allowed for; it was delayed by some months. That was because the ACTU required that the Government follow the ACTU's view and not the view as stated by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. Of course, that was only half the deal. The unions also insisted that in addition to the delay of the 2 per cent discounting-and we do not believe that the 2 per cent is going to be enough; we will wait to see what the full price effects of the devaluation are, with the increase in import prices-they would get an across the board 3 per cent productivity rise which would be given in the form of superannuation deals. The Treasurer explained all this to the domestic audience. He explained the intricacies of the J curve. Everybody in Australia who follows these things- Mr Beale —It's the L curve. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honour- able member for Deakin points out, the J curve appears to be becoming the L curve. The Government will have to do some relearning of its economic policy stance. Perhaps the Government convinced domestic observers and the economic commentators in the Press in Australia that this whole deal was satisfactory. Many of the financial commentators wrote it up as a great triumph for the Treaserer that he failed to get the immediate discounting that he had wanted in his Budget Speech, and they wrote it up as a triumph that he had given away 3 per cent across the board in a productivity increase! Whilst it may have been possible within the cocoon of Australia to get some people to agree with that for a while, it was a very thin argument, and the thinness of that argument has been demonstrated very clearly indeed over the last couple of weeks. If one were an objective observer from somewhere overseas and looking in on the Australian economy and one saw the September deficit in the balance of payments of over a billion dollars, one then saw the consumer price index going up to a point where the annual inflation rate was 7.6 per cent-twice that of the United States and three times that of Japan-and then one saw Australians awarding themselves an across the board wage increase of 3.8 per cent at that very time, one would begin to think that there was something wrong with Australian ecomomic policy. One would have very severe doubts about the Treasurer and the Government trying to tell one that despite all these appalling economic indicators, despite a record level of overseas debt, and despite the fact that they are borrowing more and more each month instead of paying back; somehow or other it was good economic policy to have a general wage increase of 3.8 per cent. As the Treasurer found out in New York and subsequently in London, that simply was not on as far as the overseas observers were concerned, and of course the dollar plunged. After today's news, which is even worse than we have had to date, we will have to see what happens there. No doubt the Reserve Bank of Australia will be very active today in trying to make the immediate reaction look better than it might otherwise be; but all that will come out in the wash. Here we get on to the critical matter of interest rates. The Government, in the face of a falling dollar, can do two things: Either it can push interest rates up even more than they have been pushed up in recent times-and we know the damaging effects of that to householders and businesses and farms, already over-borrowed and desperate to survive; we know the effects and we know they are biting-to prop up the dollar; or it faces the alternative which the Treasurer and the Government dread, and that is going back to their masters in the ACTU and asking for some change in the accord which would bring about a sensible wages policy; in other words, a policy that would not require the Government to indulge in the acts of lunacy in which it has indulged in going to the Commission and supporting a wage increase across the board, regardless of capacity to pay, at a time when the economy is going down the chute. They are the two alternatives. What is the Government going to do? It is going to break an election promise, it seems, by pushing up interest rates even further. I have taken the House many times through all the commitments the Government made in the course of the election campaign and afterwards. In a Press release on 15 November 1984, the Treasurer said: Continued success against inflation will create conditions conducive to lower interest rates. What about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the election campaign addressing one of the then tax deductible business lunches that he loves addressing? He said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. That was on 20 November 1984, and the Prime Minister continued: We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further rate reductions can occur. The Prime Minister went on to say: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. Presumably, that is the crop that the Treasurer managed to harvest on his recent overseas trip, and if that is the sort of crop that can be harvested as a result of the work of this Government, it makes the common agricultural policy look brilliant by comparison. Of course, after the election the Government said much the same thing. The Treasurer said on 17 April 1985: I was asked in the election campaign whether I agreed with the views of most market commentators about an interest rate step fall ahead in Australia in 1985. I said that, after the tax rundown period, basically I agreed with the views of those commentators. I stick to that commitment. Basically, what we have here is a government that promised a fall in interest rates in 1985 which it could not deliver and may well have known before the election that it could not deliver-a fall in interest rates which is incompatible with the maintenance of the accord. The accord does not allow this Government to have sensible wages policies. It has either sensible wages policies or high interest rates. It cannot have both. It looks absolutely certain that it will choose high interest rates, increasing interest rates, because it has not got the guts or the power to go back to its masters in the ACTU and demand that the accord be renegotiated. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.45) —I think that this is the fourth occasion that we have heard in this place this tired pro- position. It is also a dishonest proposition. I gave no promise about reducing interest rates; I put forward a view. The matter of public importance expressly refers to promises. It is interesting to note that two weeks ago the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), a so-called Liberal Party dry, was telling us that monetary policy is right. A month before that he suggested, as did his Leader, that we were running a loose monetary policy, but then he recanted from that, saying that monetary policy is right. Now three weeks on, he does not like the outcome of monetary policy and apparently the price effects in the market place of monetary policy are all wrong. The fact is it is just an opportunistic attempt by the honourable member for Mackellar to score very cheap points. While members of the Opposition bemoan the effect of interest rates on disposable income, saying it is terrible and, to use the honourable member's expression, that people are trying to survive, the honourable member says that we have to push up interest rates or go back to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Honour- able members should notice that he never says to cut wages; he always puts it in terms of renegotiating the accord or going back to the ACTU. What he really means is a cut in wages. He is suggesting that it is a terrible thing to reduce disposable incomes by lifting interest rates but that it is not a terrible thing to cut wages. What humbug that is. What a lot of drivel it is to say that it is not okay to push up interest rates to run down disposable incomes but it is okay to smash disposable incomes by way of wage cuts. Where does the Opposition get off? Who does it think it is fooling? Does it think that anybody out there takes any notice of what it says? I notice the brilliant remark made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), supposedly another business dry. It just shows that one does not need any economic brains to make money. He said that the J curve appears to be an L curve. Of course he was echoing the remarks of the genius at the table, the honourable member for Mackellar, who put that little pearl of wisdom in his Press statement today. What he is really saying is that the economic rationalists, the people who believe that the market will always work, are saying that the market will not work, the J curve will not work, there will be no change in Australia's external accounts, depreciation will not work and the J curve will become an L curve-in other words, flat. The spokesman for the alternative government, who believes in market policies in the market place, is saying that the market place will not work, that the market mechanism will not work and that a major depreciation will not spin round the external accounts. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about New York and attitudes back here. He would not even get an appointment in New York. He would be padding around Fifth Avenue. He would be in and out of the shops, but that would be about the long and the short of it. He is a joke here. He should go and tell that to Rod Carnegie, who is on the front page of today's Australian Financial Review saying that he is optimistic about the 1980s and 1990s. Mr Carlton —Not because of you. Mr KEATING —Of course it is because of us. Who else has changed policy in this country? The honourable member should say to Rod Carnegie: `We don't believe that the market will work, Rod; we don't believe that depreciation will change Australia's external accounts. Also, we don't believe that there ought to be an increase in interest rates, but at the same time we do believe that there ought to be wage cuts'. He would think that the honourable member was a raving lunatic, which of course he is. This is the basis upon which the Opposition approaches this matter. What really amused me was how the honourable member advised us on how we should be selling our policy view around the world. He gave us some instructions about what sort of speeches we should make and when we should make them when we have a depreciation on our hands. He could not raffle a duck in a pub, and now-remembering that he is one of the people who drove a quarter of a million people into poverty, into unemployment, who wrecked the economy and gave us our first negative growth for 30 years as well as getting inflation up to 12 per cent-he has the hide to tell us about economic policy. The honourable member then went on to talk about the initial and full price effects. The first point to observe about the huge depreciation in February of this year is that there was no price effect for six months. Indeed, there was no price effect for nine months because the case was paid in October and the depreciation occurred in February. There was no increase in award wages in response to the depreciation for nine months. So let us not have any humbug about price effects. Under the Opposition's system they would have been breaking out all over the place, and honourable members opposite well know that. Nobody in business believes that their proposed system would not see wage breakouts in the face of this growth of a 20 per cent depreciation. We are looking at a 5 to 6 per cent wage growth this year in the face of massive depreciation and very strong economic growth for the third year in a row. Does anyone believe that the Opposition could turn in a 5 to 6 per cent award wage outcome without a major recession on its hands? Of course not, but that is what would happen. Members of the Opposition are such a dull lot that they would grind the economy into the ground. They would try to hold down wages by holding down economic growth and profits. In other words, they would put the cleaners through the economy so that they could say that wages are abating, but they would look around to find the economy decimated. The fact is that the Opposition is now three years past its period of government but it has learned nothing. It is still parrotting the same policy approach. For all its talk about getting a new policy and a new framework, it is really the same old deflationary muck that it is putting up to us-`feed 'em muck'-the same old stuff which would grind the economy into the ground. We have an economy churning out profits. The profit share is back to its highest level since 1968-69, unit labour costs are back to their early 1970s levels, factor shares in the economy are restored and the major fiscal imbalance which the previous Government gave to us-we thank it very much-is back from nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 2.1 per cent in terms of the Budget deficit. We are in a transition period, watching the external account swim around following a time when the previous Government was overvaluing the exchange rate, wrecking our export industries and tearing our import competing industries to shreds. Because we are in that transition, in the face of very strong economic growth which is producing substantial growth in imports over this period, the Opposition says: `Well, the strategy has fallen apart; we are living through a transition but don't wait to get through it, you have to get the result instantaneously. We know that we made a mess of the economy for seven years, that we overvalued the exchange rate, had a wages explosion and pushed inflation into double-digit figures and made us hopelessly uncompetitive, and we know that you poor blighters have had to bring it back into place, but you have to bring it back immediately; don't have any transition because if you do we will attack you in the Parliament'. That is what it is all about. In respect of Australia's external accounts it is always difficult to assess the extent and timing of the price effects of a depreciation and the volume responses to these effects. There has been some significant price absorption which lessens the impact on the slow-down in import volumes. In other words, the full impact of depreciation would have a more debilitating effect upon import growth than it has had because of absorption on the part of some exporters from other countries. That lessens the inflationary effect but also it lessens the speed of transition. Our terms of trade have also deteriorated. Prices for the commodities Australia sells have deteriorated. Sugar is a classic example, and it has happened with other commodities. But that said, the depreciation effect is operating. It is also very clear that domestic demand is running very strongly-indeed, it is running more strongly than the Budget forecasts-while import replacement is running a little less strongly. The fact is that the growth will still be very strong but the composition of the growth will be different. So we have a situation where domestic demand is leading to a sucking in of imports into Australia at a level higher than would otherwise be the case. Of course the Government has put policies in place to moderate this domestic demand, and the lags in the economy from the tightening of interest rates which the Government effected earlier are still to come, and we are now seeing signs that the demand for credit is starting to slow. So the Government is saying that it is about a sustainable high rate of economic growth, but it is not about the highest rate of economic growth, it is not about unsustainable rates of growth. Therefore we expect that, with that policy tightening and the policy tightening of recent days, growth will be pretty much as forecast at Budget time and that the switching to import replacement will occur as the year proceeds. In other words, we are in a transition. Demand is running a little more strongly than forecast at Budget time. The import replacement is running a little less slowly. Because of that we have these clowns on the other side getting up every day of the week talking about the balance of payments and the exchange rate. It may come as some surprise to them, but the current account during their term of office, in 1981-82 or 1982-83, was 6.2 per cent of gross domestic product, well above the 4.9 per cent of last year. They are sitting here as though they ran some sort of model policy. They were running a swill of an economy- Mr N. A. Brown —A what? Mr KEATING —A swill, a pigsty, and that was the limit of their capacity. The fact of the matter is that we have the policy settings in place. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about wage outcomes and discounting. What he does not understand-I have told him a couple of times-is that the commitments under the original principles of the two-year agreement expired on 6 October, which means that the unions, had they so chosen, could have gone out, still under the prices and incomes accord and still consistent with the principles, and taken $15 or $20 in the economy. So as to get through that transition from one set of principles to another we agreed, on an industrial relations basis, that the best result was to pay the full indexation at 3.8 per cent and take 2 per cent, rather than one per cent, off the April case. I have told members opposite that when we modelled that through the inflationary effect was negligible. What does the Opposition want to do? Does it want to say to the employers: `Let the unions tear pieces out of you for two or three months and then they can all opt back in under the new principles and it will be all ducky after we have had a wage round in the meantime'? Of course we are not about stupid outcomes. Therefore we recognised that and sought the appropriate discount and a deferment of the productivity case. A deferment of the productivity case will meet a substantial movement in costs coming from the depreciation. The fact is that that is the appropriate level of discounting. As we said-the honourable member for Mackellar quoted me-we met the initial and full price effects in that way. Therefore I cannot understand why he continues to want to do more, except simply to trot out the same sorts of policies that every conservative politician who ever sat in this Parliament basically believes in: Never give anyone an even break, cut people's wages and make them work longer hours. That is what the Opposition stands for. That is what it has always stood for. If there had not been an Australian Labor Party and a trade union movement the members of the Opposition would still have people working 60 hours a week for nothing because those are the sorts of people they are. We are not about that. Mr Carlton —I thought we were in office for three-quarters of the time since Federation. Mr KEATING —No thanks to the Coalition. It has had the labour movement standing it right up. Without that, those are the sorts of policies we would see in this country. Mr N. A. Brown —You need some more discounting. Mr KEATING —The honourable member could not even spell `discounting' until two months ago. He would not even know what it means. He is still mucking about with his law books. Let me make this clear: This Government has put the most successful policy change in place in living memory. We have seen three years of strong economic growth, a return to high profit shares, a reduction in unit labour costs, an increase of 500,000 jobs, an 8 per cent employment growth, a reduction in unemployment from 10 1/2 to nearly 7 1/2 per cent and, of course, a dramatic reduction in inflation. In the face of this and in the face of a massive depreciation from the floating exchange rate, which was an innovation we introduced, and the appropriate wage response, all we get is this cavilling about J curves being flat, the market system not working and interest rates being too high from a group promoting itself as free marketeers who will find market solutions in the economy. It is nonsense and it was always nonsense. We reject the whole central tenet of the matter of public importance. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.00) —In joining in this debate I remind the members of the House that this time 12 months ago the Parliament had been dissolved and was in the middle of an election campaign. During that campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a commitment to the Australian people and promised that during 1985 interest rates would fall. But what has happened? The very reverse has occurred. In fact, the Treasurer, in his remarks this afternoon, acknowledged that this country is living beyond its means. He acknowledged that disposable incomes are too high for those who are in the employed work force. He went on to say that unit labour costs had fallen. That may be true, but they have not fallen enough for us to be truly competitive in the international market-place. We can survive and be prosperous only if we are competitive in that international market-place. The Treasurer told this House and the Australian people that he wants to cut disposable incomes, not by the sensible policy of reducing wage rates or slowing the rate of wage increases by making sensible representations to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but by allowing people to be granted higher wages through the Arbitration Commission as a consequence of a back room agreement between the Government and its masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. But those increases are and will be illusory only because the Treasurer, in today's speech, acknowledged that once those wages are paid they will be too high. Therefore what can we do in order to get the economic settings of the country correct? The only way that can be achieved is by increasing interest rates, thereby reducing the effective disposable income of the wage earners. We could also increase taxation in order to reduce the disposable income of Australian taxpayers. We could increase that taxation while creating the illusion that we are offering tax cuts, because if the inflation rate increases fast enough and the steps in the rate structure of the income tax system are kept fixed, the fiscal drag-or bracket creep, as it is called-as people move from the 30c in the dollar rate to the 46c in the dollar rate would bring greater revenue to the Commonwealth and increase the proportion of the average Australian wage earner's income that is taken in tax. That is not what the average citizen wants. He wants his tax burden relieved, not a prospective tax cut two years from now, when it will be considerably less than the tax increases that have occurred over the two-year period. We have a Labor Government here and Labor governments in the States which are suffering from what could be described as the Labor disease, that malady whereby they make promises during election campaigns to reduce income tax, to reduce the burden of taxation, to reduce interest rates and then immediately they succeed in an election they proceed to do the very reverse. As the member for Sturt, an electorate in South Australia, it will not surprise honourable members if I focus my attention and concern about the effects of rising interest rates on the electors of South Australia, at a time when, in four weeks, they will be able to pass judgment on the economic policies of both their State Government and the political colleagues of that Government in the Labor Government in Canberra. Prior to its election to office the present State Labor Government in South Australia made commitments on four things. It said that as a government it would not increase the rates of any existing taxes or introduce any new taxes. Mr N. A. Brown —That was a joke. Mr WILSON —It is indeed a joke. Over the period, many new taxes were introduced and State taxation has increased by over 50 per cent-a substantially higher rate of increase than the increase in average incomes of South Australian wage and salary earners. The second promise it made was that it would reduce unemployment. What has happened to unemployment in South Australia? We still have 56,400 people unemployed-some 4,500 more unemployed South Australians than when the Tonkin Government was defeated three years ago. Thirdly, it promised to reduce and contain South Australia's cost of living. I always thought interest charges were part of the cost of living. There is no indication that the Labor Government has been at all successful in fulfilling that promise. Indeed, the cost of living in South Australia has increased at a rate faster than the national average. Fourthly, it said that it would reduce housing interest rates. That it has failed to do. In fact, it did a curious thing. At a time when building societies and savings banks have their housing loan interest rates pegged, the demand for housing loans from the building societies ran so high that the building societies found that they were unable to borrow money from the public and lend it at the pegged interest rates. In order to remain competitive, those bodies sought an increase in the approved interest rate. In granting that increase, the Labor Government then spent $3.1m of taxpayers' funds to subsidise the building societies in order that the borrowers from the South Australian building societies would not pay a three-quarters of one per cent increase in interest rates. But for how long will that subsidy last? It is for a period of six months. What will happen in six months time? Every South Australian mortgage holder, every borrower from a building society, should be deeply fearful of the effects and consequences of what will occur in about four months from now under a Labor government. They should ask themselves whether they can trust a Labor government in South Australia. I do not believe they can. In the last election campaign in that State voters were given the promise that taxes would be reduced. Taxes have been increased. They were given a promise that interest rates would be contained and reduced. Interest rates have been increased. Now, just over the shadow period of an election campaign, a certain number of home owners are being given some interest relief via a subsidy being given to the building societies. There is no assurance that, at the expiration of that six-month period, interest rates can possibly come down. In fact, there seems to be some conflict between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, for the Treasurer, in his speech today, said that we were going through a transition period and that, while the currency was being adjusted, interest rates will apparently come down once we have gone through the transition period. But the Prime Minister is reported as saying and warning Australians-in particular I think he was warning South Australians-that we would have to learn to live with high interest rates. He has put no time limit on the period over which those rates would persist. As a South Australian, I want to bring to the attention of this House the deep concern of home owners, both those who have bought their homes and those who would like to buy homes but who will not get the benefit of the subsidy of the interest rates. The subsidy relates only to existing loans so anyone who is trying to buy a home is finding that the repayments that will have to be made on a $50,000 loan are probably some 40 per cent higher now than some 12 months ago. What the South Australian electorate needs to do for all Australians, for all home buyers, is to send a message not only to the Bannon Government, by kicking it out of office, but also to the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr West —That was a terrible speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.10) —I just heard an interjection that that was a terrible speech. Really, the Opposition has not done very well today. What happened? Opposition members decided on a topic for a matter of public importance that they wanted to raise, then they searched through their newspaper files to get something to justify it but were unable to find anything that was suitable. Mr Carlton —Come off it! Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Mackellar says: `Come off it'. I will give evidence to substantiate the claim that I have made. The matter of public importance reads: The Hawke Government's broken promises on interest rates. The honourable member for Mackellar, in leading for the Opposition on this supposed matter of public importance, gave a number of quotations which were apparently supposed to support and substantiate that claim. None of those quotations did that, and he knows it. For example, he referred to a quotation from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in which the Treasurer said, in connection with inflation, words to the effect that the continued success of this Government will create conditions conducive to a reduction in interest rates-and it will. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) referred to a quotation from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who said that the developing economic situation in Australia, largely as a result of the outstandingly successful policies of this Government, would create a situation in which interest rates can decline-and they will. What the honourable member for Mackellar did in referring to those quotations was to defeat his own matter of public importance because not one of those quotations substantiated the claim. In fact the Australian people are rejoicing in the fact that the Government is honouring those undertakings given by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister in those quotations. As I have said, the Opposition has not done very well today. In the 15 minutes available to the honourable member for Mackellar, he spent the first 10 minutes talking about the current account deficit, inflation, the Australian dollar and wage increases. Finally, about five minutes before the end of his available time, he said: `Now let me move to interest rates'. That further confirms my belief that, after the Opposition had determined the matter of public importance it wanted to raise today, it then searched around for evidence to support it, and the evidence simply is not available. So the honourable member for Mackellar took one-third of the time available to him to talk about the issue under consideration. It is fairly interesting that the matter to which the Opposition has drawn attention today is that of interest rates and is related to promises. I am sorry that I have to go back a few years to refer to a particular promise, in fact two promises- Mr Carlton —I thought he would go back to an old speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member thought I would go back to an old speech; well, he was dead right. I have had to go back a few years in order to refer to two specific promises that were made by the former Prime Minister. In 10 years time I will still have to refer to these promises from the previous Prime Minister because that is how long we will be here. When in 10 years time I want to talk about the former conservative Prime Minister in Australia, I will be talking about the 1970s and the early 1980s when that conservative Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, was making promises of this kind in connection with interest rates. I am sorry that I have to go back so far but in the future, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, understand more than adequately, I will have to go back even further. In 1977, in his election policy speech, the former Prime Minister said: . . . interest rates have begun to fall-and they will keep on falling. That was specific, if any statement was ever specific. Then in December of the same year he said: Once the election is over- It is remarkable the number of times previous Government members used to say `once the election is over' when referring to the fistful of dollars, the promises, commitments and undertakings that they gave during election campaigns. The former Prime Minister said: Once the election is over we will start to move to the consummation of a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates. Mr Gear —What happened to them? Mr ROBERT BROWN —My colleague asked me what happened to them. It is just coincidental that I have in my hand evidence of what happened to them after those undertakings were given. Let us have a look at them. The Opposition's allegation is coming from a political group which, when in government, had this devastating record. Honourable members opposite wish us to forget about it. The only economics that they have learnt is what we taught them and they do not even understand that. They do not understand the mistakes that they made when they were in government. But we still have some hope for them. I have known the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for a long time and I still have some hope for them. In June 1979, when honourable members opposite were in government, savings bank housing loan interest rates were 9.5 per cent. I ask honourable members opposite to listen to the figures. I prevail upon the honourable member for Mackellar to listen. He may have forgotten them because he has chosen to forget them. Let me remind him. In June 1979, savings bank housing loan interest rates were 9.5 per cent. In June 1980 they were 10.5 per cent; in June 1981, 11.5 per cent; and in June 1982, 13.5 per cent. What a record! While that was happening to housing interest rates in Australia every increase of one per centage point in those rates represented an additional annual interest payment of $300m by Australian home buyers to the large lending institutions in Australia. From 1978 until 1983 the interest rate policies of honourable members opposite, when they were in government, had the result of increasing the annual interest burden for home buyers in Australia by $900m every year. As a result of their economic policies they were responsible for dragging an additional almost $1 billion out of the pockets and the pay envelopes of ordinary Australian home buying families every year. What a remarkable record! Yet people opposite have the audacity, not only in this place but also around the hustings and around the traps, to try to defend their policies. Let us look at what happened to interest rates on 90-day bank commercial bills while honourable members opposite were in government. In June 1979 the interest rate was 10.35 per cent; in June 1980, 13.85 per cent; in June 1981, 16 per cent and in June 1982, 18.75 per cent. Honourable members opposite devastated this country. They laid to waste vast tracts of this economy. Let me deal now with trading bank overdraft rates for loans in excess of $100,000. These involve the people whom honourable members opposite are supposed to represent. Some of my constituents might borrow a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars-something less than $50,000 perhaps if they are buying a house-but honourable members opposite reckon that they represent those people who borrow something in excess of $100,000. Let us have a look at the way in which honourable members opposite treat those people whom they reckon they represent. In June 1979 honourable members opposite had them paying 11.25 per cent. In three years they had them paying 17 1/2 per cent yet these are the people honourable members opposite reckon they represent. What do they do to my constituents? I have already said that they devastate them. The Treasurer, in a magnificent defence today, was just disgusted. Honourable members opposite know that he is disgusted. Every time they raise an issue of this kind the Treasurer comes into the House and says something like: `Good God, do I have to face this sort of nonsense again?' He tells honourable members opposite what the business community thinks about them. He suggested that if they had been in New York they might have been able to shop on Fifth Avenue but they would not have even been able to get an interview with those people with whom he spoke and who have great respect for him. I thought that I would come into the chamber today and be prepared to say something about interest rates. Quite obviously I was prepared-at least in part. I would have been very happy as well to pursue those issues that the honourable member for Mackellar referred to, including the current account deficit, inflation, the Australian dollar and wage increases. His speech was really a declaration for a wage freeze in Australia. He is the same person who is on record as saying that we should lift the home loan mortgage rate. It is 13 1/2 per cent at present. I do not know what level he wants but, as I have said, every one percentage point increase represents another $300m a year out of the pockets of Australian home buyers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee on Protection of the Great Barrier Reef, together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings and transcripts of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-Our inquiry into the protection of the Great Barrier Reef covered a number of matters but we were particularly concerned about the problems posed by the crown of thorns starfish. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that the crown of thorns starfish first became a matter of public concern in the early 1960s when it was found in large numbers on some reefs in the central part of the Great Barrier Reef. The size of the populations, their sudden appearance and their ability to damage large areas of coral set the alarm bells ringing. At first there seemed to be general agreement that the problem needed to be taken seriously but after a few years this agreement broke down in the face of uncertainty, scientific rivalry and government inaction. Some people argued that the population outbreaks were natural phenomena which were not widespread and would not therefore threaten the reef. They did so without any real evidence but appeared to be vindicated when the starfish became comparatively rare in the mid-1970s and some reefs began to recover. Not unexpectedly, there was at the same time a decrease in public concern, relaxation on the part of the administrators and a winding down of the research effort which had been put in place following the intitial outbreaks. Despite the population decreases some scientists were convinced that there was something wrong and that the population outbreaks were the result of some human activity, but they also had little real evidence on which to base their claims. In the last five to six years the crown of thorns starfish has returned in great numbers to previously infested reefs. Public concern has once again been raised but the scientists and administrators seem to want to stick to their old stories rather than re-appraise their arguments in the light of the new, unexpected and potentially serious infestations. It is difficult to determine who is right and there is a lot of argument about whether there is a threat to the reef. My Committee does not pretend to be able to second guess the scientists and our report is essentially non-technical in nature. We have not attempted to provide answers to those questions upon which the scientists are in disagreement. We have, however, taken the view that the problem is something much more than an interesting scientific phenomenon. We have tried to find some balance amongst all the conflicting evidence which was put before us. We have concluded that it is quite possible that the crown of thorns phenomenon is a result of a complex series of factors and we consider that it is quite reasonable to suspect that the widespread human activitity that occurs on the reef has played a part, or at least exacerbated the problem. There is much we do not know about the crown of thorns starfish. One of the main points of contention is whether or not the presence of these large populations on some reefs constitutes a long term threat to the whole of the reef. Given our present state of knowledge we are unable to say with any certainty whether the threat is serious, minor or totally insignificant. We have stated in our report that the apparent level of uncertainty and the probable risk are unacceptable. The value of the reef as an area of world heritage, as an important eco-system and as a recreational and tourism resource is beyond measure. Any phenomenon which is so poorly understood but which has some potential to damage seriously major parts of the reef requires the closest attention and should not be put aside as an interesting but unresolved scientific problem. In this regard we strongly disagree with those people who argued that we should do nothing, other than some research, and who said that we should assume that there is no threat until science can prove otherwise. We have recommended that the Commonwealth Government should continue to provide funds above and beyond other research funding to allow full implementation of the program of research recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee. We also recommended that the Advisory Committee be reconvened to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the research program. It is pleasing to note that the Government's Budget provided funds to commence the research program, but we want to ensure that the funding continues and that the program is completed. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is, at present, also currently carrying out the single most extensive survey of the incidence of the starfish infestations. We expect that the results of this survey will be available some time in the first half of next year. The research and the surveys may establish that there is, in fact, no serious problem posed by the crown of thorns starfish or perhaps the starfish may disappear again before the research is complete. However, given the events of the last two years we can have no confidence that the starfish will not return once again. It is also possible that the present infestations will continue unabated. We have recommended that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority review and, where necessary, amend its zoning plans to ensure identification of those reefs where special crown of thorns population control programs might be warranted. We have recommended that the Authority should urgently assess the feasibility and costs of establishing a community-based response to crown of thorns starfish population outbreaks based on teams of volunteer divers to hand collect the starfish. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Committee examined a number of other issues. We have briefly reported on these issues. One matter that I would like to speak about is the situation of coastal-fringing reefs which is occurring north of Cape Tribulation as a consequence of the construction of the infamous coastal road through the Daintree Rainforest. Mr Gear —A shame. Mr MILTON —Yes, it is indeed a shame. These reefs have recently been found to be of very great scientific and unique conservation value and the impact of run-off from the road is worse than expected. To be frank, I was appalled at the desecration which has occurred. At one section of the road, adjacent to a fringing reef, a huge landslip had occurred where half the hillside had slid, in the form of floods of silt-laden water, on to the beach and the reef. How long the living coral can survive such conditions is not known, but such degradation of a world heritage area is criminal, to say the least. We believe that the urgent need to protect the fringing reefs may provide some common ground for discussion between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments and we have recommended accordingly. Another problem is the potential for pollution from the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea to damage reefs and marine organisms in the Gulf of Papua and in the Great Barrier Reef Marine National Park. The operations at Ok Tedi have been plagued by environmental mishaps and the possible impact on the reef is, as yet, unknown. However, this is another area where I would prefer not to adopt the let us wait and see approach. This is a matter which requires urgent investigation in consultation with the Papua New Guinea Government so that, if necessary, we can take steps to avoid this problem. This would be far preferable to waiting until a problem develops and then seeing if we can clean the mess up. In concluding my presentation of the report, I would like to thank the secretariat of the Standing Committee and, in particular, Ian Dundas, for the invaluable assistance and support which was given us. I commend the report to the House. Mr MILES(Braddon) —by leave-The coalition members on the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation fully support the recommendations that the Chairman has just outlined to the House. As a Parliament we should be aware of the significant nature of the Great Barrier Reef. I think that often a lot of controversy and conflict surrounds environmental issues in Australia. I believe that the Committee was able to look at the matter fairly objectively and has come up with recommendations which will be worth while to the future of this region of Australia. I would like to mention three matters which I think ought to be emphasised in this report. Firstly, the Committee looked very carefully at the effect on the crown of thorns starfish. Australia has been confronted with this problem over a period of approximately 20 years. As a nation, we have not carefully monitored the effect on the crown of thorns starfish and so we are now in a situation where we do not have scientific information which will enable us, as a parliament, to make wise decisions about the future of the Great Barrier Reef. There is a need to continue to have scientific research in this ecological area. The Committee had a look at some of the quite serious effects on the reef in certain regions. Some people believe that they are very serious and will affect the ultimate future of the reef while other people disagree. There is a great need for us to provide funds so that more scientific research can be done in this area. For those people who have not visited and spent time on the Great Barrier Reef, it is an area which I can recommend. There, people will see the beauty that exists underneath the water. It is the greatest reef in the world and therefore, as a nation, we should protect it for the world. Secondly, our attention was directed to the run-off from the Cape Tribulation road. I believe quite firmly that we should look into ways in which some engineering works can be undertaken to prevent further run-off onto the reef. That is the only wise and sensible step to take at this stage. I recognise that the road has been put through and I personally agree with that, but the way in which that road was put through was not good. We should stabilise the roadside and make sure that further run-off is minimised and prevented from going into the reef. The third point which needs to be mentioned is the possible effect of the Ok Tedi mine. I think we are well aware of the substantial nature of the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea, but I do not know that we are aware of the effects of the run-off that occurs from the huge Fly River down into the oceans which ultimately could affect marine life on the Great Barrier Reef. I think it is important that we draw attention to the problem that may occur in the future and make sure that the Australian public and members of the Parliament are aware of the possible effects that mining of another nation may actually have on our natural resources within Australia. I commend that recommendation, along with the other recommendations, to the Parliament and also support the comments of the Chairman. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 234th report of the Committee relating to the Finance minute on the Committee's 224th report which was entitled: `Collection of Excise and Deferred Customs Duties'. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Report 234 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is entitled `Excise and Deferred Customs Duties-Response'. This is the Government response, in the form of the Department of Finance minute, to the Committee's 224th report based on long inquiries which dealt with the collection of excise and deferred customs duties. Report 224, which was tabled on 10 October 1984, was based on the concerns expressed in the Auditor-General's report of March 1982, which examined the procedures used to collect excise duty on beer, distilled spirits, tobacco products and petroleum products and to hold goods, including imported goods, in bond pending payment of duty. In particular, the audit was designed to check that controls and procedures used by the relevant authority-then the Bureau of Customs within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs-were adequate to protect the Commonwealth Government's revenue. The Auditor-General's report found that the checks on documentation tendered by producers to Customs, and indeed Customs' ability to make independent assessments of the revenue which was due, were inadequate. For its part, the Committee considered the Auditor-General's comments and recommendations and discussed the issues raised with both Government officials and industry representatives. The Committee also received submissions from participants in the various industries concerned. The Committee's report recommended action to improve security over this important revenue source. The Committee recommended that Customs-which was by that time part of the Deparment of Industry and Commerce-improve specific controls over particular excisable commodities and improve their general management operations. I should state here that the Australian Customs Service is now an independent statutory body reporting to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. In its report the Committee recommended that authorities in addition to Customs also play a part in ensuring that the fundamental costs and benefits of the present excise system and possible changes to it are fully considered. The Committee recommended, for instance, that the issue of the perceived need for the bonded warehouse system and the implications of its abolition be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry. The Committee also canvassed some quite radical modifications to the excise collection system. In the interests of streamlining the process of accounting for losses the Committee discussed shifting the point at which excise is collected and applying an automatic fixed percentage adjustment to the assessed quantity of excisable product. The Committee considered that such initiatives should be indicative of those to be given careful consideration by the Department of Industry and Commerce and other appropriate departments in consultation with industry. The Committee accepts the action undertaken in some areas, particularly the strengthening of Customs general management strategy, with the formulation of a detailed planning document, the review of staffing requirements and training programs and action to improve controls over end users in the distilled spirits sector. We are particularly pleased about that set of actions. However, the Committee has difficulty with aspects of the response to the report. Of particular concern is that issues impinging on bodies other than Customs were not addressed. The Committee expects that where agencies involved in the implementation or consideration of suggestions or recommendations are identified those same agencies provide direct and clearly attributable written responses to its recommendations. No response was provided by agencies such as the Industries Assistance Commission or the Department of the Treasury to the Committee's relevant comments. The Committee had requested that possible alternative methods of excise collection be given careful consideration by the then Department of Industry and Commerce and other appropriate departments in consultation with industry and that the bonded warehouse system be referred to the IAC for inquiry. No comment was provided on possible alternative methods of excise collection, nor was there any indication from the relevant authority regarding a reference to the IAC on the bonded warehouse system. In addition to these omissions, other features of the finance minute make it an inadequate response to the Committee's 224th report. Customs rejected each of the recommendations relating to improved computerised inventory control in bonded warehouses and gave only cursory treatment to recommendations 3 and 25, which suggested improvements and economies in the excise and bond system. The Committee has decided to present this report and concurrently seek further information from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the Minister who is responsible for both the Australian Customs Service and the Industries Assistance Commission. The Committee has expressed its disappointment at the defensive attitude which permeates the response to its report and at the narrow interpretation which has been placed on several of the Committee's recommendations. Specifically, the Committee asks for supplementary information on its recommendations concerning controls in, and possible alternatives to, the bond system; we want a reference to the IAC on bonds; we want information on the level of additional resources for investigation and control of the petroleum freight subsidy scheme; we want evidence that controls embodied in the diesel rebate scheme are adequate to ensure its efficient implementation; and on the matter of simplified loss standards, we wish to receive advice on the outcome of the spirits working party study. I trust that, if the Committee receives these responses, it can report a satisfactory conclusion to the inquiry on receipts of this information. I commend the report to honourable members. Bills returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill 1985 Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill 1985 Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985 States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1985 Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985 Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1985 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1985 Medicare Levy Bill 1985 Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985 Loan Bill 1985 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with requests. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Veterans' Entitlements Bill concurrently with the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.45) —The Veterans' Entitlements Bill is long overdue as the legislation which it replaces-the Repatriation Act of 1920 and other associated legislation-has been acknowledged as being unnecessarily complex, cumbersome and, in part, obsolete. The object of the Veterans' Entitlement Bill is to rationalise and simplify this convoluted lacework of previous legislation by replacing the existing statutes with one single, consistent document. In the past both sides of government have historically accepted their responsibility for our returned service personnel. This is evidenced in the following quotes. Firstly, I quote from Ben Chifley who, when Minister for Post-War Reconstruction, said: The careers of hundreds of thousands of young men have been interrupted and in some instances partially ruined. There is a break of education, training and opportunity which cannot be repaired. It is perfectly true that experience is gained, but that is not material to an ordinary civil vocation. On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. Secondly, I refer to a quote from Arthur Fadden, the then Leader of the National Party, then known as the Australian Country Party, and former Prime Minister of this nation, who said: A grateful nation must see that those who are privileged to return from battle areas shall be properly cared for, and that their reinstatement in civil life shall be wisely and expeditiously carried out. Nevertheless in 1985, 40 years down the track from World War II and 10 years down the track from Vietnam, many veterans feel this is the year the Federal Labor Government turned its back on the veteran. In the wake of the outcry from ex-service and other associated organisations, including the Returned Services League of Australia, the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council, the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association, the Legacy organisation and the war widows, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and his departmental officers were forced to consult widely in the intervening months with these bodies and organisations. This period of consultation was further helped and brought about by the imposition of a sunset clause in the May legislation. The coalition is rightly proud of the contribution that it made to the proceedings at that time. There has been an understanding that these veteran groups to which I have just referred would have been actively involved in consultation with the government of the day on any measures which would affect them and they were unnecessarily shocked and distressed by the actions of the Government in presenting and rushing through significant changes in the area of veterans' affairs as part of the May mini-Budget legislation. The Opposition, during debate in the Senate, succeeded in inserting a sunset clause into the legislation. Senator Messner, during his term as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, had established a joint committee with the RSL and other ex-service organisations to get together to examine the whole repatriation legislation with a view to rationalising it. The avenue for consultation was implemented by the coalition and should have been maintained by the present Minister and Government. If it had, the ex-service groups would not have had to suffer the outrage of seeing key aspects of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill brought forward in the May mini-Budget legislation. These people have already fought for their country. They should not have had to fight at this stage in their lives for their right to be heard and consulted. The Government's failure to allow for prior consultation regarding those measures, which were included in the mini-Budget legislation which it then subsequently included as part of the Veterans' Entitlement Bill presently before the House, led to an unnecessarily emotional and tense atmosphere for the discussions and consultations which followed later in the year. It must be noted that, despite this climate, a large measure of agreement has now been reached between the Government and veterans' organisations and breakthroughs have been achieved, such as the deletion of the 40-year rule. These breakthroughs came about in part because of the coalition-inserted sunset clause. The major incentives which pushed the Government into the changes in the Repatriation Amendment Act were the Law case, and more particularly the O'Brien case. The majority of the High Court in the Law case ruled that his widow was entitled to receive the war widow's pension because the prerequisite of war service and relationship to the deceased had not been disproved and that it had been shown that death had resulted from a disease of unknown aetiology. The majority decided it would thus be impossible to exclude the link between the fatal disease, in this case cancer, and her husband's war service. In the O'Brien case the court ruled that, as there was conflicting medical opinion on the aetiology of hypertension, the Repatriation Tribunal could not properly have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the link between O'Brien's war service and his condition. The decisions in these cases led to a massive increase in the number of applications for pensions and a massive increase in the number of pensions granted. It is, of course, only to be anticipated that, as World War II veterans become older, there would be an increase in the number of claimants. However, the rise in the number of applicants since these precedents were set is far and above any such naturally occurring circumstance. To cite just one case in which a war widow's pension was granted, a 69-year-old veteran fell to his death from a tree from which he was lopping branches. He had been attached to the tree by a belt, similar to those used by linesmen, and the belt broke. The Repatriation Review Tribunal found it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the veteran's fall was not attributable to a weakness in his hands or legs resulting from accepted war-related disabilities which may have caused or contributed to his fall. It does not seem unreasonable to query why that ruling was made and why the veteran had the need to be up the tree in the first place. Favourable decisions in this and similar cases have resulted in increases of 54.8 per cent in the amount paid out by government on disability pensions and an increase of 70 per cent on war widows' pensions over the past three years. Despite Australia's smaller veteran population, our veterans' affairs expenditure is 1.4 times as much, relative to the total Budget, as in the United States of America, 4.7 times as much as in Canada, and 12 times as much as in Great Britain. However, the commitment to the veteran should not be seen in monetary terms alone. It is a fundamental obligation which must be honoured without being beholden to a dollars and cents approach. Whilst the Opposition and the ex-service organisations recognise that Australia's economic climate at present is very bleak, and that fiscal restraint must be exercised in all areas of responsibility, there is no question that adequate funds must be provided and used efficiently and to utmost effect in looking after the veterans. Care must also be exercised to ensure that those who served in our armed forces should receive their just entitlements. In this case, justice must not only be seen to be done. It must be done. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), recently said that ex-servicemen and women `should be treated with the greatest generosity that responsible government can afford'. Before proceeding with the more detailed aspects of the Bill, I advise the House that the Opposition recognises that a number of general improvements have been made to the new Bill compared with the original draft exposure. Of course, the Government has chosen to accentuate and exaggerate out of perspective the number of improvements made, as has been pointed out by the RSL and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, when considering some of the other changes embraced by this legislation. These changes have come about not only as a consequence of the responsible and comprehensive campaign by veterans' organisations across Australia, but also as a consequence of the action of the Liberal and National parties, with other support, in inserting a sunset clause into the May mini-Budget legislation, particularly with reference to the standard of proof definition. In many ways, this year, 1985, as I said at the outset, will go down in history as a year of change, confusion and cutback for veterans as a consequence of the attitude held by elements of the Federal Labor Government and certain departments to turn their back on veterans as we are now 40 years down the track from World War II. Cutbacks in travel allowances, which have been virtually halved from 1 July last and eliminated for certain service pensioners, along with severe limitations to four categories of dental treatment, are a clear manifestation of this approach not to honour totally a previous bipartisan commitment to veterans. Notwithstanding the improvements to the Bill, there are still many areas of concern which have come about in part from this inadequate approach to the veteran. In dealing with the Bill in detail, the centre-piece of the legislation is undoubtedly clause 119, replacing the existing section 47 of the previous repatriation legislation and laying down the standard of proof definition. The new clause 119 has a revised definition for which the RSL and others, but not all in the veterans community have generally indicated their support. It provides for a winding back or dismantling of the O'Brien determination in the High Court. However, with regard to the revised Veterans' Entitlements Bill, there are two significant differences compared with the original draft. The first is the removal of the onus of proof from the claimant and/or the Department under clause 119 (6). In fact, clause 17 of the Bill provides that the Secretary to the Department shall cause an investigation to be made into matters to which the claim or application relates. This aspect of the Bill and its ramifications, when enacted, will need to be monitored very closely indeed in order to see how that works out in practice. Secondly, I confirm that there has been a deletion from the Bill of the arbitrary 40-year rule which would have related to war widows and provided a more stringent standard of proof after the automatic cutover date, 40 years after the conflict in which the spouse was involved. The Opposition applauds the fact that this breakthrough has come. It supports the dropping of the 40-year rule from the legislation. We feel that implementation of that provision would not have properly recognised the plight of those widows who had already suffered hardship as a consequence of their husband's war service. The measure would not have resulted in a substantial saving to the Government in any case. It was an example of a petty-minded and negative approach to the veteran and, in this case, particularly the war widow. Indeed, the discriminatory 40-year rule should not have been in the original legislation in the first place. The new standard of proof-and clause 119 in its entirety-will obviously have to be tested by way of litigation further down the track and again this will have to be closely monitored in its ramifications. In the meantime, and on the basis of the results of determinations made during the last six months, it appears that there has been an effective winding back of the O'Brien situation but that there is still provision fairly and justly for acceptance of war-related disability. The Opposition serves notice that it will closely monitor the impact of the new clause 119 and, indeed, of the part of the Bill which provides a new consolidated statute in relation to repatriation in replacing some 90 existing statutes on this matter. It is not possible to detail all clauses in the Bill and unfortunately it is not possible to detail all clauses which embrace a measure of controversy. But the other key critical areas which I seek to highlight are as follows: First, the Bill reasserts Labor's iniquitous assets tests on service pensioners as provided in several clauses and sub-clauses, particularly clause 54. This assets test resulted in 13,272 veterans having their pensions reduced or cancelled during the last financial year. That figure is based on evidence given to a Senate Estimates committee by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The coalition will reflect its policy on the assets test in its approach to the Bill by seeking to vote against, in particular, the main engine room clause associated with the reassertion of the assets test, namely, clause 54. Secondly, there has been a failure to resolve comprehensively the problems associated with the assessment of totally and permanently incapacitated criteria and, in fact, there has been a retention of three considerations of eligibility for TPI. These are the requirement for a 100 per cent general rate pension, the requirement that the veteran is totally incapacitated and the requirement that the veteran would be continuing in remunerative work but for disability and therefore suffers an economic loss. The Opposition is very conscious of the ramifications associated with this area of the Bill embracing the assessment of TPI. It will be most properly considered when we develop our comprehensive policy on veterans' affairs which will be released in the build-up towards the next Federal election. Perhaps in fairness I should point out that nothing in this Bill precludes someone over 65 years from receiving a TPI pension. I have a number of case histories which show that TPIs have been granted in recent months to people aged 68, 70 and even 72 years. They have received the TPI and quite properly so. While the legislation does not prevent someone over 65 from receiving TPI, it requires that there be a loss associated with remunerative work as a consequence of the conditions of a veteran. It is this area which is of concern to the Opposition and it will be dealt with in more detail by some of my colleagues in their speeches. Thirdly, the removal of new enlistees in the Army, Navy and Air Force after 30 December 1985 from repatriation cover is an area of great concern to the Opposition. These new enlistees are being removed before a military compensation Act is in place on the statute book of this country. New enlistees will be taken from under repatriation cover without having proper replacement arrangements already in place. Mr Holding —They have workers compensation. Mr TIM FISCHER —Yes, it is true that the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act and other legislation are available in the circumstances. But perhaps the Minister at the table forgets that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has said repeatedly, as has the Minister representing him in this House, that the Government is examining the area of military compensation and is developing a military compensation package to bring before the House presumably at some future date. If that is so, in the interests of fair play the new enlistees in the Army, Navy and Air Force should be left under repatriation cover for the few more months or even a year and a half that it might be before the military compensation legislation is in place. The Army, the Navy and the Air Force have not had it easy in recent years. There are airmen, soldiers and sailors who are on social welfare, even though they are above the rank of private, because of the inadequate pay scales and the long delays in their pay increases. At long last they have had a 5.9 per cent pay increase without any retrospectivity. That itself is now the subject of an appeal by the commander of the defence forces and that is as it should be. Are we now going further to discourage recruitment to our armed forces by removing the linchpin of repatriation cover prior to the introduction of a military compensation Act? The Opposition welcomes the Government's moves to develop a military compensation package, but let us see that package and let us legislate for it before we cast the new enlistees of the Army, Navy and Air Force to the wolves by removing them from repatriation cover and leaving them only under the general umbrella of Commonwealth compensation. The cost implications involved in this area are not great, but there is a principle involved because while the soldier, sailor and airman would be eligible for general provisions of the Commonwealth Compensation Act, I feel strongly that these do not fit the pattern of peacetime service. Equally, there is also an argument that repatriation is not necessarily the correct way to proceed for peacetime forces and therefore the requirement absolute is for a military compensation Act. For the long term there are arguments for and against the peacetime forces remaining under the repatriation cover and these will be considered closely by the Opposition. However, in the meantime our position is quite clear cut-that is, the armed forces should remain under repatriation cover until we see such military compensation legislation. Fourthly, there are in the Bill areas of discrimination on the grounds of sex. These are too numerous to detail at this time. In the main they relate to reverse situations regarding the husbands of ex-service women. Apparently this is covered by an exemption from other overriding legislation on the matter of discrimination on the grounds of sex. It is a most desirable objective, when the opportunity and priority exists, to see this eliminated from the repatriation legislation. Fifthly, there are different levels of entitlements and categories for allied veterans embraced by the Bill. In some ways, this is a discriminatory approach but does reflect the fact that there are finite resources for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and there are priorities in use of those resources and there are finite resources of the Australian taxpayer. I repeat that the commitment to the veteran should be as stated by the Leader of the Opposition: To afford the greatest generosity that responsible government can allow. I am advised that the position of allied veterans under the new Bill is no worse than as before, but allied veterans are in any case admitted to repatriation hospitals when space provides. This is as it should be. At the same time, there are some anomalies associated with war widows, notwithstanding the abolition of the 40-year rule. These, too, must be properly addressed in future legislation. In general terms, there are many other areas of the Bill which are the subject of some degree of controversy and which have been highlighted by specialist veterans' organisations. Many of my colleagues will develop these aspects when they speak on the Bill later this day. Our underlying concern is to see that fair and just arrangements are in place for the veteran, notwithstanding the fact that we are 10 years down the track from the Vietnam conflict, 40 years down the track from World War II and 70 years down the track from World War I. On balance, however, the advantages in the provisions of the Bill for veterans do outweigh the disadvantages, and the Opposition has, therefore, decided on a responsible approach which reflects this situation. We acknowledge the positive approach of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in undertaking seminars across Australia on the legislation, but note that many of those took place only after the mini-Budget debacle in May. We also acknowledge the responsible role of the veterans' organisations and the key role played by the National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, in particular, as the appointed negotiator. We further acknowledge the distinct role of the RSL in particular as a free-standing organisation along with the role of the Australian Veterans' and Defence Service Council, otherwise known as AVADSC, and its Chairman, Rear-Admiral Guy Griffiths, along with the role of the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association, with Legacy and the co-ordinating council of Legacy, and with the war widows, the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association and many other organisations. The position of veterans' organisations is generally to support the passage of the Bill, but that is not the position of all veterans' organisations and, of course, they are concerned about some of the areas which I have already discussed and on which we will move amendments. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill before the House, despite its long period of gestation, contains a number of drafting errors associated with hazardous service. The intention of the Government to provide for repatriation cover relating to certain categories of hazardous service is not reflected clause by clause in the Bill before the House at this time. It is understood that this will now require additional amendments and that these are under preparation but have not been completed in time to be dealt with during the passage of the Bill through the Parliament in this month of November. In many ways, it is a sad day that the Parliament is being asked to pass defective legislation on this particular score and, to some extent, it reflects what happens when there are legislative log-jams at the end of autumn and Budget sessions. I am now advised that the Government will bring forward amendments in the autumn session to rectify these drafting errors, and the Opposition will properly consider these amendments at that time. In the meantime, I seek from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his representative in this House an assurance that those amendments relating to the drafting errors will be backdated in their effect to 5 December or the date of commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. This is a fair and reasonable request in all the circumstances, and whilst I hope that there is not an outbreak of hazardous service between December and the enactment of the further amendments, nevertheless the contingency should be covered by a categorical assurance by the Minister. As a consequence of the foregoing and in line with the Opposition's responsible approach to this Bill, and in order to highlight the areas of concern, particularly with regard to the removal of the Army, Navy and Air Force from repatriation cover, the Opposition has decided to adopt the following approach. Firstly, we will not oppose the second reading of the Bill in either House, but we will move a second reading amendment, which I will formally move at the end of my speech. The words that will constitute that amendment are as follows: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern in relation to- (a) the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans service pensions because of its iniquitous impact; (b) the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the new legislation without a new military compensation Act being in place; (c) the creation of different levels of entitlement, and categories, in respect of allied veterans and war widows and, (d) the degree of anomaly associated with the retrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes, and (2) calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs'. Secondly, I add that the Opposition in the House of Representatives, where Standing Orders permit, will vote in Committee against clause 54, which is, after all, the main engine room clause associated with the reassertion of the assets test on the veterans' service pensioners. Thirdly, the Opposition will move specific amendments to clauses 68 and 69 to provide for new enlistees to remain under repatriation cover at this time. Finally, the Opposition will not oppose the cognate Bill, the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. The veteran, in the past, in the present and in the future, is entitled to a fair deal. He or she is entitled to the greatest generosity that responsible government will allow. He is entitled to know that proper care and treatment and assistance will be available, whether it is 40, 60 or 80 years after the conflict in which the veteran was involved. It is for these reasons that I commend to the House the Opposition's approach in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and, in particular, I point out to the Minister that if the Government were to adopt the specific amendments which I have indicated to clauses 68 and 69, it would rectify the embarrassment over the drafting errors which have emerged in the Bill because, in fact, it would leave all new enlistees of the Army, Navy and Air Force in repatriation cover and would not, therefore, bring into play the hazardous clause provisions at this time until amendments come forward in autumn. It is for these reasons that I commend the Opposition's approach to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I formally move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern in relation to- (a) the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans service pensions because of its iniquitous impact; (b) the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the new legislation without a new military compensation Act being in place; (c) the creation of different levels of entitlement, and categories, in respect of allied veterans and war widows and, (d) the degree of anomaly associated with the retrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes, and (2) calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rocher —I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and reserve my right to speak. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.13) —I say at the outset that the Government rejects the amendment moved by the Opposition because we believe that it adds nothing positive to the very important Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Not unlike our taxation system, it has long been evident that the Australian repatriation legislation was definitely in need of overhaul. The controversial High Court of Australia decision on the O'Brien case highlighted this. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 will simplify and consolidate the existing entitlements available to veterans and their dependants. Earlier this year when the changes were first introduced, the Opposition, in its normal obstructive manner, did all it could to upset and scare the veteran community of Australia. I condemn the Opposition for its scaremongering tactics in frightening the most revered members of our community, those people who were prepared to sacrifice their lives in defence of our great country. Due to the comments of the Opposition, many veterans began to believe that they were truly in danger of losing their pension or benefit. To set the record straight, no one will lose a pension or benefit now in payment following the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Under the transitional provisions there will be no loss or reduction in existing benefits unless there are changed circumstances or fraud. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill not only continues the wide and generous spectrum of entitlements now available to veterans but also makes some significant improvements on those entitlements. An example of this is the decision to extend Veterans' Entitlements Bill coverage to certain defence personnel who served in Vietnam during that conflict and who had previously been denied coverage and also to veterans in the crew of HMAS Sydney and its support ships. One important factor that must be remembered in considering the changes to more than 90 pieces of existing legislation is that the Government held discussions with an advisory committee made up of representatives of the ex-service community, including the Returned Services League, Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council. The discussions held between the various returned services organisations and the Government were extremely fruitful, resulting with this legislation, and it is indeed heartening that the Hawke Government policy on consensus was responsible for the formulation of these Bills. I am indeed grateful for the feedback and constructive criticism that I received from the veterans organisations in my electorate of Grey. I am delighted that we were able to take on board their views in reviewing this legislation. As a result, these modifications have been made on 95 per cent of the recommendations arising from Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review discussions. The most strongly felt concern of the members of the veteran community throughout Australia, including in my electorate of Grey, in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill concerns the standard of proof provisions for determining entitlements. As I have stated previously this has been possible only with the tremendous help and consultation of veterans organisations. The wording has been altered and developed so that the essential element of the standard of proof has been maintained. When the amendments to the Repatriation Act were made in conjunction with the Government's May economic statement, allegations being made and used in some quarters for political gain were that the veteran community had been singled out for attention and was being forced to bear an unequal share of the burden of economic restraint. This is utterly untrue and shows to what depths Opposition members will sink to gain some political advantage. Responsibility gets thrown out of the window. Allowing for these necessary changes in the legislation, only 5 per cent of the cuts in the economic statement directly concerned spending on veterans. This is exactly the same proportion as the share of the veterans' affairs portfolio in total Commonwealth spending, which gives the lie to allegations of singling out veterans for an unfair share of the cuts. It is worth noting that the Australian repatriation system is the most generous in the world and remains so, regardless of these changes. So it should be. On the score of treatment of veterans, Australians can hold their heads high. A further example of the generous nature of the repatriation legislation and its amendments is the decision by this Government to update our hospitals by replacing obsolete equipment and accommodation and to set up aged and extended care units. This is long overdue. I am sure the extension of medical treatment to both war widows and service pensioners will be enthusiastically welcomed. Provision in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill has been made to extend medical treatment to war widows who remarried on or after 29 May 1984 and whose pensions are restored by the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, and to all service pensioners receiving a 50 per cent disability pension. These significant changes are positive results of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill consultative process. Not only has provision been made to enable war widow pensioners who remarried after 29 May 1984 to retain their war widows' pension and other entitlements, but provison has also been made to extend the $12 a week domestic allowance to all war widows. A further example of the generous nature of both these Bills is the widening of the definition of `child' to include any child who is dependent on the veteran but is not a natural or adopted child. To me, personally, this is possibly one of the most objective parts of the Bill. For it would be most satisfying and gratifying to any Defence Force personnel engaged in battle with the enemy to know that if he or she were unfortunately killed, any dependent child would be financially cared for. I have many friends involved in Legacy and they concur with my views. I know that the overwhelming number of Australians, particularly those who have been associated with the defence of this great country, believe that it is extremely important that with any piece of legislation regarding monetary payments the people who are in need do actually receive them. This Government is very concerned that money does not go to those who are not entitled to it, but instead only to those who are genuinely in need. Of course as the veteran community age, so the Australian community's responsibilities grow. People in this older age group need more treatment and greater care. The demand for improved services will come on all fronts-for pensions, treatment, pharmaceuticals and most importantly, in our hospitals and through home and extended care. This Government is meeting these challenges, not just with words but with action. Changes made to the repatriation determining system in January 1985 are now leading to reductions in the previously unacceptable times taken to process claims. Backlogs are reducing; further improvements will occur. In the past three years we have increased spending on veterans' affairs by 40 per cent, or about 20 per cent in real terms. Substantial extra spending has been allocated to service pensions, as large numbers of veterans have reached retirement age, and to meet the increase in the numbers and success rate of claims for disability and war widows pensions. I am sure that every member in this House has had some relative who has served this great country in battle. Indeed my own father was in the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II and my wife's father was a prisoner of war during that terrible conflict. As well, various uncles were tragically killed during that horrible, tragic, long, drawn out struggle. So it is with some passion, pride and sympathy that I fully support the amendments to the Repatriation Act, which involve extra repatriation benefits and entitlements worth more than $50m in a full year. I firmly believe this Government's alterations to the Act will overcome the concerns expressed by members of the ex-service community. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.23) —I wholly concur with the remarks made by my colleague the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). The Government has not exactly been dragged into this place screaming, because it was forced into consultation which it promised to undertake before the introduction of the veterans' entitlements Bills and the measures contained therein. The veteran community will remember, and interested Australians will also recall, that in May of this year, in the dying days of that sitting of the Parliament before the winter recess, the Government saw fit to introduce a Bill which subsequently was subjected to pressure such that the Government was required to undertake the consultations that it had promised veterans and interested people in the community. That little episode brought no credit upon this Government. At the same time, the outcome of the efforts of the coalition parties in opposition justifies the stand taken in this place and in particular by our colleagues in the Senate. The attempted avoidance of those consultations has been proven to have been not necessary. While it does not appear to have been known to the Government at the time, veterans' organisations have always been eminently responsible and they have shown once again that when they have an opportunity to make a contribution they act responsibly, at the same time having the interests of their members at heart. Members of the veteran community and others have been put to unnecessary trouble and expense. They have been put to that trouble and expense even though, with the benefit of hindsight, it is probable that the same or similar outcomes would have been attained if the promise to consult had not been broken. It has caused unnecessary worry to veterans, widows and their dependants. As my colleague the honourable member for Farrer has already mentioned, the assets test remains, despite the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not to take money out of pensioners' cheques. That promise ranks in infamy with the pledge not to impose a capital gains tax. Because the assets test remains, as already foreshadowed by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, we will attempt to amend the Bill in the Committee stage, in accordance with the policies of the Liberal and National parties, to have the assets test provision removed from the legislation. I remind interested people in this chamber and those who may be listening that it remains coalition policy to abolish the assets test for both veterans and age pensioners around the country. There are 13,272 veterans who have had their pensions cancelled or reduced as a result of the decision of this Government to impose an assets test, despite the Prime Minister's quite clear promise not to do so. As that figure suggests, the test has hit large numbers of veterans particularly hard. Improvements in the legislation before us over the original and now discredited Veterans' Entitlements Bill are certainly due to both principled and farsighted stands taken by the Opposition parties in forcing consultations on the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and his Government. The veteran community and its representatives have been elevated temporarily to the status of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which seems to be consulted by the Government on everything, although I doubt whether the veterans would welcome that analogy. Those consultations have produced a large measure of agreement with both the veteran community and the Opposition parties. That diabolical 40-year rule has now been excluded and we welcome that. The onus of proof requirement as set out in clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, has been clarified, although some doubts remain in my mind. However, we have been assured that the wording of that clause will not lead to difficulties in interpretation and will not lead to the great succession of legal challenges we witnessed under earlier legislation. I, among others, will wait and see, and I hope that it will be as effective as we have been told it will be. Measures included in this legislation were predicated in a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in May which was concerned entirely with cutting expenditures. That just goes to show where this Government's priorities lie and how it is prepared to mount just one more attack on the elderly of this country. This measure was justified initially on the basis that it was a cost cutting measure. That is bad enough in itself, but when it is aimed at veterans the cost saving justification warrants deeper consideration than the Government apparently has given or-if it has given it that consideration-has told us about. We have heard reference, and I am sure we will hear reference throughout this debate, to the O'Brien case. The Government is very selective in what it chooses to extract from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the O'Brien case. For instance, it omits to mention that that judgment was critical of the system as it now stands and of administration under the legislation as it then was. In fact, the judgment states that `there are costly and inefficient procedures which attend resolution of claims under the Act'. Another part of the judgment states: The expense of administering the system for determining claims must be very large. It further states: It may be that the cost of administering the system to preclude claims by those who are incapacitated but do not otherwise satisfy the prescribed statutory requirements, is not warranted. The Government omits to mention that sort of criticism and comment by a Full Bench of the Federal Court and at the same time ignores similar comments by, for example, Mr Justice Kirby when he handed down his judgment on the Perrot case. His Honour then said: The costly, time consuming procedure of appeals and reviews have been referred to a number of times in this Court. He went on to make the point that public funds may be better spent on veterans than on time consuming administration and legalities. Mr Justice Wilcox had similar comments to make in the Reid case. Following those remarks from the Bench, I quote from a letter received from a constituent. He said: The Commission is funded by an unlimited public purse and we have, in Western Australia, had the spectacle of four medical witnesses brought from New South Wales and Tasmania; the Director of Medical Services; one and two Assistant Commissioners and other staff from Canberra attending Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings. Even if the numbers from Canberra are likely to be less, it can be taken as certain that medical witnesses will be called by the Commission. For an applicant to call a medical witness would not only cost a minimum of $300, but would exclude the possibility of obtaining advice from the most competent specialists. They would not risk having to waste time attending Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings and disrupting their practices. It is very much cheaper and more authoritative to challenge the Commission's or the V.R.B's wrong decisions in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act . . . That is an expression of one individual in my electorate who is particularly well informed. The judicial statements to which I referred earlier were all made prior to amendments which came into effect on 1 January 1985. It is apparent to most of us that since then administrative costs must have further increased. They must have increased because there have been more boards to replace the Repatriation Review Tribunal and 70 delegates have been appointed to those boards. The number of back-up staff for those delegates has certainly increased. In recent years the Minister, through his Department, has created a division of legal services. That division apparently comprises an assistant commissioner and legally qualified and back-up staff. As I understand it, that division involves itself in instructing counsel and aides for cases before the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As my constituent has pointed out, in many cases staff are sent to Perth. It might be noted also that the Attorney-General's Department also briefs counsel for the Repatriation Commission and staff invariably attends hearings, so it seems that we have a duplication of legal costs, both actual and potential. I put it to the House and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, that the Government should undertake some review of the administrative costs involved in the light of those remarks that I have just quoted. In talking to this Bill and in trying to understand the rationale of the Government and the fears that it holds as to future costs involved in meeting the needs and reasonable demands of veterans, it is necessary to look at the numbers of men and women veterans. In August 1983 the secretary to the Commission cited the following figures: From World War I there were 12,200 surviving veterans; from World War II there were 546,000 surviving; and there were 185,000 surviving widows. In the Commission's report for 1983-84 the figures were: For World War I, 8,700 surviving veterans; for World War II, 515,300; and 215,000 widows. Of those widows, 54,549 were in receipt of war widows pensions. They are very wide fluctuations indeed and if they are the figures that people within the Department or the Commission are working on, and trying to grapple with, it behoves someone in the system at least to try to match them up, because if I and my colleagues want to add to the deliberations in this House we will need more accurate and consistent information than that. For example, there are no estimates available from the Commission, deliberately or not, of the numbers of ex-servicemen with full eligibility under active service provisions. There are no estimates of the numbers of women actuarilly likely to survive husbands and to qualify for the war widows pension. This is basic knowledge and it is unavailable to the Parliament and, presumably, to the Government. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: How can it be confidently said that predictions we are faced with are accurate if there are wide discrepancies in the basic figures we are being fed? It seems more than reasonable that sometimes numbers are deliberately inflated in official publications both from the Minister and from the Commission. To add to the confusion on the extent of our possible future obligations to veterans, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that 623,000 ex-service personnel are still alive and that 96 per cent of them are males. So there we have it. According to the Commission's secretary there are about 556,000 surviving veterans. According to the Commission's 1983-84 report there were 524,000 and, according to the Bureau of Statistics, there are 623,000. Who are we to believe? We could reduce that figure of 623,000 from the Bureau to 598,000 men. What are the reasons for these differences? The ABS figure that I cited included peacekeeping forces, merchant service personnel, allied service personnel, allied Defence Force service personnel, et cetera. If those men and women were extracted from the figure of 623,000, the total would be around 440,000. That is still a very wide discrepancy indeed. Incidentally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures include 51,700 veterans who were never married, 23,300 who are divorced and 37,500 who are widowed. If the implications of that are lost on Government members for the future commitment of the taxpayers of Australia to fund the needs of war widows, they had better think again. Including men in official figures who were never married, who are divorced or who are widowed could give a very wrong impression indeed. Given the doubts expressed by judges and others, which I have quoted, and given a lack of authoritative figures from official sources, questions on the cost of administration and benefits do arise. I want to address the provisions for reimbursing dental expenses which will apply to veterans. Some will know that there has been a $300 per annum limit imposed on expenses that veterans may incur in respect of some very ordinary dental treatment. I suggest that the Minister has not been to the dentist for a long time if he thinks $300 will go a long way. We have only to smile at a dentist and it will cost us that much, and if it is a wide smile it will cost a little more. The majority of items on the second Schedule covering dental expenses will cost more than $300. The simple outcome of that will be that many veterans will not be able to afford the treatment and will decline to have it because they will have to pay the balance. The effect of that could well be deleterious to their health and they may even be obliged to defer that treatment until some future time, when it will be more expensive and will probably be covered under Schedule 1. So they will then have the chance of being reimbursed, but in the meantime their teeth may have rotted to hell. They deserve better than basic treatment, which is all the Government has proposed with this measure. I add in this context that the limit does not apply to war-caused disabilities or treatment as a consequence of cancer, nor, I am pleased to say, does it apply to the majority of items on Schedule 1. Many local dentists are worried about the involvement of prosthetists in the legislation. I am not arguing the case for or against them because I am not adequately trained, but the dentists argue that prosthetists generally have insufficient education and training. What is more, the dentists claim that they are now involved as approved treaters, if you like, contrary to the advice given to the Minister and his Department from senior medical and dental consultants. If that is the case, the Minister might like to think again. The honourable member for Farrer has moved the following amendment which I have seconded: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading to the House- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(5.43) —I do not intend to detain the House for very long. Most of my remarks, which will be brief, will be directed to those areas of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill which most immediately impact upon the people for whom I am responsible, as all aspects of these Bills fall into the area of responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). Before I do that I want to make one or two general points. Firstly, I congratulate my colleague for carrying out what has been a long and difficult consultation to achieve the first really substantial rationalisation of repatriation legislation in this country for some considerable time, for eliminating, on the basis of some generosity, a great deal of confusion in this area and for bringing forward complex legislation in one easily comprehensible Act, which is in itself I think an act on the part of this Government of considerable benefit to veterans. He is to be congratulated on that. The second general point I want to make is that the protestations which have been made by members of the Opposition about what they would like to see implemented in a way that would substantially increase government expenditure in this area need to be balanced against what they are saying generally on public expenditure. I am prepared to offer a reasonable shade of odds that, in the unlikely event of the Opposition being returned to power in the reasonably near future, a vast amount of what has been suggested here as desirable actions by the Government would not see the light of day. I do not question the motives of the honourable members who have put forward these propositions. Like most members of the House, when it comes to representing their constituents interests, they are prepared to put them forward forcefully and sincerely. Whether or not they transform into practical aspects of government legislation is another matter entirely. We have to look at the general thrust of the attitudes of the parties over all rather than at their individual members when that type of consideration is looked at. The thrust of the Oppositions' argument on public expenditure matters at the moment ought not to give anybody who is particularly concerned about individual elements of public expenditure affected here any great cause for joy to think that a change in government would produce any satisfactory outcome. Having made those two general points, I would like to talk very briefly about three areas that directly affect me. The latter two are related. The first is the question of allotment related to service personnel who have not hitherto been allotted for repatriation benefits arising from service in or near the Vietnam area. The second point I want to canvass is our intention to provide cover beyond that contained in the original legislation for future enlistees in the defence forces for hazardous service experienced in peacetime. Thirdly, and related to that, is the Government's undertaking to put under assessment a specific military compensation scheme which, if we pursue it, would clean up areas of anomaly remaining in the relationship between the Repatriation Act and general compensation entitlements as applicable to defence forces-anomalies, I should add, that were there prior to this legislation and which to some extent remain. The first point that I want to deal with is that of allotment in relation to service in the Vietnam area. I want to make this point clearly at the outset and to make it again later: The decisions that the Government has taken in this regard in recent weeks are decisions taken very much in the area of an act of grace and not as a result of a decision that substantial injustices occurred at the time. I do not want my remarks to be construed in such a way as to lend force to argument that the Commonwealth believes that a substantial injustice resulted from decisions that were taken by our predecessors on who would be allotted for repatriation benefits related to exposure to potential risk by reason of continuing danger from activities of hostile forces or discontented elements in the Vietnam area at the time. Nevertheless, we believe that on information and representations presented to us there is justification to consider an act of grace action in regard to allotting a number of personnel hitherto not allotted but who served in the Vietnam area. Perceptions of government and defence at the time concerning the risk factor led to the determination that certain types of service, such as that of transport air crew, the crews of HMAS Sydney and supply and escort vessels would not attract allotment. In 1973, after the Whitlam Government had withdrawn Australian service personnel from Vietnam, the Government extended access to repatriation benefits to service personnel with three years peacetime service to achieve an all volunteer defence force. Mr Justice Toose, in his 1975 report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System, drew attention to the problem of different compensation cover applying in one accident. He cited the case of a soldier and a sailor who were both injured in the same accident-that is, not involving the enemy-while assisting with the unloading of HMAS Sydney in a South Vietnamese port. The soldier, having been allotted for special duty, was covered by repatriation legislation, while the sailor was covered by only the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Organisations such as the HMAS Sydney and Vietnam Logistical Support Veterans Association, the Returned Services League, the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council and the Armed Forces Federation of Australia have supported reconsideration of the question of allotment of certain groups who served in Vietman without being considered allotted for such service. Now that this Government has reviewed the question of allotment for service in Vietnam it has decided that all Australian service personnel on continuous full time service who served in any capacity in the declared special area of Vietnam's land and waters during the period from and including 31 July 1962 to and including 11 January 1973 will be deemed to have been allotted for special service and will have access to repatriation and defence service homes loan benefits. The Government's decision is in a sense, as I said earlier, an act of grace. Claims for repatriation and defence service homes loan benefits will generally be accepted from 5 December 1985. It should be remembered that Australian service personnel who were not allotted but who served in the Vietnam area were covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act for normal accidents and by the occurrence provision of the Repatriation Act so that, in the event of death or injury resulting from an occurrence involving the enemy, repatriation benefits were available. There was an interjection earlier about whether this would cover escort vessels. It does, provided that they went into that area so defined, which is clearly known and understood. The persons who served on those vessels but who subsequently did not-when the Whitlam Government brought in that entitlement-maintain their position in the defence forces, will now be able to secure that benefit. But, as I pointed out, we see this in the context of an act of grace action. We do not see it as a result of conceding that an injustice occurred at the time when they were not so allotted. The second point that I want to deal with-it is the subject of one of the elements of the Opposition's amendment-relates to the situation of future members of the defence forces and their entitlement to repatriation benefits. I am delighted that my colleagues agreed with me that, in addition to peacekeeping requirements, a definition related to hazardous service ought also to be brought into the legislation. We have given an undertaking that, at the earliest opportunity, there will be an amendment to the legislation to achieve that. That represents a very sound decision on the part of the Government in this regard. Whilst very demonstrably a vast array of activities are conducted in peacetime by the defence forces which ought not of themselves to attract particular attention in repatriation legislation because the problems confronted are not really all that different from those encountered by sections of the civil community, nevertheless there are a substantial number of areas of service activity to which that does not apply. It will now be encumbent on me to arrive at an appropriate definition of what constitutes hazardous service. Whilst not abusing the sensible efforts of the Government to achieve a reasonable approach on this issue, my inclination would be to err on the side of being supportive of the role performed by the Services in the situations which they find themselves in some of their training activities and, very much more specifically than that, in some of the activities that they undertake in situations which, as far as the general community is concerned, are abnormally hazardous. The requirement to do that for peacekeeping forces is generally agreed and I do not think I need to deal with that at any length. The final point I want to deal with is the question of a review by myself and my ministerial colleagues of an appropriate military compensation scheme. There is some suggestion that seems to have been implied-I think it is in the amendment if I read it right-that we ought to leave things as is until we have arrived at a decision. In my view I do not think that is a satisfactory situation. That would place us, in the exigencies of the way in which governments make decisions, in a position where we would be virtually obligated to arrive at a very hasty conclusion. I want to see, firstly, whether it is justified-I have an inclination that it is-and, secondly, that when we bring in such a compensation scheme, it is well-considered, detailed and as all-embracing as possible. If we decide to go down that course and we fail to achieve such a scheme I think that would be a very considerable cause for concern for the people for whom I am responsible. I do not want to be subject to substantial time pressures. I do not believe that I need to be subject to substantial time pressures if we are able to arrive, as I belive we will, at an effective definition of what constitutes hazardous service. I believe that that is the principal area of difficulty that would be experienced by the Services in relation to this legislation and it will be effectively covered by us. In being covered by us it will remove that substantial element of time pressure on me to arrive at a proper conclusion on a military compensation scheme. There are anomalies in the current situation that ought to be addressed. In view of the fact that members of the Services regard themselves, I think quite rightly, as having and experiencing unique difficulties in our community, a separate compensation scheme for them may well be likely to be found to have considerable merit. As I have said, we will conduct these discussions in an atmosphere of substantial financial restraint. There is an obligation on the Government-an obligation which has been argued very strongly by the Opposition in generality-and we take the point made in that area. I believe that the way in which we have approached budgetary questions indicates that we take this matter seriously. In that type of atmosphere the approach that we have developed to this consideration preserves the position for future Defence Force personnel. It should be said that currently serving personnel are and will continue to be in an adequate situation in this regard. We are talking here only about future Service personnel. That question is most effectively addressed by the process we have decided, and that is consistent both with the needs of serving personnel and with the requirement on the Australian Government to address seriously its responsibilities in this regard. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(5.58) —In recent months the Hawke Government has tried in vain to pacify the victims of this legislation. I believe that it has lost a fair measure of credibility with the veterans' community right throughout this nation. Although concessions have been made with changes that were announced to the original legislation in recent weeks by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), the exercise has failed because the promised measures prevent important compensation being paid to some deserving veterans. This Government is developing a poor reputation for reform skills, such as its strategy to crack down on fringe benefits. This legislation will disturb and deprive the honest long before it addresses the abuses of the system. The Australian Labor Party is throwing people to the wind in its master scheme to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the complex repatriation system. I use the words `consolidate', `rationalise' and `simplify' with a specific purpose because they were used in the opening lines of the Minister's second reading speech. I believe that those words are misleading and deceptive to the veterans' community of this nation. Nothing in those words really indicates that substantial changes will be made within this legislation. We were told at every turn by the Minister and by members of the Government that changes to this legislation were really non-existent and that it was a move to consolidate into one act a number of amendments. Indeed, I think the Minister mentioned the fact that the repatriation legislation has been amended on 90 occasions since 1920. This legislation is to bring together those amendments and the repatriation legislation that has been enacted since 1920. I believe that it is a gross deception to the veterans' community to bring in legislation that has a number of amendments-quite serious amendments-and implications for the veterans' community. I want to turn my attention first to the changes to the assessment of eligibility for totally and permanently incapacitated pensions. For a veteran now to qualify for a TPI pension he must first be eligible for the 100 per cent general rate pension. If a veteran has had the usual span of a working life, or has retired voluntarily, or has left work for reasons other than his disabilities, he is not entitled to a TPI pension. The Government has said that only in very rare cases will a veteran who is beyond the normal retirement age be eligible for this pension. How right it was! Let us consider the following case: In 1973, a veteran in my electorate, whom I will call Jones, applied for an increase in his disability pension. Mr Jones was then 64 years old and had received a 60 per cent general rate pension since 1966. Jones's application for increased compensation was rejected by a repatriation board. He worked for another year and then retired at the age of 65. In 1983 the applicant again applied for increased compensation. The claim made mirrored the 1973 claim-war-caused intermittent claudication. The applicant also claimed compensation for war-caused cancer of the bladder. After having waited 12 months for a decision, Mr Jones was told that his claim was unsuccessful in October 1984. An appeal was lodged in December 1984 and, in July 1985, all earlier rejections were overruled by the Veterans' Review Board. There was a reasonable hypothesis that Jones's diseases were war-caused. He was granted an extra 40 per cent compensation. His disability pension now totalled the 100 per cent general rate. Jones, now in receipt of the full general rate, was entitled to be considered for the TPI pension. But by then the Labor Government-that is, this Hawke Government-had passed the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act. The Act amended Schedule 2 of the Repatriation Act of 1920. A member of the forces with an accepted war-related injury or disease will not be considered to have suffered a loss of salary if the member has ceased work for reasons other than his incapacity from that injury or disease. That amendment took effect from 6 June this year. As Jones had worked until he was 65, he was disqualified for consideration for payment of the TPI pension. The only reason Jones had continued working until retirement was that he had no other choice. I submit that there is now a distinct incentive for veterans to retire early and, if eligible, to claim their TPI pension. It is unfortunate that Mr Jones's review was not finalised before the date the legislative changes took effect. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in a letter to me, stated: It is unfortunate that Mr Jones' review was not finalised before the date of effect of the legislative changes. This legislation is repugnant. Those lucky enough to have had cases finalised before 6 June will get the benefits. For the Mr Joneses it is just tough luck. How does the Minister excuse himself and his legislation? He said to me that the delays were a result of a backlog created in large part by staffing restrictions imposed by governments of my political persuasion. I say to Senator Gietzelt: That does not wash. There may have been delays in processing claims in my Government's day-indeed there are delays now in processing claims-but my Government did not penalise people for being last in the queue. My Government did not change the rules while the players were still on the field. For once and for all, let us agree that this legislation is retrospective, that it applies to the past as well as the future. The retrospectivity of this legislation will prevent thousands or worthy veterans from receiving increases in their disability pension. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has failed to appreciate the retrospectivity of this legislation and in doing so has misled the veteran community of north Brisbane. Mr Roy Glanville, a liaison officer working within my electorate of Petrie and attached to the Kedron-Wavell Returned Services League, has harshly criticised the retrospective nature of the amendments. I point out that Mr Glanville worked as an employee for the Department of Veterans' Affairs for 32 years. The honourable member for Lilley, replying to his criticism, has said that the amendments are simply not retrospective. I quote from a statement issued by her on 11 October: No existing pension entitlements are affected by the changes. Therefore, there is no retrospectivity. She continued: I have already made representations to the Minister on various aspects of Veterans' entitlements and I again spoke to him this week specifically regarding the Suburban Express article. The Suburban Express is the paper in which the article appeared. She continued: The following points are made on the basis of the most up to date advice of the Minister himself . . . I am saying to the Parliament that that statement was really made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, although it was issued under the name of the honourable member for Lilley. It is not unreasonable for her to have consulted with the Minister and his staff to get this information. A little further on in her statement she stated: Legislation simply clarifies what was always the intention behind the granting of TPI pensions but was not made sufficiently clear under the old provisions. This clearly illustrates that there have been changes to the legislation relating to eligibility. I submit to the House that the statement is really a smokescreen on the part of the Minister through the honourable member for Lilley. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, is really saying that every previous Minister, his predecessors, his departmental Secretary, his senior departmental officers and review boards have granted TPI pensions illegally. In other words, all those people have acted illegally over the years in granting TPI pensions. I say to the Minister: If ambiguity and doubt exist, amendments to the Act should be made to remove those doubts and confirm established positions-and I say they have been established positions over many decades. This is not the case. The Minister has withdrawn an established benefit that has been enjoyed by veterans in this nation for decades. Let me return to the comments made by the honourable member for Lilley. I remind the House that they are really the Minister's comments. It is stated: The claims that an element of retrospectivity is introduced because claims submitted before the changes will be dealt with after the changes and be subject to amended criteria do not stand up to scrutiny. I say to the honourable member for Lilley: `You are wrong, wrong, wrong. My Mr Jones case has proved you wrong'. In not understanding the full implications of the amendments, she has underestimated the impact of this legislation upon veterans. But then the honourable member for Lilley's reasoning of retrospectivity has an unsound base. She claimed: The mere lodgement of a claim for benefit does not carry with it the right to have the claim determined under the rules which applied at the time the claim was lodged . . . She then drew a parallel with the application for a loan. She stated: . . . any more than an application for a loan carries with it the right to have that loan granted at the interest rates which applied at the date of lodgement rather than the date of approval. Thousands of Australians buying their homes will know what she is talking about. I say to the honourable member for Lilley: `Your analogy is naive and inept'. Incapacitated veterans are in a totally different situation from money borrowers. To make such an analogy is to treat veterans with contempt. Firstly, the granting of a loan does not take up to a year or longer to finalise. Secondly, whilst I readily agree that increases in interest rates do occur-particularly under this Government-veterans are losing far more than borrowers have to pay when interest rates go up. Not only did veterans lose time during the war, but they also lost quality of life after service and they are now losing possible compensation of up to $120 per week. The loss has occurred because the rules have changed since the mere lodgment of claims some two years ago. I draw on the honourable member for Lilley's attempts to convince veterans that everything will be okay and that the Government will do the right thing by them, because her arguments are unsound and the details given to veterans are simply not true. I wonder whether other members of Senator Gietzelt's Party have, likewise, misled veterans on the retrospectivity of this legislation? In passing on the Minister's message, have other members also had the audacity to use arguments with inappropriate comparisons so as to convince veterans that their demands are unreasonable? No comparison can be made, as it was by the honourable member for Lilley, between the granting of a loan and a claim for a TPI pension. I ask the House to remember Mr Jones. He cannot walk 200 metres without pain; he has cancer of the bladder, probably war caused; he spent 3 1/2 years of his life as a prisoner of war and he also fought in one of the most horrific battles of the Second World War-the Battle of Tobruk. How dare anyone suggest to men such as Mr Jones that time has changed things, that the rules have changed. The honourable member for Lilley-again I remind honourable members that this is really the Minister speaking-has said: I am gravely concerned that incorrect information has been provided . . . and that it has caused unnecessary distress amongst the most vulnerable section of our community . . . Knowing the honourable member, I am sure that she is well intentioned, but regrettably-I will use her own words-it would appear that she has been given incorrect information. I ask: Have other Government members been given and passed on such information to veterans? Whilst the Government would have us believe otherwise, TPI claims, once determined on incapacity, are now being considered on economic ability to work. How else could this Government justify its decision not to increase compensation for veterans over 65 years of age as their disability worsens? The only justification-the loophole this Government has found to save itself millions-is by ruling out for consideration veterans past the age of 65, men past the age of working and men whose ability to earn has expired. Incapacities do not disappear after the age of 65-they usually worsen-but a man's capacity to earn does disappear. Whether this Government admits it or not, TPI pensions paid to disabled veterans prior to their retirement are not only compensation for wages lost but also compensation for war caused disabilities. The TPI pension granted at the age of 64 continues after retirement-that is, age 65-until the veteran dies. There is a gross inequality in that if a veteran receives the TPI pension at the age of 64, the pension continues until death; yet after the age of 65 a veteran is ineligible to be granted the TPI. A veteran can be in receipt of a 100 per cent disability pension and still work for full remuneration before the age of 65. Disability pensions up to and including the 100 per cent rate are paid when veterans earn fully, not in lieu of normal remuneration. They continue after retirement like TPI pensions. If this Government can pay millions of dollars in pensions to healthy, age pensioners, it must also pay the appropriate pension to veterans who are not healthy. These are men who will die, not directly of old age, but from war caused disabilities that hasten their death. I cannot comprehend how this Government has failed to recognise the difference. We are committed, and were committed many years ago, by a Labor Government to compensate veterans when their quality of life worsens with age. That commitment should continue to apply to men and women whose deteriorating health is an outcome of service to this country, with age not being a determining factor. That was the position prior to the June 1985 amendment. It should apply now. Veterans are the losers and, I suggest to the House, very bad losers at that. Their benefits have been diminished considerably. They have received shabby treatment by this Government. This Minister and this Government have deceived the veterans of Australia. As I explained earlier, this Bill was to pull together all amendments and Acts. There was to be no diminution of benefits. Let me go back to the amendments proposed when the Veterans' Entitlements Bill was first tabled. I make specific reference to the 40-year rule that was to apply to pension eligibility for widows of veterans and to the standard of proof provisions. I say to this House and to the veterans of this nation that, had it not been for the pressure applied by individual veterans, their organisations and members of the Opposition, both of the original proposals I have just mentioned would still have been in this Bill and would have become law. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill was to consolidate, rationalise and simplify. I suggest, as I did earlier, that we have not just consolidated, rationalised and simplified. Indeed, we have taken away benefits from veterans. The mere fact that the Government has relented on the two issues I have mentioned is proof that the Government has been and is about diminishing benefits to the veterans of this nation. No amount of protestation by the Government will change these facts. Veterans have had it in the neck from Senator Gietzelt. The Hawke Government has little concern for veterans and their dependants. Its track record demonstrates that clearly. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.18) —To listen to the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), one would imagine that the sole purpose of the Government's being in power was to lose it. He uses the one example he quoted, that of Mr Jones who missed out on having his case heard before the legislation went through, as justification for the assertion that the Government is in some way getting stuck into the veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that if one looks at the expenditure we have made in the veterans' affairs area since we have been in power-a rise of 40 per cent; a rise of 20 per cent in real terms-one can see that we have not been very stingy with our money. We put our money where it is needed. I make the point that governments of the past have tended to get a bucket of money and throw it at beneficiaries rather than target the money where it is really needed. On the other hand, since the Hawke Government had been elected to power it has taken the responsible view that need should be the determining criterion where pensions and benefits are paid. Not long after we were elected to government we introduced a tax on lump sum superannuation, which ended one rort. We also introduced the assets test. I notice that an Opposition amendment moved today deals in part with that measure. However, I will come back to that later. Certainly, if we work on the principle that benefit should be paid to people who need them we can save the Government considerable amounts of money and still look after the people who need the repatriation benefits we are talking about today. Members of the Opposition have talked about the fact that the Government brought in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill hastily. We had a reason for that, which the Opposition has alluded to-the O'Brien case-which changed the onus of proof. If the situation had not been corrected it would have meant a blowout in the amount of money that would have had to be paid through the repatriation system. It is not a small amount of money. In a full year it would have amounted to $650m. Whilst members of the Opposition seem to think that is a small amount of money and that we should take our time, this Government takes the view that the situation had to be stopped, and we stopped it. I am happy to say that the onus of proof in the legislation today satisifes the criterion of stopping that blowout and also addresses the needs of the veteran community. I turn to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). After I received a copy of it I went to the office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to have a look at the impact it would have on the Budget. I was told that the first of its four provisions will mean spending more money. The last provision is axiomatic, we do not have to worry about that. This Government will scrutinise closely any legislation it puts through. We are always open to views from people who are affected by the legislation. I would like to pick up on paragraph (a) of the amendment-the reimposition of the Government's assets test. I am told that 13,272 veterans are affected by the assets test. I can tell honourable members that they are the richest veterans, and not the poorest. Certainly, as far as the social security provisions are concerned the revenue savings in the social security and repatriation areas will be in the order of $140m to $150m. We are not exactly sure of the sum. However, one thing we can say with certainty is that the amount will escalate as time goes on. By the time the next election rolls around the figure will be well over $300m. If the Opposition likes to go around parading its present policy of getting rid of the assets test there is one thing it should tell the Australian population. I have raised the question before and I will raise it again. I have not had an answer to it and I do not think I will ever get an answer. If the Opposition removes the assets test will it raise taxes to give the pension to the 12 millionaires that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) talked about, or will it lower the pensions of the people who need them? The Opposition should think about that and give us an honest answer. Obviously, it demands an answer. The Opposition will not get away with it for too much longer. If its members go around during the next election campaign parading that policy, we will ask them where the money is coming from. Certainly I have raised the issue previously that having an assets test targets our money to those in need because without it one can arrange one's affairs in such a way that one is income poor but assets rich. That was happening. If honourable members care to look at editions of the Pensioners' News which appeared after the assets test was removed by the Fraser Government one will see full page advertisements by firms trying to attract customers from the pensioner community to invest their money with them in such a way that they would get full pensions. The fact that we did not have an assets test must have made us the laughing stock of anybody overseas who came to Australia and saw our social security provisions. I remind the House that we had an assets test between 1908 and 1976. If one looks at the history of the demise of the assets test and the granting of provisions to pensioners affected by the assets test one will see that the conservative governments of the past have used pensions, usually at election time, to gain votes. That is without doubt. Certainly, one question which arises from the amendment moved by the Opposition with its cost implications is whether it reflects the wet policy, the dry policy or the economic rationalists' policy espoused by our new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who, before he became Leader of the Opposition, was well known around this House for his support of the assets test. He never said so in the House or spoke against it, but he always saw the economic necessity for it. Showing the moral manoeuvrability of conservative leaders of the Opposition, as soon as he got into that chair he did a U-turn and economic rationality went out the window. I also take this opportunity to correct a misrepresentation that Mr Bruce Ruxton of the Returned Services League has spread about me concerning the one day sitting of the House of Representatives to agree to the amendment to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill passed by the Senate. Honourable members may recall that on that day when the amendment was put to the House it went through on the voices. There was no division. Where we divided was in knocking off the adjournment debate. Divisions were called on that motion. During one of those divisions I called out to the Whip that he had better make it a fast count because we had to get out and catch aeroplanes. A journalist sitting in the gallery correctly reported what I said. He said that it was the wish of honourable members that there should be a fast count, so he was accurate in what he said. However, that was misrepresented by Mr Ruxton in Melbourne and also at the RSL annual conference. He said that my remarks showed the lack of concern of the Hawke Government for the veterans community. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wrote back to Mr Ruxton saying that he should study the rules of the Parliament and that if he did maybe he would not make such remarks. I am encouraged by the news from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that those servicemen who served on HMAS Sydney and on the support vessels in the war zone during the Vietnam War will be covered by the amendments in this legislation. I am also encouraged by the fact that we are now excluding members of the current defence forces from repatriation system entitlements. Since 1972, 90,000 members of the defence forces have benefited from repatriation system entitlements. The Government takes the correct view that such entitlements are for war veterans and not for those in the defence forces who have never seen active service. Therefore, as the Minister has pointed out, we will move to make sure that provisions relating to members of the current defence forces will be addressed in legislation that will be introduced to the House subsequently. I make the point that Opposition amendment (1) (b) refers to: the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting- Mr Tim Fischer —You should leave them in until you have your military compensation Act in place. Mr GEAR —Members of the defence forces will still have to serve for three years before they become eligible for the benefits. So as long as that legislation is introduced before that time, no one will be disadvantaged. I conclude by congratulating the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the wide consultation he has had with the veterans community. He has consulted with the RSL, the Legacy organisation, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council. I am also told, with regard to the 90 seminars held throughout Australia, that at least 10,000 interested veterans turned up to make a contribution. The veterans of Australia can rest assured that the Hawke Government will continue the policy of former Labor governments because Labor governments, above all else, honestly believe that governments have a role to play. When people such as war veterans or those who through no fault of their own find themselves at the end of their working lives with no support system, the Labor Party has always taken the view that they should be looked after by society. I am happy to say that we have the best repatriation legislation in the world. Under this Government, it will be maintained at that level. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Debate (on motion by Mr Cowan) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —The attention of the House is drawn to the fact that the Australian Trade Commission Bill 1985 and the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985, currently orders of the day Nos 3 and 4, Government Business, do not comply with the provisions of standing order 213, as the long titles of the Bills do not agree with the long titles which were indicated in their notices of presentation. Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 214, therefore, the Bills shall be ordered to be withdrawn. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the Bills be withdrawn and that orders of the day Nos 3 and 4, Government Business, namely, Australian Trade Commission Bill 1985, second reading, resumption of debate, and Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985, second reading, resumption of debate, be discharged. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(8.03) —I move: That the Bill be new read a second time. This Bill replaces the Bill that I have just withdrawn because of a technical error. The provisions of this new Bill are identical to those of the previous Bill which honourable members have already had a chance to consider. The points made in my second reading speech of 11 October 1985 for the previous Bill also remain the same. By way of explanation, the notice of presentation given in relation to the Bill did not exactly correspond to the long title of the Bill as presented. The two words `outside Australia' should have been removed from the long title in the notice. I subsequently received a letter from the First Parliamentary Counsel, the text of which is as follows: The abovementioned Bills were introduced by you in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1985. I have been informed by the Clerk of the House that the notices given in relation to the Bills do not accord with the titles of the Bills and leave will have to be sought for the Bills to be withdrawn and reintroduced. I understand that the Parliamentary Liaison Officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be proposing that you give only a shortened second reading speech when the Bills are reintroduced. I apologise for the embarrassment that this has caused to you on this occurrence. It appears that the officer who prepared the notices overlooked some changes that were made at a late stage to the titles of the Bills and I have taken administrative steps which I hope will prevent further occurrences of this kind. I am indebted to the First Parliamentary Counsel for his explanation of this matter. I apologise to the House; it is clearly a matter for which I am responsible. I am sure the House will appreciate that this was an oversight which could not have been easily avoided. I apologise for the inconvenience that this has caused to the House and I hope that it will not prevent the early passage of this important Bill and the one that follows it. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(8.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill replaces the Bill I have just withdrawn because of a technical error. The provisions of this Bill are identical to those of the previous Bill which honourable members have already had a chance to consider. The points made in my second reading speech of 11 October 1985 for the previous Bill remain the same. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr SPEAKER —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.08) —I am pleased to speak in general terms to both the cognate Bills before the House-the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. I appreciate that time is very limited and there are many honourable members who wish to join the debate, so I will be brief. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill has actually created more interest within my electorate that many other pieces of legislation and actions of the Government for a long time. People have been very concerned about it and I suppose that, had it not been for the fact that the Senate inserted the sunset clause, the original legislation, as brought before the Parliament by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), would have been enacted and would have continued for quite a time. However, the Minister was forced to bring the legislation back in an amended form and now it must be law by 5 December. There was great concern about it because our veterans are people who are greatly respected within the community for what they have done. Nothing would stir the community more than for a government to take action that would take from the veterans some of the privileges that they have enjoyed over the years. When I say `privileges' I refer basically to the compensation that is paid to ex-servicemen and women within the Australian community. Basically, it is compensation and I believe that it should not be termed a social security grant from the government or from the taxpayers. I will not trace the history of this legislation, because it has been done by previous speakers; but I can refer to the O'Brien case. We had no objection to the fact that the Government had to bring before the Parliament certain measures that would quell a situation in which anyone could appeal and be granted a pension. That was done; but, in addition to that, certain amendments were made to legislation that was first enacted in 1920, after the first World War. The principles enacted in that Act are the principles that we are asking to be continued now. I pay tribute to the fact that the Returned Services League, through Sir William Keys and the State branches, was able to confer with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and to bring common sense to a problem of great concern to many ex-servicemen and women throughout Australia. I pay tribute to the RSL, because, at great cost in time and expense, it was able, in its normal competent manner, to point out the anomalies in the legislation. It concerns me greatly that there should be any action, by any government, to reduce the compensation or pensions that were being paid or to restrict the pensions being paid under Australian laws. It is true that our Repatriation Acts are generous, and as generous, perhaps, as any in the world. But this country recognises the obligation that we have to those people who have served this country in the numerous wars in which we have been involved. I have been terribly concerned over assets testing generally, and that concern is shared by my colleagues on the Opposition benches. Over 13,000 recipients of Veterans' Affairs pensions have been subject to either a reduction in or abolition of their pension. That immediately brings to my mind a great sadness on the part of people who have approached me, as a representative of the people, and have asked: `Why should I be picked out, after paying tax for a lifetime and after serving my country?' In many cases there have been health consequences of such service, and people ask: `Why should I be singled out?' My mind immediately goes to people living in country areas on perhaps a dairy farm or a small grazing property who have just had no where else to live. They could not keep their country clean or keep up their pasture improvement, or even at times could not attend the necessary sales to buy stock. But they wanted to remain on their properties and to live there. Many of those concerned have lost their pensions, both age pensions and service pensions, because they have stopped on the land on which they wanted to live. It is very sad indeed to listen to such cases. Some members of the Government have said this afternoon that the Opposition scared returned servicemen concerning the legislation. We never scared anybody. The returned servicemen and women, and the widows, with the 40-year period, were terribly concerned. I assume that all of us have met representatives of RSL sub-branches in our electorates, besides getting dozens and dozens of letters from within the electorate stressing people's concern. Why should aged people, particularly those who have served their country in time of war, be subject in the latter part of their life to legislation that will worry them and take something from them, or may impinge on their future so far as pension entitlements are concerned? It was the same with the assets testing in regard to pensions. It is the same with these Bills. Why introduce these measures to worry decent Australians who are so concerned? Mr Slipper —The salt of the earth. Mr COWAN —The salt of the earth, as my colleague says. Is is necessary to take these initiatives, which will scare those concerned? I am pleased to say that after long discussions among the RSL and members and representatives of other groups in the community and the Minister, a basic agreement has been reached between all parties concerned. But there are still anomalies, which I shall not go into now because they have been dealt with; they relate to the totally and permanently incapacitated entitlements and other issues. The Minister will bring forward further amendments, as the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said earlier when he sought an assurance that such amendments would come before the House in the pure and simple terms in which we believe they should be formed, would come in the next session of the Parliament and would basically tidy up many of the problems about which we are concerned. We must realise that servicemen today are the same as others who have served before them. They are not highly paid people. They are on very meagre remuneration for what they do. From talking to men and women in the Services, I appreciate that they feel that they are dedicated to the defence of Australia, so they make their services available for that. Therefore, it is only fair that they receive a reasonable return for their duties. I have been concerned for many years-under not only the present Government but also the previous Government-that there have not been constant reviews of remuneration for service people. In considering the superannuation tax that has been imposed by the Government, it is very sad to think that a person who has served within the Services is subject to a tax of 31 1/2 per cent on his lump sum entitlement at the end of his period of service. That is the time when such people would normally be planning to buy a home, a farm, or a business or something. A lot of the money that they felt would come to them is being taxed and taken away from them. I am very pleased to join in this debate, particularly on behalf of my constituents and of RSL people who have been concerned about this matter. I just stress the point that I hope that never again will any move be made, particularly in the Federal Parliament, no matter who forms the government, that will deprive any ex-service man or woman who has served this country and who may be subject to entitlements and that even over the years to come we shall take no action to take anything from the people concerned. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.17) —Tonight I address the debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the cognate Bill. This Bill is the most significant piece of legislation in the more than 60 years since the repatriation system was first established in Australia. As mentioned earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), these Bills will not only consolidate and simplify repatriation legislation by replacing more than 90 pieces of existing law, but will also provide a better deal for veterans and their dependants by extending pension and medical entitlements. The Bills were drafted around the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, which comprises representatives of the Returned Services League of Australia, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council. The draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill was tabled, rather than formally introduced, following the May economic statement. The tabling mechanism was used to enable time for discussion of its provisions with veterans and veterans' organisations. Material on the Bill was easily available and widely circulated. Officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs attended many seminars across the country to explain the Bill and to answer questions. I understand from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that approximately 10,000 veterans took the opportunity of consulting members of the Department's staff. The Government has taken account of many of the views expressed in its discussions with the veterans community in determining the final form and content of this Bill. It is important to emphasise at this point that no veteran or dependant of a veteran will lose an existing pension or benefit as a result of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, except possibly where changed circumstances apply to a veteran's own position. On the contrary, the Bill contains a number of provisions which will benefit veterans and their dependants. These include: The extension of eligibility for disability pension to veterans who were domiciled in Australia immediately before either World War I or World War II and who served in such war as a member of an allied force; disability, orphans', and war widows' pensions as compensation for war-caused injury, disease or death; service pensions as income maintenance for veterans with qualifying war service and subject to an assets/income test who are over 55 years of age for females or 60 years of age for males and for permanently unemployable veterans of any age; disability pensions for members of peacekeeping forces, and war widows' and orphans' pensions for the dependants of a deceased member; and medical treatment for entitled veterans and their dependants. Furthermore, as a result of the consultative process entered into by the Government it has reframed the standard of proof provision in a way more acceptable to the veteran community, and in particular it has removed the 40-year rule which applied the less generous civil standard of proof to war widow's pension claims where a veteran dies or died 40 years or more after service. Changes to the standard of proof provision deserve further comment. This provision was originally amended in May 1985 to overcome the O'Brien decision, as some honourable members have already mentioned, which had meant, on the legal advice available to the Government, that a pension would potentially have been payable in respect of virtually every disability or death of a veteran. The new provisions are, briefly, that all veterans with operational service get the benefit of the more generous criminal standard of proof; a pension is not payable in the absence of material giving rise to a reasonable hypothesis of a relationship between service and disability or death; there is no onus of proof on any party in the repatriation determining system; and there is to be no 40-year rule applying the less generous civil standard of proof to war widows' claims where a veteran dies 40 years or more after service. Like many other members of parliament I have received numerous letters from veterans in my electorate concerning both the standard of proof provisions and the 40-year rule. I am therefore pleased that the Government has recognised the concerns of members of the ex-service community in respect of these provisions and has been able to arrive at an acceptably worded standard of proof provision which nevertheless negates the impact of the O'Brien decision. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, has openly praised the role of former Judge Paul Toose in achieving an acceptable form of words, and I am sure that other members of the House will join with me in thanking him also. I am especially pleased to see the inclusion in this Bill of repatriation coverage of certain defence personnel who served in Vietnam during the conflict there, such as members of the crew of HMAS Sydney and its support ships. I received representations on this matter also and I am pleased that those people in my electorate who were concerned will now have their minds set at rest. The Opposition would have the Australian people believe that this Government does not care about the welfare of veterans and their dependants. As my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) said earlier, nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister and the Government are most concerned that the rights and welfare of veterans are preserved. What they could not agree to was a continuation of the uncertainty created by the O'Brien decision and the prospect of opening the floodgates on disability pension eligibility right across the board, costing an estimated $650m. The amendments to the draft Bill which are before the House today, and some of which I have referred to previously, are worth more than $50m in a full year. The Minister has emphasised that following these changes virtually all of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, which is chaired by the Returned Services League National President, Sir William Keys, have now been adopted. I wish to draw attention to the comments made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) because I was surprised to learn, subsequent to his comments before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, that he had not extended to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) the customary courtesy of advising her that he would be attacking her in such a scurrilous and personal way. I understand that the honourable member for Petrie's information is at the very least inaccurate and that the honourable member for Lilley has conducted continual consultations with veterans in her electorate and has been congratulated on her commitment in this area by members of the local veteran community. It is important in this context to clarify somewhat the position concerning the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, because that is what the honourable member for Petrie was talking about. The totally and permanently incapacitated pension was never intended to be available to veterans who had worked a full life and retired; it was intended for those who were so disabled by their service as to be precluded from earning other than a negligible percentage of a living wage. The Minister made this quite clear in his second reading speech. The amendments concerning the TPI pension which appear in the Bills we are debating tonight merely set down the judgment in the Bowman case. The application of the Bowman test to veterans, many of whom in 1985 have their working careers largely behind them, is not unfair in the context of the historical development of the category of veterans for whom the TPI pension was designed. I am reliably informed that the test has never applied without a complete examination of the particular veteran's personal circumstances to determine eligibility for a TPI pension. There are no mechanical formulae which establish that exactly the same service related disabilities suffered by any two veterans will result in both those veterans obtaining the same pension. Nor is it true that because a veteran is over 65 years of age, or any other age, he or she will automatically be ineligible for a TPI pension. If a veteran is prevented from earning a living by reason of service related disabilities he or she will be eligible to apply for a totally and permanently incapacitated pension with a very good chance of success. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his endeavours in relation to this legislation and his commitment to extensive and meaningful consultations with the veteran community. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —I have just been informed by the Minister for Science that we have present in the gallery the Honourable Datuk Amar Stephen K. T. Yong, Minister for Science, Technology and Environment from Malaysia, and his officers. On behalf of the House I offer a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(8.27) —Before speaking I would have liked to seek some information from the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) in relation to the statements just made about him. Unfortunately he is not in the chamber and I am unaware of whether he was acquainted with the fact that he should have been here to hear the things said about him. However I am sure that in due course he will give his own explanation. I have found the piety of a number of Government members on this legislation quite breathtaking. I wonder where their great concern for the veterans was in May 1985 when we debated the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. It was in that Bill, a part of the consequences of the May mini-Budget, that the draconian provisions being reversed in these Bills and referred to by Government members so piously, were actually introduced. It was in response to that Bill that there was such great uproar in the veteran community. I did not hear any of the Government members who have spoken so far in this debate say anything publicly at that time, regardless of the fact that there was great uproar about the changes. I did not hear any of them complain, for example, about the guillotine put on the debate on that legislation. These terribly important changes-important now that they are being reversed-were given scant attention indeed in the House of Representatives. I was one of many members who would have sought to make a contribution in that debate but were unable to because of the few minutes that were allotted by the Government to debate that repatriation Bill. I am not aware that any Government speakers who have joined in the debate on this legislation raised any opposition whatsoever to that guillotine on that important Bill. It is a fact that the Fraser Government initiated the review of repatriation legislation with a view to the introduction of just such a Bill as we are debating this evening, the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It is true that this omnibus Bill replaces a very large number of other Bills. I just want to put on record in the debate that it was the objective of the last Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Fraser Government, Senator Messner, to achieve just that. It was he who initiated the review. Of course we support the general thrust of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill as it is now presented to us and we particularly welcome the reversal of the more obnoxious provisions of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill introduced by the Hawke Government in May of this year. It is extremely doubtful whether the improvements that this Bill contains over the Bill that I have just referred to would have happened without the insertion of a sunset clause as a result of the combined forces of the Opposition parties in the Senate, a clause that has forced the Government, under pain of having those provisions expire in early December, to pay serious attention to the very unfair provisions of that Bill. I refer particularly to the 40-year limit and the onus of proof. The honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) said that this Bill is more generous than the previous legislation, but omitted to mention that it was her own Government's legislation that was being liberalised. I will refer later to the sunset clause and matters that arose out of it in relation to the Government and the Opposition both here and in the Senate. Again we are under pressure of time and we have all been asked voluntarily to limit our contributions to the debate to enable our colleagues to make any contribution at all, so I do not intend to canvass all the principal provisions of this Bill. I will concentrate simply on the 40-year rule, for a particular reason. Briefly, I totally endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), in his speech in opening the debate for the Opposition. I repeat that I do not intend to recanvass all of those issues. The 40-year rule was particularly iniquitous. It removed the opportunity for access to veterans' benefits after a 40-year period. I quote the views of the President of the A.C.T. branch of the Returned Services League, as succinctly expressed in a letter to me last August. He stated: The 40 year rule is discriminatory and iniquitous. This also demands that a different standard of proof be applied to claims that are made within 40 years of the completion of eligible service and those made after 40 years. This will have a significant impact on the claims made by war widows, particularly in those cases where deaths resulting from incapacity caused by diseases of unknown aetiology occur. This distinction is patently unfair and discriminatory. Two points need to be made in relation to war widows and the limitations that the 40-year rule introduced by the Hawke Government would have put on them. The first is that there are veterans who die from war-related causes, without having claimed veterans' benefits, simply because they have chosen not to claim those benefits. They have preferred to lead as normal a life as possible, despite their health having been impaired by war experiences, but they have chosen not to claim veterans' benefits in the expectation and previous knowledge that their widows would not be disadvantaged by that choice. Many veterans who are not in receipt of veterans' benefits and who are still in the work force, but probably not for many more years, have said to me that they have preferred to do the best they can. However, they suffer from disabilities caused by their war service. They were extremely distressed at the prospect that, because of the choice they made, their widows may well not have access to the entitlements which others who have chosen to claim veterans' benefits have had. One other very important aspect which arises out of this 40-year rule is highlighted by the recent excellent report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, the so-called Agent Orange Royal Commission. The report has served a very valuable purpose. I refer first to volume 8, entitled `Conclusions, Recommendations and Epilogue'. Chapter IX of that volume is headed `The Mental Health and Well Being of Veterans and Their Spouses'. I quote the salient conclusions: There have been mental well-being casualties amongst veterans of all wars. Homer describes the symptoms of the ancient Greek hero Ulysses in terms very similar to descriptions of those in 20th century veterans. After World War I the syndrome was called `shell-shock'. After World War II it was called `psycho' or `troppo'. The group of symptoms suffered by some Vietnam veterans includes flashbacks to terrifying events; nightmares; irritability; rage reaction; dizzy spells; anxiety; insomnia; depression; guilt feelings; headaches; low back pain; ulcer; migraine; irritable bowel syndrome; irritable colon; hypertension; paranoia; suspicion; crowd phobia; alcoholism. This syndrome or group of symptoms (no one suffers all of them! there is usually a group however), has been closely observed in veterans of WW I, WW II, Korea, Malaya, and the veterans of both sides of the middle eastern wars. It is not caused by the chemicals used in Vietnam. It is caused by stress. The Vietnam War was particularly stressful for its veterans . . . The report then lists particularities relating to the Vietnam war and goes on to generalities. It continues: About a quarter of veterans can expect to suffer 3 or more of the symptoms together at some time. The same set of symptoms is often seen in survivors of natural and other disasters (earthquakes, floods, car accidents, etc). It is now called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. . . . . The disorder is a normal response to stress caused by life threatening events. It is particularly important that the report of the Agent Orange Royal Commission puts on the Australian record for the first time something which I think people have known for a long time, which has been part of other countries' literature on veterans, but we have not highlighted it in this country in the past. The report is quite detailed in its treatment of it. I quote briefly from Volume 5, entitled `Mental Well-being', which refers to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It states: Symptoms may begin immediately or soon after the trauma. It is not unusual, however, for the symptoms to emerge after a latency period of months or years following the trauma. When the symptoms begin within six months of the trauma and have not lasted for more than six months the acute subtype is diagnosed and the prognosis for remission is good. If the symptoms either develop more than six months after the trauma or last six months or more, the chronic or delayed subtype is diagnosed. Impairment may either be mild or affect nearly every aspect of life. Phobic avoidance of situations or activities resembling or symbolising the original trauma may result in occupational or recreational impairment. ``Psychic numbing'' may interfere with interpersonal relationships, such as marriage or family life. Emotional liability, depression, and guilt may result in self-defeating behaviour or suicidal actions. Veterans have raised with me the issues of the 40-year rule and the points I have just covered in relation to that particular report. The allegations that the use of certain chemicals in Vietnam had caused certain behavioural disturbances amongst veterans, which had led to great marital distress and disruption of personal life, were at least partially responsible for the investigations undertaken by the Royal Commission. The specific allegation that those chemicals have played havoc with veterans' personal lives is addressed in those parts of the report to which I have referred. We can be grateful that the report puts certain things on record. It places on record that this is a normal post-war stress behaviour and disorder. Many wives of ex-servicemen from previous conflicts, particularly from World War II, but also Korea and other conflicts, have gone through exactly the same experience with their husbands as is described in the report. However, years ago it was not considered acceptable to air these things. It was thought that the families should cope with the men and their problems as they returned from war, that the problems should be kept within the home and that in due course they would go away. In many instances they did go away. However, in recent months World War II veterans who have approached me have been very frank about the fact that their behaviour, particularly as it affected their wives and children on the return from conflict, was something that they now say must have been very difficult indeed for wives to cope with. Most wives coped with it and for that the veterans are very grateful, but they feel that the country owes those women something too. These days divorce is a little easier and a course which people are more ready to take. There has been a very high rate of marital breakdown amongst Vietnam veterans. There always was a significant rate of marital breakdown amongst war veterans, but not nearly as high as it is now. I think that is because of the different society in which we live. The simple fact is that those women, and their children if any, weathered the storm, saw their husbands through it and were undoubtedly rewarded for their patience and great forebearance over time. As a nation we owe those women a great debt, because through them those veterans ultimately were able to return to a normal life, with a recognition now that their behaviour then was not easy to cope with. Those veterans whose families stayed with them had a far better chance of continuing normal life. It should be put on record that in many ways we owe the wives of veterans, including widows of those who died in conflict, a great debt. The 40-year rule, in the way this Government brought it in, justifiably caused an uproar. I refer now to the so-called sunset clause amendment to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. In common with other Opposition members, I know that the Returned Services League sub-branches in my electorate received a telex, courtesy of the Australian Democrats, when that Bill was under debate in the Senate. I shall quote some parts of it to place on the record what a despicable thing this was. The telex read in part: Australian Democrats deeply disturbed at the likely result of the Government's assault on the onus of proof provisions (section 47) and repatriation generally. The history of the Bill is as follows: (1) The House of Representatives passed the Bill without Liberal opposition. (2) Democrats announced total opposition to the Bill in the Senate. (3) Liberals refuse to support Democrat opposition and suggest useless amendment to pass Bill and review it in six months. (4) Democrats strenuously object to this betrayal of ex-servicemen and women and offer to challenge the Opposition to a deferral until the Budget session in keeping with the express promise made to veterans by the Minister. I say in response to that statement that the Democrats are now hoist with their own petard. Not having got away with the attempt to defer the Bill-a deferral that we did not support because we did support the general concern that was raised by the O'Brien case; nevertheless we did not support the total thrust of the Bill-it is very clear that the amendment, the so-called sunset clause, was in fact very effective. Contrary to the assertions of that telex, which was sent out over the names of Don Chipp, Leader of the Australian Democrats, and Michael Macklin, the Australian Democrat spokesperson on veterans' affairs, it has been anything but a useless amendment as they termed it. The other part of that telex to which I wish to refer is the concluding statement in which Senator Chipp and Senator Macklin exhorted veterans organisations to bring pressure to bear on Opposition senators before the Senate rose in May. They said: Unless this support is forthcoming Democrats will be swamped by Labor, Liberal and Nationals and benefits of veterans will be taken away. Thanks to the sunset clause the benefits have been re-established and nobody is disadvantaged in the manner asserted by the Democrats. Those who would like to see a fuller exposition of just how crass and untruthful that telex by the Democrats was should read the speech that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, made on 27 May 1985, at pages 2536 to 2538 of the Senate Hansard. There they will find the Democrats' contribution, and in particular that made by Senator Chipp, properly dealt with. In conclusion, I fully support the amendment moved by the Opposition spokesman on veterans' entitlements, in that whilst we are not declining to give the Bills a second reading, we express our concern in relation to the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans' service pensions because of its in- iquitous impact; the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the new legislation without a new military compensation Act being in place; the creation of different levels of entitlement and categories in respect of allied veterans and war widows and the degree of anomaly associated with the retrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes. The Opposition also calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs. I recommend that amendment to the House. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.44) —Only a few weeks ago we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the end of World War II and only a few months before that mourned the seventieth anniversary of the landing of the Anzacs at Gallipoli. In our brief history more than 120,000 Australians have died as a direct and immediate result of the many wars that we as a nation have been involved in. Many hundreds of thousands have been injured and still suffer various effects of their service. Most of our veterans are now over 65 years of age; in fact 80 per cent are over 60 years of age, and it is projected that there will be more than 180,000 beneficiaries aged 75 or more by the turn of the century, which is a mere 14 years away. The old Repatriation Act has been patched up over 90 times since 1920 with legislative band-aids and it has still been expected to run smoothly and rapidly. It is therefore ironic that members of the Liberal-National Party coalition, which itself is continually being patched up with band-aids, come into this House today with petty criticisms of such landmark legislation as this Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and its cognate Bill. Of course what really gets up their nose, what all the bull and bluster of the Liberals and the Nationals is all about, is that this Hawke Labor Government has done what they failed to do for decades. This Government has recognised the inadequacies and anomalies of the old outdated repatriation legislation and, what is more, it has done something about it. But perhaps I misjudge them. Perhaps they did recognise the inadequacies of this legislation, but if they did that would only compound the stark reality, that they failed to do anything about it for decades; they left it for so long. Mr Tim Fischer —We commenced this legislative review. Mr STAPLES —Yes, the Opposition commenced it when in government but it took it a long time to do even that. The conservative Liberal and National parties should be castigated by the Government and the community not only for failing to act on the apparent problems of today, but also for failing to prepare the repatriation system for possibly its greatest test-the escalating growth of aged veterans in Australia. As I said before, by the year 2000, only 14 years away, there will be more than 180,000 beneficiaries of the repatriation and veteran system aged 75 and over. By simple and stark contrast the Hawke Labor Government has acted with characteristic speed, decisiveness and straightforward honesty of policy. It is no use the Opposition saying that it was just about to do something when it lost government and that it was going to introduce it. That excuse just will not work. At present there are about 15 people in this House with war service, and as far as the members of the Opposition are concerned they must have all been in the artillery; they were all gunners. They were gunner fix up the repatriation system, they were gunner fix up the taxation system, they were gunner fix up the tax avoiders and tax evaders, they were gunner fix up industry and inflation, they were gunner fix up unemployment and they were gunner do this and gunner do that. But they never got around to it, did they? They had plenty of time but never got around to it. But what this Hawke Labor Government has done with this legislation-not going to do, but has done-is take the 292 recommendations of the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, chaired by Sir William Keys, President of the Returned Services League of Australia, and incorporate virtually all of them into this legislation. As for consultation with the veteran community, that is a hallmark of this Government. That is a record that cannot be equalled, and this was clearly pointed out by the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) a short while ago. Time does not permit me to highlight the hundreds of changes that have occurred to this legislation. Again the honourable member for Cowan so capably recorded many of those in her contribution but I point out that this Government has also put considerable effort into framing the legislation in plain, understandable English and into the preparation of guides and sets of principles for easier use and understanding of the new legislation and the treatment system. As a result of the extensive consultation following the tabling of the proposed legislation in May this year the Government has decided to do quite a few things. Among those, it will extend benefits to particular defence personnel who were obviously ineligible, such as those who served on HMAS Sydney on its Vietnam tours. For how many years have veterans from HMAS Sydney been lobbying members of parliament about this? For how many years have they been treated not as second class veterans but as third class veterans? Mr Robert Brown —Rubbished by those opposite. Mr STAPLES —They were the ones who sent young people there but they did not give those veterans proper veteran entitlements. The flag waving and breast beating of the sanctimonious Opposition is really a lot of bluster and rhetoric. The Opposition cannot be taken seriously when it criticises the Government for what it is doing in this area. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is to be commended for his dedication to Australia's veterans. Look at what he has done in 32 months-not 32 years. He has introduced this landmark legislation and created an overhaul of an archaic and delay-ridden repatriation system. He has established a committee of review into the repatriation hospital system, gazetted a number of United Nations and Australian peacekeeping forces so that their members can receive access to the repatriation system, established a wider extension of Vietnam veteran counselling services and, for the first time, an Australian government has incorporated into statute a broader range of support services for veterans so they cannot be knocked off at some later time. The implementation of a major construction and re-equipment program is now going on in our repatriation hospitals. Many of them-one in my electorate in particular-have World War II facilities. That is how much members of the Opposition care about the people who served and fought and died for their country and who protected them! This legislation and the changes going on in the Department of Veterans' Affairs are of particular interest to my electorate. My electorate contains the Repatriation General Hospital in Heidelberg and the Bundoora and Macleod repatriation hospitals. The nurses and the workers who operate in those hospitals with tremendous dedication under tremendously difficult conditions are to be absolutely commended by all people in this community-by veterans, by government, by the Opposition and the community. In this Budget $2m has been provided to set up a psycho-geriatiric unit at Heidelberg to treat the combination of old age and psychiatric disorders that appear so often and more often as the veteran population ages, especially a population that has had to undergo the rigours and torment of war. Without a specialist psycho-geriatric unit, strain is obviously put on other aspects of the system. We have to ensure that, as our veterans grow older, they are adequately protected in this way. Furthermore, again at Heidelberg, there will be construction of a new out-patients department. As people grow older, they are more likely to use hospital and treatment services. One of the most often used treatment services is obviously the out-patients department. Every year 52,000 veterans use that section at Heidelberg. It is overcrowded and what is more is in the old fibro huts put up in World War II and which the Opposition left there for these veterans. That is how much the previous Government cared for veterans. It left them out in the cold in these terrible old huts for 40 years. That is how much the Opposition thinks about veterans. The new out-patients department will cost $3.5m. It will have a new clinic with pathology, psychiatric, geriatric, surgical, administration and staff facilities. It will be a tremendous asset to the veteran community in my area and in Victoria right through to the beginning of the twenty-first century and beyond. The construction of new wards at Heidelberg will be at a cost of $7.1m. This is big money we are talking about, not just a few dollars here and there, but big money for structural changes to the repatriation system that will take it out of World War II and before that and bring it into the twenty-first century with modern up to date medicine, techniques and facilities. There are many other changes. One of the important aspects is the incorporation of many of these programs into legislation which cannot be knocked off. The home help scheme is very important in keeping veterans in their homes with their families and in a familiar environment. This was originally funded under the community employment program which is constantly abused and denigrated by the Opposition in this House. It was a pilot program under CEP and has now become a full program. It is also located at Heidelberg. It has already been shown to be a huge success in assisting veterans to live at home as long as possible. This legislation is really just part of the overall attack that this Government has made on the inadequacies of the repatriation and veterans system. Spending in three Budgets has increased by 40 per cent and by 20 per cent in real terms in the 32 months-it is easier to talk in months-of this Government. The Department of Veterans' Affairs share of the Budget has increased by 15 per cent in the past five years. There is a big and growing problem, but this Government has certainly shown that it is ready to deal with it. This legislation and all of the changes to the veterans' affairs system should show irrefutably, even to those who do not have the guts to admit it because of their political bias, that this Government and this Minister for Veterans' Affairs are determined to provide a system that will protect the members of the veterans community today and into the twenty-first century to ensure that our veterans are properly cared for. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.54) —I was interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples). He has a colourful turn of phrase. I hope that in the course of my speech I will be able to demonstrate to him that, rather than the straightforward sort of approach that he has suggested that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has taken on this matter, the history and the facts are somewhat different. It is arguable that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is the most important development for repatriation legislation since the Repatriation Act was introduced in 1920, which of course was immediately following World War I. Having said that, I divert for a moment to say that I was extremely disappointed that observance of the eleventh day of the eleventh month has been diverted for some by some spurious attempt to recreate the past. The fact is that Remembrance Day is most important not for any alleged coup or dismissal but for the fact that a great many Australians and others laid down their lives and their blood to allow the sort of democracy that we have in Australia to continue. It is very sad that observance of Armistice Day in Australia has been diverted in the way that it has been in the recent past. To return to the Bill, since the Repatriation Act was introduced in 1920, repatriation legislation has become progressively more complex and diverse as it was extended to include pension eligibility and medical treatment for World War II veterans and veterans in other conflicts such as those in Malaya and Vietnam. The object of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is to rationalise and simplify the situation by replacing the existing plethora of repatriation legislation with a single co-ordinated and consistent document. I applaud that objective because I believe it generally warrants the full support of this Parliament and of the Australian people. The legislation also deserves our unreserved support in principle because its primary purpose is to provide pensions and treatment for veterans and war widows, with compensation for loss and disability in the service of this nation. These payments are not matters of social welfare; they are compensation for people who have served their nation in a most generous and deserving manner. That is something which we on all sides of the Parliament should keep in mind. It is certainly my desire, and I believe that of my colleagues, that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill should provide veterans and their dependants with just compensation without further unnecessary parliamentary delays which might produce stress, uncertainty and concern for the many veterans. I note that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in referring to the Bill in a Press statement on 12 October 1984, stated: I now look forward to speedy passage with bipartisan support from the Opposition, and the endorsement of major ex-service bodies. The sooner the Bill becomes law, the sooner the veterans community can begin to benefit from its many positive provisions. However, it is somewhat hypocritical of the Minister to ask for this support in view of the extremely insensitive manner in which the Government has introduced and handled this important matter. Let us not forget for a moment that this Government announced its intention to make major revisions to the repatriation legislation in the mini-Budget statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 14 May 1985 and that this emphasised changes which would contain and indeed reduce the rapid growth in veterans' benefits and allowances. We were told that this was necessary as a result of a recent High Court of Australia decision which is now universally referred to as the O'Brien case. Is there little wonder that the veterans community felt extremely threatened by this Government announcement? The Government certainly did not inform me of the considerable work put into the development of draft legislation by an advisory committee of ex-service leaders, nor did it tell me or many other people that more than 95 per cent of that committee's recommendations had been taken into account by the Government in developing the exposure draft of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It did not inform us of the benefits to accrue to the veterans from having a single piece of rationalised and co-ordinated legislation to replace the existing complex Acts. No; the Government did not do that. What it did was to tell the veterans' community that expenditure on benefits would be reduced. To compound that public relations disaster, it aggravated this unfortunate situation by recalling Parliament on 31 May this year for the specific purpose of passing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 to give effect to the Government's new expenditure controls. Given that scenario, is there little wonder that the veterans felt confused and abandoned by a government which was ramming through legislation with little opportunity for detailed consideration by that community, or indeed for adequate debate by the Parliament. I say in passing that it is becoming a characteristic of this so-called democratic Government that debate in the Parliament is strangled and that propositions are put forward at the last moment with very little time being given for proper consideration. But that does not seem to be a major consideration. I am fully aware of the Minister's defence of his timing and his claim that adequate consultation did take place. But the facts do not support these claims. It was for this reason that the Opposition introduced a six-month sunset clause into the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. That sunset clause has resulted in this legislation coming again before the Parliament. That clause has resulted in adequate time being given for veterans associations and individuals right throughout this nation to have the opportunity of looking at the legislation and to put forward their reaction to it. That is the amendment which was described as `useless' by the Australian Democrats, as delineated earlier in a speech by one of my colleagues. I think we ought to point out to the Parliament and to the people just how dishonest that statement by the Australian Democrats has proved to be. A useless amendment indeed! It was so useless that the Government has had to reconsider the entire legislation so that veterans throughout this nation, individuals and their associations, have the proper opportunity to look at the detail of the proposal put forward by the Government and it was so useless that the Government has had to come back to this Parliament and to the veterans associations with an altered proposition. It was hardly a useless amendment but it was so described by the Australian Democrats. We took that action simply to ensure that the Government lived up to its promises to have wide-ranging discussions with ex-service organisations on the legislation and, specifically, on the highly contentious onus of proof criteria and our amendments were successful. The Government has been forced to discuss the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill with the Returned Services League and other veterans' organisations. Those organisations have had the opportunity to discuss this Bill in considerable detail with the Government's advisers. Of course, we all know now that the result was a redrafted Veterans' Entitlements Bill which was presented to the House of Representatives on 16 October 1985. It is a considerable improvement on the draft exposure Bill and it incorporates a number of amendments which were sought by the veteran community. In particular, I draw attention to the discriminatory 40-year rule against war widows which has been deleted. Repatriation cover has been extended to cater for those who served in the Northern Territory and on the HMAS Sydney and support vessels which travelled between Australia and Vietnam. Additionally, improvements have been made, in relation to veterans qualifying for medical treatment, to the occurrence provisions of the Bill. I am informed that the revised clause 119 of the Bill concerning the standard of proof is now considered to be generally satisfactory to the RSL and to other veterans organisations subject, of course, to its eventual testing in the courts of law. However, these organisations have identified several items which they still consider to be unsatisfactory. I am very glad to be able to add my support to a plea for this Government to give the most careful consideration to representations being made on these matters. The four areas of continuing concern are: Exceptionally disabled persons who have retired from remunerative activity and are not now eligible for a special rate of pension and must be covered by intermediate and special rates of pension without age being a factor; the standard of proof provisions contained in section 47 (2) of the Repatriation Act prior to 6 June 1985 should apply to undermined applications or appeals in the repatriation determining system as at 6 June 1985; there should be cover for all full time members of the Australian Defence Force under the Bill; dependants' allowances should continue and be reinstated for new cases with the option for those presently entitled to receive a commutation equal to five years pension. In considering the need for further amendments to accommodate these suggested changes I am aware of the Government's wish to have the new Veterans' Entitlements Bill in place before the expiration of the six-month sunset clause provision on 5 December 1985. Understandably, the Government wishes that situation to occur. But failure to achieve that date will result in a return to the O'Brien interpretation in relation to the onus of proof criteria and this, undoubtedly, would have ramifications for increased departmental expenditure. However, I believe that this should not inhibit us from a most thorough debate of this Bill to ensure that the legislation truly meets the needs and proper expectations of the veteran community. Mr Tim Fischer —In both Houses. Mr MacKELLAR —In both Houses, as the shadow Minister has reminded me. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that the Opposition would not wish to subject the veteran community to further uncertainly and inconvenience. I have been quite amazed at the reaction from the veteran community over the last six months or so. There is no doubt that the Government's legislation has created untold uncertainty and, in many cases, real fear both for war widows and for war veterans of all types. I think this has been entirely unnecessary. I think the Government should have approached the matter differently in the first place. But the fact remains that, if the Opposition had not inserted that sunset clause, the veteran community would have been left for dead by this Government, and I use the word `dead' advisedly. I believe that it is a sad reflection on the Government that it should have tried to ram through this legislation in the first place but I am very glad that we have been able to ensure that, until this point in time, at least proper consideration has taken place. I hope that the Government will adopt those amendments now being recommended by the veteran community and facilitate the passage of this comprehensive and, I believe, very important legislation. Before I finish my speech I draw attention to the state of the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in Sydney. I have received a number of representations from veterans within my constituency who have said that the treatment that they are receiving there, whilst being of a high standard, simply does not match up to what they would expect. They believe that this repatriation hospital and the administration of the hospital should be looked at very closely to ensure that the treatment that veterans receive under the Act in that hopsital is of a comparable standard, at least, to the treatment that they would receive in hopsitals elsewhere. It is a matter which has caused a great deal of concern to a number of my constitutents. I ask the Minister, in his consideration of all the ramifications of the debate on this matter, to look personally at the situation. Finally, I endorse and support the amendment moved by my colleague in relation to this Bill in the following terms: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern in relation to- (a) the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans service pensions because of its iniquitous impact; (b) the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the new legislation without a new military compensation act being in place; (c) the creation of different levels of entitlement, and categories, in respect of allied veterans and war widows and, (d) the degree of anomaly associated with the retrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes, and (2) calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs'. The veterans who have served this country so well in so many conflicts deserve not just a reluctant acknowledgment. They deserve a full-blooded acknowledgment of the part that they have played, at considerable personal risk and cost, in the defence of our nation. This legislation has been brought back to the Parliament simply because a sunset clause was inserted by the Opposition earlier this year-six months ago almost to the day. The fact that it has been brought back reflects the opportunity which veterans organisations and individuals have been provided with and it reflects the fact that the Government has had the opportunity to look again at some of the aspects of its proposed legislation and, in my view, improve them greatly. We owe our support to the veterans. We should not stint in our support of our veterans. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(9.10) —The dishonesty of those opposite is no better illustrated than in the statement by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) when he speaks about the rundown nature of Concord Repatriation General Hospital. I ask them: Whom should we blame for the rundown nature of Concord? Would they, in their hearts, admit perhaps that it was due to the neglect of their Government? What is the Hawke Labor Government doing now? We are spending millions of dollars bringing the Concord Repatriation General Hospital up to the standard which our veterans deserve. I am delighted that, as a result of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, I have had the opportunity to meet many Returned Services League members and develop friendships with them. For many years I have been a great supporter of the RSL movement. I have not missed an Anzac Day ceremony since I was a very young cub in the scouting movement. During 15 years in local government I had close links with the RSL bodies in the city of Cessnock and as the member for Hunter I have been delighted by the courtesies extended to me by both male and female veterans in every township throughout the electorate. Recently it was my great pleasure and honour to join members of the 2/30 Battalion Association whose members were taken prisoner of war in Singapore and served for three and a half years as captives. Only last Friday I joined with a large crowd of RSL personnel in the Singleton RSL Club at an Armistice Day dinner. So I have had ample opportunity to talk to veterans and learn their views. I found that they had two views: The first was a rational view, a reasonable view. Many veterans agreed that some rationalisation of veterans' affairs was necessary. They accepted that. They were not hypercritical of what this Government was trying to do. Secondly, as the Opposition members have said, there was a great deal of anxiety out there. Veterans were worried about what this Government was intending. They were worried not really because of the decisions made by this Government, but by the horrible untruths, the distortions that were made by members of the Opposition. It is just their tactics. All they want to do is get out there in the market place and scare the pants off the voters. Mr O'Keefe —The elderly and the veterans. Mr FITZGIBBON —Yes, that is right, the elderly and the veterans. It is just their tactics. I am sure the Australian people can see through them after the dreadful mess they made when they were in Government. There are many people on this side of the House whose sympathy for the RSL movement is no less than mine. Members such as the honourable member for Reid, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, (Mr Uren), the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and many others have well established their sympathies for the veterans who served this country so nobly; and there are members on the other side of the House too. However, it does prove a little irksome to hear members on the other side try to claim credit for this very sound legislation which has been compiled for our veterans. Initially this Government gave consideration to tightening up veteran entitlements, but it was due to discussions within the Australian Labor Party. Recent discussions by the Government with veterans affairs organisations, not the rantings and ravings of members of the Opposition, brought about a modification of the legislation. We are not guided or directed by them. So the veterans out there are getting good legislation, which will be extremely beneficial to them, as a result of the actions of this Government. For members of the Opposition to try to claim some credit is the height of ludicrousness. Mr O'Keefe —It is hypocrisy. Mr FITZGIBBON —As my honourable friend has said, it is the height of hypocrisy. It is worth reminding the House that it was a Labor Government which introduced the schemes which bring the greatest benefit to veterans. I am very pleased that this Labor Government has honoured its promise to hold extensive consultations with RSL members and others who expressed concern about the draft Bill laid on the table of the Senate on 30 May 1985. The legislation now before us is the result of the most comprehensive consultations ever undertaken in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. If members of the Opposition had been prepared to have similar consultations with the veterans, we might not be going through some of the manoeuvres that we are going through now. The Government stated all along that it was prepared to make changes to the draft legislation following consultation with the veteran community, and this it has done. This legislation reflects the views expressed by them. It is hoped that a bipartisan approach can now be taken. Members of the Opposition claim that they are on the side of the veterans. We are definitely on the side of the veterans. Why can we not allow this legislation to go through without members of the Opposition trying to score a few grubby political points by moving cheap amendments? Let us just consider some of the things that we have done. Since we came to government we have increased expenditure on veteran entitlements by 40 per cent; that is at least 20 per cent in real terms since members of the Opposition were in government. What a disgraceful performance by the previous Government! There is a large veteran community in the electorate of Hunter. I am delighted to see that in this legislation the Government has addressed nearly all the areas about which my veteran constituents expressed concern. The main concern of my Hunter constituents related to the onus and standard of proof. Clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill incorporates the more generous criminal standard of proof to veterans in respect of any operational service they have had whilst still maintaining the Government's intention to overrule the O'Brien decision. There is not a great deal of time available to speakers on this side of the House. However, we must say that clause 119 makes it clear that there is no onus of proof on any person in relation to a claim of application. Clause 119 also makes provision for Defence Force personnel who are engaged in hazardous service or peacekeeping service by members of a peacekeeping force. Another area of major concern to Hunter electorate veterans was in relation to the proposed 40-year rule. I welcome the decision of the Government not to pursue this proposal. This is a decision which will meet with the approval of all the veteran community. I feel confident that the veterans will accept that it was never intended that a totally and permanently incapacitated rate would be payable to a veteran who had enjoyed a full working life and then retired. Surely members of the Opposition have heard veterans say that there are some people out there who are ripping off the system. If they deny that, they are not being honest with themselves or with this House. Special provision is made in the legislation to cover veterans under the age of 65 years who are unemployed and who are genuinely seeking to work. The Government has also extended repatriation coverage to personnel who, at some time in the future, enlist in the Defence Force and are engaged in hazardous service. The Government has also maintained its decision to abolish future grants of dependants' pension, which successive governments-including those opposite-have always refused to increase. We have made provisions under the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill for these pensioners to receive a lump sum equivalent to three years' pension if they wish to accept this option. The Government believes that was an anachronistic benefit and that there are greater priorities for expenditure in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. In bringing this legislation before the House, this Government has acknowledged its continuing responsibility to the veteran community. As I have stated, the Government has increased spending on veterans' affairs by 40 per cent. I will restate the following sentence because it gives the lie to what the honourable member for Warringah just said about the run-down condition of Concord Repatriation Hospital. The Government has also undertaken projects to update and improve hospitals and provide better medical services. I believe that this Government has adopted a responsible attitude and approach to veterans' entitlements and I congratulate the Minister for bringing such good legislation before the House. I hope that it will have a speedy passage but, as I said previously, some grubby, politically motivated amendment has been moved by the Opposition. I suppose that we will have to deal with that amendment before veterans can get what is definitely a beneficial entitlement as a result of this legislation. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(9.22) —I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) with respect to the motion for the second reading of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. Whereas I support much of the Bill there are, nevertheless, some parts of it with which I strongly disagree. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) he stated that the challenge of providing a continuing high standard of service to the veteran community throughout the remainder of the twentieth century is immense. It is more than a challenge; it is a responsibility and an inalienable commitment. As the Minister correctly said, as the veteran community ages, people in that older age group need more treatment and greater care. The Minister and others have said that in the past three years expenditure on veterans' affairs has been increased by 40 per cent, or about 20 per cent in real terms. However, let us be clear on this matter. The Government has not suddenly become remarkably generous. The increase is not mainly because of any great extension of entitlements and care for veterans. By far the greatest element in this increase has been caused by the large numbers of veterans now qualifying for service pension. As it is almost 40 years since the end of World War II, most of the service men and women who served in that war are reaching the age of 60 years, or 55 years for service women, at which service pension entitlement can be obtained. The service pension is simply the age pension paid five years earlier to compensate for the intangible, indefinable and not always discernible effects of war service. It is simply misleading to infer that somehow veterans have been treated more generously during the past three years because expenditure has increased. I give two reasons for this contention. The first is that, in fact, veterans have been treated less generously. The veterans becoming entitled to service pension have been penalised by the Government's vicious and indefensible assets test, which is preserved in this Bill. That has caused many veterans to lose their service pension and will prevent many more from receiving it. Secondly, veterans who qualify for service pension would, in the absence of service pension and subject to the same vicious assets test, now or shortly qualify for the age pension. Thus, increases in veterans' affairs expenditure are very largely compensated for by reductions in contingent expenditure by the Department of Social Security. That is to say, if veterans' affairs expenditure does not increase to meet service pensions, social security expenditure will increase because veterans will then have to be paid age pensions. So the Minister's boast about an expenditure increase should have been qualified, as I have shown. Other increases, and they are justified, are in the introduction of computer technology, directed to the improvement of efficiency and service delivery, and the appointment of more commissioners to reduce the appeal backlog. I endorse that, but it is an increase in administrative expenditure and not more money in the veteran's pocket. I am most distressed that this legislation perpetuates the assets test because it is a withdrawal from commitments made to men and women when they volunteered for war service. It is a breach of promises and undertakings given when men and women were being encouraged to serve. I cannot support the imposition of the assets test on any aged Australian and I most certainly absolutely oppose any such test on veterans who, by age or other contingency, otherwise qualify for a service pension. I will continue to fight for its abolition while ever I sit in this Parliament. Certainly, I welcome the intent to update repatriation hospitals in accommodation standards, equipment and procedures. Because, as already mentioned, service men and women are ageing, the infirmities and disabilities which are legacies of their service become increasingly distressing, more acute and more debilitating. Thus, for the next decade or two, I believe there will be heavily increasing demands on our veterans' hospitals and delivery of treatment. Indeed, we have not yet reached the peak of the demand which will be made on our hospitals system. I hope that the recommendations of the Brand report of the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System and, indeed, more improvements, will be not only considered, as the Minister said, but also urgently acted upon. I am pleased that in this legislation the indefensible barrier which previous legislation placed on availability of the war widow's pension-the 40-year rule-has been abolished. It never should have been imposed and I am pleased that the Government has evidenced at least this degree of repentance. Although some aspects of the new standard of proof provisions still concern me deeply, I am pleased that the Government has reversed its intention to apply the civil standard of proof in such claims. That, too, was an indefensible proposition. I am glad it will not now proceed. I endorse a number of positive decisions in this Bill. I welcome the provisions enabling war widow pensioners who have remarried or who remarry after 29 May 1984 to retain their entitlements and the extension of the $12 a week domestic allowance to all war widows. A war widow whose life has been shattered because she lost her husband in the war, or who qualified as widow of a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner whom she has nursed and cared for over, perhaps, many years, should never lose or be threatened with the loss of her war widow's pension and entitlements. However, I do take issue with the Government over its philosophy on TPI special rate pensions. The Minister says simplistically, and others on the other side of the House have said, that this pension was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families or put away money for their old age. He goes on to say that it was never intended that the TPI rate would become payable to a veteran who, having enjoyed a full working life after war service, then retires from work possibly with whatever superannuation and other retirement benefits are available to the Australian work force. On that presumption, with which I disagree and will shortly elaborate the reasons for my disagreement, the Act provides that such a pension will not be attainable unless the veteran is receiving a 100 per cent general rate pension and suffers economic loss, and veterans over normal retirement age would be precluded from attaining the TPI special rate pension from below the 100 per cent general rate. I reject this new concept of disability pension payments. It is a departure from, or at least a very severe dilution of, a principle which has been recognised over the decades. That principle is that disability pensions are compensation, not remuneration and not social security. Let me repeat that: TPI and disability pensions are compensation. That is the reason why disability pensions are not included as income when an income test for eligibility for service pensions is considered. The Minister blithely talks about a disabled veteran who `enjoys'-what an inappropriate term that is-a full working life and, hypothetically, retires on a superannuation or other pension entitlement. What about the years of suffering and disability he has endured as he tried to work in his employment? Because he endured this in an endeavour to maintain a sense of belonging and usefulness, he is denied the TPI special rate pension. There is no compensation for the difficulty, the pain, and the anguish which he may have endured while he worked. There is no compensation for the wife who has nursed and comforted him, who has made sacrifices and adapted her life to support and help him in his working life. Again, the talk of possible superannuation, et cetera, is misleading. Because of his war caused disabilities there is every possibility that either the veteran is denied, limited, or has to pay heavy premiums for any retirement insurance or annuity. Honourable members should ask the tuberculosis service men and women about that. There is also the strong probability that because of his disability the chances of promotion or advancement in his job classification have been very much prejudiced. So when he retires or has to cease work, he will most probably be on a much lesser base as far as superannuation or retirement pensions are concerned than others in the work force. The possibility of the TPI pension was some compensation for these disadvantages, and its removal is therefore discriminatory and disadvantageous. There is another reason I oppose the Minister's philosophy. In many cases the disability means that, even apart from the cost of medicine and treatment, the veteran has been faced with additional costs throughout his lifetime to enable him to live and work, and having incurred all those disadvantages, to deny him the opportunity to become eligible for a TPI pension at the end of the day is wrong and unfair. The TPI pension is not a wage or wage supplement; it is compensation and it is a commitment and it is fair and just. This Bill and its predecessor have diluted and qualified that principle. They have diminished the element of compensation and I condemn the Government for that indefensible course. Nor do I think it should be made more difficult for a widow of a disabled veteran below the TPI category to obtain a war widow's pension. I am mindful that even if her husband had been able to work, his disabilities and the need for home nursing could well have prevented her from doing outside work to provide for her present needs and later security. At least there is the probability that her husband's disability limited her capacity to accept the type of full time employment which would contribute to her future security. This Bill does make it more difficult to obtain a war widow's pension and I cannot endorse that. It is 40 years since World War II and a new generation has grown up, and perhaps some memories have dimmed. Let us not forget the gravity of the threat to democracy and to our very nation that confronted us in two world wars. Let us not forget the debt we owe our servicemen and women who preserved for us the benefits and way of life we take for granted. Many died, many carry disabilities and every one of them, in body or mind, carries the marks and the scars of that service so we ought not quibble about our national debt to them. I get impatient with the blase statement that somehow our treatment of veterans is over-generous or in some way extravagant. When the nation asked them to enlist and serve, there was no shortage of promises and commitments as to what would be done for them. When the time comes to honour those assurances, let us not quibble about service pensions by putting assets tests on them. Let us not reduce the availability of disability and TPI pensions or make them hard to attain. This is one debt on which there should be no default. It is all very well to worry about the impact on the Budget. We might well have not had a democratic parliament, or be considering budgets in this Parliament, except for their service and contribution. That is why I become incensed when I see additional standards of proof required, when records are long lost and witnesses long dead. That is why I become angry when additional barriers to the attainment of TPI or war widows pensions are raised, and they are raised in the Bill. This Bill represents the drawing together of repatriation legislation which has of necessity required many amendments since 1920. Throughout this considerable period it has been the policy of Australian governments to take careful consultation with veterans' organisations-a commitment which was not honoured by this Government when a draft Bill was introduced last May. Had it been honoured, much distress caused to the veteran community could have been avoided. Since that time, extensive consultations have taken place between the Government and the veterans' organisations. Those organisations waged and won a vigorous campaign, particularly against the harsh new standard of proof in the May Bill. The clause relating to the standard of proof has now been amended and is encompassed in clause 119. As the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), said, it is imperative that the administration of the Act be kept under very close review, particularly with regard to clause 119, because its effect as it is put into practice must be very carefully monitored. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.35) —I support the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Veterans Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill will consolidate more than 90 pieces of existing repatriation law into a single Act. The original Repatriation Act of 1920 was drafted to provide benefits to soldiers who had served our country during World War I. Amendments were required after the Second World War and after conflicts in Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill will at last provide the Australian veteran community with a single piece of repatriation legislation which will be capable of being read. The Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, which was chaired by the National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys and which included representatives of the RSL, the Legacy organisation, and the War Widows Guild, made 292 recommendations to the Government on this Bill. The vast majority of those recommendations have been incorporated in the present Bill. Debate on this Bill has been widespread, with 90 seminars attracting 10,000 interested veterans, being held all around Australia. Many veterans from my electorate on the central coast of New South Wales have participated in this consultation, particularly the pension officers from the Brisbane Water section of Legacy and from RSL sub-branches. In May this year, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) proposed that the Parliament amend the repatriation legislation to hold back the rate of growth in expenditure by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Treasurer proposed that the standard of proof be altered for veterans who did not serve overseas and for widows of veterans who died more than 40 years after war service. The Treasurer also proposed that Parliament act to counter the O'Brien High Court case. Honourable members opposite engaged in a deceitful campaign to whip up hysteria in the veteran community against the Treasurer's proposals to Parliament. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), proud of his achievement last year in successfully terrifying pensioners with gold fillings, whipped and flayed the Treasurer's proposals and condemned the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). But when it came time for the honourable member for Denison to put his money where his mouth was, he proposed an amendment which inserted only a six-month sunset clause in the legislation. The Opposition never voted against the Treasurer's proposals. The Opposition did not oppose them; it wanted only to insert a time limit of six months. In fact, page 2540 of the Senate Hansard records that the result of the division on the Bill was ayes 60 and noes seven. Not one Liberal or National Party senator voted against the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr O'Keefe —They got whipped into line. Mr LEE —That is correct. Senator Withers made some comments during that debate about the motives of the Australian Democrats. I believe that those honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Denison, would do well to give the following remarks made by Senator Withers deep consideration. He said: What I have found despicable over the years is the politician who has attempted to ride to power and get votes on the back of the ex-serviceman. It has been one of the most despicable practices of politicians since the war finished. I speak of those who suck up to ex-servicemen's organisations and other interest groups in the community, making promises they know they cannot deliver and for which they have no financial responsiblity. That is what I find despicable. Mr Robert Brown —Who said that? Mr LEE —Senator Withers. A large number of veterans within my electorate opposed the Treasurer's repatriation proposals. The views of each veteran who wrote to me and of each veteran who spoke to me at RSL sub-branch meetings and at Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association meetings were conveyed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). Labor members of parliament, including the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and I raised these issues with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I am very pleased that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, with the support of the Prime Minister, convinced the Cabinet that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill should be altered to reduce the impact of the Treasurer's May proposals. Mr O'Keefe —Very effective representations. Mr LEE —That is correct. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill has been altered to provide extra repatriation benefits and entitlements worth more than $50m. I am very pleased that the 40-year rule applying to the claims by widows of veterans will be abolished in this legislation. I understand that the national conference of the Legacy organisation, held in Morwell in Victoria late last month, was very pleased with this decision. Many of my veteran constituents welcomed the new wording of the standard of proof provision, commonly known as clause 119. The wording still overcomes the problems of the O'Brien decision, but it has been achieved in co-operation with Judge Paul Toose and to the satisfaction of some but not all ex-service organisations. I wish to explain to the House why the O'Brien decision required the Government to act to alter the wording of the standard of proof clause. Section 47 of the Repatriation Act was amended in 1977 to give the benefit of the doubt to the veterans. The amendment required the Repatriation Commission to be satisfied `beyond reasonable doubt' that the claim was wrong. In the 1981 Law decision the High Court ruled that the review tribunal had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before it could dismiss an appeal. However, in February 1985 the High Court ruled that the wording of the 1977 amendment required the Commission to pay Mr O'Brien a pension even though, after thorough investigation, there was no evidence of a connection with war service. Subsequently the Solicitor-General advised the Government that the effect of the O'Brien decision meant that it was-and I quote: Virtually impossible for the Commission to discharge the onus of proof conferred upon it by the Act, with the result that any ex-serviceman who suffers a disability, during his declining years or otherwise, becomes eligible to receive a repatriation benefit. Upon his death, his widow also will become entitled to a pension. He also advised: The effect of the decision is to establish that the elaborate assessment and appeal provisions are close to a farce. In operation, almost every claim arises after the onset of symptoms of mortality will lead entitlement to benefits under the Act to the claimant and the claimant's spouse. That was the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Medical science can tell us a great deal about the causes of some disabilities, but there are few disabilities where a medical practitioner would be prepared to say that all possible causes are known. For example, we know that smoking and exposure to intense sunlight increase a person's chances of contracting cancer. However, no medical practitioner can know beyond reasonable doubt why a particular veteran contracted cancer. Let me quote several case histories to the House. The first is the case of a veteran who served in the Army during World War II. He died from a brain tumor in 1981 at 60 years of age. The Veterans' Review Board noted that there was `not one scintilla of evidence in the material before the board which points, even remotely, to a relevant war service condition'. Having regard to the O'Brien decision, it nevertheless concluded that possible service relationships had not been excluded beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it granted a war widows pension. The second case is that of a veteran who was 69 years of age when he died from injuries he suffered when he fell from a tree. He had been attached to the tree by a belt in much the same way as an electricity linesman is while cutting off branches. The belt had snapped and this led to his fall. The Repatriation Reivew Tribunal found that it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the veteran's fall was not attributable to a weakness in his hands or legs resulting from accepted war-related disabilities and which may have caused or contributed to his fall. A widows pension was granted. In the third case a widow of a veteran of the Second World War claimed a widows pension on the basis that her husband's death from obstructive jaundice due to disseminated malignancy was service-related. The VRB observed that the disease in question was one of unknown aetiology and that while there was not `one scintilla of evidence in the material before the board which pointed even remotely towards a relevant connection' between the veteran's death and his war service, in reliance on the High Court decision in the O'Brien case, the claim was allowed. The financial consequences of the Government not acting to amend the legislation are demonstrated by the following figures: In 1980-81, 22,000 claims for pensions and applications for increases were submitted. In 1984-85 more than 48,000 were received. This is an increase of more than 100 per cent in four years during which the number of surviving veterans actually decreased by 70,000. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard three tables which indicate the extent of the generosity of the Australian repatriation system compared with that of other countries. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- COMPARISON OF OVERSEAS AND AUSTRALIAN REPATRIATION SYSTEM Percentage of Government Spending Devoted to Veterans (1983-84) Britain... 0.4% New Zealand... 0.5% Canada... 1.3% United States... 3.4% Australia... 4.8%. Average Annual Spending per Surviving Veteran (1983-84) Britain... $A200 New Zealand... $A400 Canada... $A1600 United States... $A1400 Australia... $A4500. Number of Compensation Pensions paid per 1000 surviving Veterans Disability War Widow's Britain... 50 15 New Zealand... 240 35 Canada... 150 50 United States... 140 50 Australia... 270 90 Mr LEE —These tables demonstrate that the Australian Government spends a greater proportion of its Budget on veterans than any of the other four great Western democracies-that is, the United States, Britain, New Zealand and Canada. While Australia spends on average $4,500 per veteran annually, the United States spends $1,400 and Britain only $200. Australia's repatriation system is the most generous in the world and I am sure I speak for all honourable members in saying that we, as a nation, can be proud of the way we have sought to assist veterans and their dependants. Many honourable members speaking in this debate have already stated that the operation of the Repatriation Commission under the new Bill will be kept under close scrutiny. I will join them in closely monitoring the Commission's decisions. I am confident that the Brisbane Water Legacy, the RSL sub-branches and TPI associations within my own electorate will not hesitate to contact me if any problems arise. Before concluding I wish to bring to the House's attention one problem which has already been drawn to my attention. Claimants who submitted claims prior to May were not required to advise the Commission of any hypothesis linking death or disability to war service. I know of one case which was rejected at the first level under the 5 June legislation in which a hypothesis did exist but was not put before the Commission. The hypothesis will now be put before the Commission by appeal and I would expect that after a great deal of additional government resources are spent, the claim will be granted. I suggest that the Commission request all people who submitted claims prior to May to consider submitting a hypothesis before the first stage decision is made. This will avoid unnecessary appeals. I compliment the Minister for Veterans Affairs on his performance in his portfolio. He is now one of the 10 longest serving of Australia's 33 Ministers reponsible for veterans affairs. There is still a great deal to be done, especially in reducing the backlog in processing claims, but under this Minister I can finally see light at the end of the tunnel. As for the Opposition, it had six Ministers responsible for veterans affairs in 7 1/2 years of government. The new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has promised to reduce the number of Federal Government departments from 27 to 23. I fear that if four departments are to disappear, Veterans' Affairs will be near the top of the list. I challenge Mr Howard to give this House an unequivocal assurance that he will not abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Veterans can be assured that under the Hawke Labor Government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be retained and will continue to thrive and grow. Veterans can also be assured that under Senator Gietzelt veterans will continue to have a Minister who will fight hard for their interests. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(9.47) —In speaking to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill before the House I am well aware that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 came as rather a shock to the veteran community in May this year. It was seen as a reversal of promises made years ago to our servicemen and women who answered the call and to those left alone as the result of their service. The outcry which followed from the Opposition benches and from ex-service organisations must spell out a warning to governments of all persuasions to keep their promises and not to turn their backs on this country's veterans. I am also reminded, when considering this Bill, that those who served Australia in battle in World War II were told by the then Attorney-General, Dr Evatt: The Government regards the honouring of the promises made to fighting forces and dependants . . . as an integral part of the war effort. Successive governments, until this one, have honoured that commitment. Can we deny that the expenditure of public moneys for compensation and treatment of ex-servicemen and women and their dependants is nothing more than a matter of national commitment? It is shameful to regard it as an act of generosity. Where would we be now without their sacrifice? What price a life? What price a disability? What price a commitment? We despise the fact that last May the Government saw fit to breach its undertaking to the veteran community. When the sunset clause was inserted by an initiative of the coalition to force the Government to talk to the ex-service organisations, it was said that we would judge the legislation brought forward on its merit. We did in the draft Bill and we do so now in this Bill. It was significant that the amendment moved by the Opposition to insert a sunset clause achieved its purpose. Extensive consultation has taken place between the Government and ex-service organisations. What a pity it did not happen before May; then we could have been spared all the rancour which followed and led up to this Bill. If all World War II military operations has been planned like the May Bill I would hate to think where we would be now. It was ill-conceived and a disaster. It was a cut by the infamous Expenditure Review Committee to try to present this Government in a good light on economic management. The experience of the last six months has certainly shown that the attempt was futile. It also shows that it is folly to break promises, especially when members of the affected group have been prepared to put their lives on the line for this nation. However, the Bills now before the House consolidate a substantial number of Acts and in doing so will provide users of the Repatriation Act with a much easier task than previously. The rationalising and simplification of that burgeoning body of legislation into a single Act is commendable and credit, at least for this, must go to the Government for performing this task. Whilst the 40-year rule and onus of proof under section 47 of the Repatriation Act received much of the publicity following the economic statement in May, other areas where the existing benefits have been whittled away are deserving of comment. Let us examine travel and subsistence. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), outlining his Government's expenditure savings plans on 14 May, said: The cost of providing free transport and travel allowance to pensioners will be rationalised. The explanatory notes in the Department of Veterans' Affairs booklet explaining the consequences of the May mini-Budget gave us a reason for the decision to rationalise travel and subsistence in the following words: The present system of providing transport and flat rate payments for accommodation and allowances is becoming unreasonably expensive. I was under the impression that pensions, allowances and treatment for our veterans and war widows were matters of compensation for loss and disablement in the service of the nation. What price one's own life or that of one's spouse? Unreasonably expensive? Was it reasonable to die or be maimed in bloody battle? Put a cost on that sacrifice and spare us the `unreasonably expensive' excuse for reducing benefits. This is not a question of social welfare; it is a question of compensation, honouring promises and standing by those who stood by this country when they were needed. Unreasonably expensive? How expensive was it for 134 or so members of this House to assemble on 31 May this year for one hour and 18 minutes to consider the Senate's amendment to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill? From 1 July this year, this Labor Government virtually halved the travel allowance for veterans using their own cars to a new standard rate, which applied regardless of the size of the engine, of 11.16c per kilometre. At the same time, this Labor Government has reduced accommodation allowances to a standard $40 per day when travelling for veterans' affairs purposes such as medical review or treatment. When comparing the veteran with a public servant, we see that the latter's car allowance is around 23.3c per kilometre. Can we deduce from that that the veteran is regarded by this Labor Government as being a lesser class of citizen? Equity is a catch-cry of the members on the other side of the House, when it suits them-selective equity, it seems, and veterans do not count for much in the selection process. The fact is that this Labor Government, in its haste to make changes to the provisions of the Repatriation Act, chose to substitute an opinion of the highest jurisdiction in this land, the High Court of Australia, concerning veterans' entitlements with a minority opinion. Why did the Government act so hastily in May? Was it to make Mr Keating's much vaunted but hollow expenditure cuts look a bit better? Debate was guillotined through this House in just 45 minutes. My colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said of that ill-conceived haste: The Prime Minister has deliberately chosen that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will be sneaked through the House at 11 o'clock at night with a time limit of 45 minutes debate while the Government changes the law relating to the entitlement of every ex-serviceman and woman in Australia and their dependants. If that Bill had been put to the veteran community, as the Government was forced to do with these Bills by the inclusion of a sunset clause, much of the suffering and anxiety which have been endured by many of our veterans would not have occurred. In my own electorate of Hinkler I was distressed to witness once proud and dignified aging ex-service men and women reduced to tears by proposals that this Government had initiated-and I dare say that that was repeated across the length and breadth of this nation. There was a phrase quoted during the 1939-45 war in reference to the wives of servicemen on active duty overseas. It was: `They also serve who only sit and wait'. Of course those women served. They had farewelled their husbands-fit, virile young men-at the railway stations and wharves, from the back country of this nation, to destinations unknown. There was uncertainty and fear for the future, yet they were hopeful that those men would return unscarred in mind and in body, fearfully hopeful that they would return at all. Many died in the service of their nation. Many were disabled by horrific battle wounds and the effect of internment in infamous prisoner of war camps such as Changi. Many have never recovered from the traumas they experienced in hellish conditions. There was more than a moral obligation on this nation to aid and support these people who had sacrificed so much. There was a debt which time cannot and must not erase from the ledger of our country. I am relieved and pleased that this Bill now corrects most of the problems which the initial proposals threatened. I am convinced that the Government has capitulated to an army of men and women who proved to the world in war that they were a formidable force, that age has not wearied them in their determination and resolve to ensure that we do not forget those sacrifices which war demanded. They have fought a great battle against this Government and I can only say: `Well done; you have shown immense courage and initiative in adversity once more'. I ask them to maintain their vigilance and to ensure that nothing like this comes before this House again. I recognise that a great many of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review have been incorporated in this legislation, However, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), in his reply to the criticism of General Whitelaw, who said that the veterans were unaware of the context of the earlier repatriation Bill before it was introduced on 21 May 1985, said that the changes were announced on 14 May 1985 and were well publicised. It was a clear admission of no prior consultation and an indication that seven days is sufficient to examine the implications of such a Bill with its many effects on the veteran community. The consultative process involved in the Bill before the House has highlighted the off-hand treatment accorded our ex-servicemen in May, and I hope that this Labor Government, or any government, never makes a similar mistake again. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.58) —I want to finish up this debate by picking up a couple of points made by honourable members on the other side of the House. I particularly refer to some comments made by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) and point out again that instead of talking about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the issues involved they have gone on another of their scaremongering campaigns in the way they usually do. I refer particularly to the assets test stuff that we have heard, because not only have they made statements such as `I will not rest until that test is gone', but also they have distorted the situation again. Let us look at the statement `I will not rest'. Some honourable members opposite are totally out of touch with their own leadership. The President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Valder, in his famous Westpac tape, has already made it clear that the assets test is here to stay. He supports it. Members of the National Party of Australia, who purport to represent the farm community, are out of touch with their own National Farmers Federation. In the brief that I have just received from the NFF which sets out its policy, on the assets test it says: The NFF supports the concept of an income and an assets test. It then goes on to outline some changes it would like to see. I should point out that the Government's Primary Industry, Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee, under the leadership of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), is liaising closely with the NFF on these matters. But here we have a case in which the National Party is again out of touch. No doubt it will be whipped into line and the statement `I will not rest' will be put to the test. Let us look at what the Bill is really about. The legislation, among other things, consolidates, rationalises and simplifies a number of the entitlements available to members of the veteran community. It is consistent with the approach of this Government in coming in and tidying up a legislative mess that has been created over some 25 years of former governments. We have Acts full of outmoded and inconsistent language and concepts, eligible provisions which vary between wars and conflicts, and entitlements for medical treatment and ancillary allowances which are all scattered haphazardly through various Acts. The result of that is that the veteran is the person who suffers because the veteran is bogged down by having to deal with bodies administering an administrative mess. So out of these rationalisations the veteran community will get a new deal in the administration of entitlements. That is important. I want to repeat a statement made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in his second reading speech because I believe that it is at the heart of the whole issue. The Minister said: . . . this Government- the Hawke Labor Government- fully acknowledges its continuing responsibility to the veteran community. And we do. Mr Hicks —It's about time. Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member interjects: `It's about time'. I go back to the comment made by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). He referred to the statement made by Dr Evatt, and I remind him of what happened for the next 25 years. The problem was not built by Labor governments-a Labor government made the commitment and Liberal-National Party governments allowed the situation to get into the mess that it did. That ought to be remembered. I know that those in the veteran community are not mistaken on these issues; they understand the facts of life. The Minister said that the Australian community's responsibilities to veterans will grow. He went on to say that people in this older age group will need more treatment and more care and there will be continuing demand for improved services. This Government is prepared to provide those services. That is a statement worth reiterating. I also want to refer to the process of consultation because that has been important. The Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review was constituted by representatives of a wide range of veterans' groups including the Returned Services League, Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council. A substantial majority of the recommendations of that Committee have been incorporated in these Bills. That is an indication of genuine and honest consultation with the veteran community by this Government. I have found from my own discussions with veterans' groups in my electorate of Burke that veterans do understand that the Government has to take account of not just the special interests of the veterans' groups but also the broader interests of the community in terms of responsible economic management. They, above all, acknowledge that they made sacrifices so that we would have a well-managed country and sound economy that they would see the benefit of later. At least they are seeing that now. I am particularly glad to see that the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill are now being extended to some ex-service personnel who were previously excluded, including those who served in the Vietnam war. Again that is something that this Government has had to pick up. Our predecessors' performance in regard to acknowledging the community's responsibilities to our Vietnam veterans has been appalling. No doubt it is a matter that is not yet finished; there will be a long and ongoing process of providing support and services to Vietnam veterans. At least now they have a government which is prepared to recognise the community's responsibility to them and which will improve on the sort of treatment that they received up until March 1983. That point has to be made. These Bills build on the Government's strategy to place in Australia a repatriation system that is geared to the challenge of providing optimum services to the veteran community as we move into the twenty-first century. Finally, I want to comment on the approach of veterans' organisations in my electorate. Maybe that has been affected by the way I have gone about the matter compared to those opposite, who have been running around whipping up fear and confusion through misrepresentation. I have found my veterans' groups to be puzzled and wanting more information but they welcomed the fact that the Government was prepared to take input and listen. It is the first time that they have ever dealt with a government that did not race off and make its decisions behind closed doors, just leaving them with what was decided. They have welcomed the process of consultation and I am now getting letters from my veterans' groups commending the Government on being prepared to take account of their views and being prepared to make changes with which they were more satisfied. The Government has put in place in Australia a new process. It is not a matter of rushing off into a room, closing the doors and making secret decisions and announcing them the next day, leaving the community wondering about how that situation came to be; it is a a process of taking into account people's views. I think that has been welcomed by the Australian community. I congratulate the Minister on his approach and certainly I congratulate all those colleagues of mine on this side of the House who have gone out and consulted with veterans' groups and brought forward the information and approaches that have led to the reconsideration of the legislation and the drafting of these Bills that are now being very warmly and popularly received by the veteran community. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.06) —We all welcome the fact that the Veterans' Entitlements Bills tidy up the existing legislation. We on this side of the House and the veterans welcome that. I remind the House that this process was started by Senator Messner in the Fraser Government in 1982. Before I turn to some other matters I would like to comment on some remarks made by the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) who seemed to indicate that the coalition on return to government would abandon the veterans and abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I believe that that is a most unworthy and dishonest statement and if the honourable member had any guts he would stand up and withdraw it. I refer also to a remark of the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), who said that full consultation has always been afforded members of the veterans' associations. In May when the repatriation legislation was rushed through this House without any consultation the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was overseas, so how he can claim that full consultation with veterans has taken place is beyond me. Mr O'Keefe —For the last five months. What are you talking about? Mr WHITE —The Government was dragged to the barrier; that is why it happened. It is in order briefly to remind the House and the people of Australia why this legislation is necessary. As at June 1985 some 408,000 disability pensions and 390,000 service pensions were being paid, and that figure has not yet reached its peak. That is a total of around 800,000 pensions. Of course some people are in receipt of both pensions. Those figures are the reason we are talking about this matter. Around 800,000 pensions are going out to people who have served their country in war in some capacity or another. It is also appropriate to remind people of just how many served in war in the defence of their country. In World War I, 336,000 men and women went overseas to fight, and 60,000 were killed. In World War II over 550,000 served overseas and 33,000 were killed. In Korea 16,000 people served and 281 were killed. I do not know how many went to Malaya but 36 were killed; and some 50,000 men and women served in Vietnam, not because they wanted to but because they were directed to go by the elected government of this country. We are not talking about whether they should have gone; we are talking about the 50,000 people who went, of whom 496 were killed. That is why we are here talking about veterans' legislation; to give some benefits to those people who members opposite claim were sent unfairly to fight a war that Government members did not have any heart for. We are not discussing the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam War; we are discussing the people who went and suffered. It is those people whose benefits we must protect. Australia owes a huge debt to veterans. No government in the history of this country has turned its back on them, but this Government has shown a very careless disregard as the years have gone on, particularly in the last six months or so, for the benefits which should be the right of those people. Honourable members will recall that when this Bill was first tabled in this House, the original proposals were unacceptable to all of the veterans' organisations. The proposals which the Government wanted to proceed with were not accepted and they were fought against vigorously by members on this side of the House-perhaps by some Government members as well-and certainly by every service and ex-service organisation. I think it should be said that the credit for the changes to this Bill should go to all those ex-service organisations and to members on this side of the House. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr WHITE —Government members laugh. If they had their way they would have put through the original Bill without any amendment. It was the intention of the Government to bring the Bill in, table it and put it through. Now some Government members are applauding the changes, but we did not hear them speak when the Bill was tabled. Mr Lee —You did not vote against it. Mr WHITE —This is the first time it has been debated. It is fair to say that if there is some doubt about the commitment of this Government to the veterans' organisations it is a fair doubt. It would seem to many veterans and people on this side of the House that what the Government is doing is a legal minimum. If the Government members doubt that, why would they take away veterans' benefits as a part of a cost cutting measure, as the Government did in May, when it said: `Yes, we have to save money and reduce expenditure. As part of that package, let's get into the veterans'. We are not talking about the rights and wrongs of the benefits. Perhaps some benefits are excessive. Perhaps they could stand examination and could be reduced, but the Government has not done that. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) said: `Yes, we have to cut expenditue and the veterans will be one of the targets'. I do not think veterans would have minded being subjected to a fairly rigorous examination, but they objected like hell to being part of a cost cutting measure by any government committed to their welfare. I turn to the delays in processing claims. Yesterday in the Senate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs took exception to remarks I had made that there were exceptional delays. There are exceptional delays in processing veterans' claims and appeals, despite what he might say. Last week in my electorate two claims for pensions for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans were eventually granted after a delay of three years. We hope that the new system that the Minister has put into place will reduce those delays, but it has not happened yet. I do not want to hear pious remarks from him that there are no delays in the system, because there are still delays of up to three years. It is fair to ask why men and women should have to wait this excessive length of time at their age. Without putting too fine a point on it, they sometimes make their claims and before the appeal is heard they are dead. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.16) —I find it extraordinary that the Government could find 3,000 public servants at short notice when it wanted to implement one of its aborted assets tests schemes but it cannot find enough public servants to administer veterans' affairs. I will be brief on these concluding points. I have grave doubts about the neutral onus of proof which is included in this legislation. I think that it will cause great difficulties as the years roll on if it is not amended. If there is no onus of proof on the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as there is not-nor is there an onus on the claimant-eventually someone in the Department will say: `It is not up to us, it is up to you'. That will cause grave problems for the veterans making claims, because traditionally the onus of proof has never been on the veterans; it has been on the Department. I am concerned that servicemen in the existing defence forces are to be removed from repatriation cover. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has claimed that a military compensation scheme will be put in place, and that is good, but why will the Government not leave those who enlist after December 1985 in the existing service with existing repatriation cover until the new system is put in place? It seems to me that it is another unnecessary assault on the Services which will pit one serviceman against another. Why will the Government not leave the system in place until a new system gives them satisfactory cover? I conclude on this note: I think that most Australians and most people in this House believe that we owe a great debt to those who have served their country in times of war. As the years pass veterans tend to be forgotten. I think that the Government's initial approach to this Bill indicates that to some extent veterans have been forgotten. On behalf of veterans, I take great exception to the fact that they were included in a cost cutting measure in May. Nobody knows whether and when other Australians will be required to serve their country. We should remember those who have served their country well. I urge the Government not to be mealy-mouthed in its treatment of veterans, not to include them in general cost cutting measures ever again and to be fair and generous. We as a nation can afford to give something to those who have served their country well. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.19) —My honourable colleagues already have presented this Government's commitment to veterans in Australia. I rise to set the record straight regarding the highly questionable contribution of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) to this debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I understand that earlier in this debate the honourable member for Petrie made untrue allegations regarding the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and me. He intimated that I had misled veterans and that the Minister had used me to pass on inaccurate information. There is no truth in this allegation and I am stunned that the member for my neighbouring electorate, although a member of an opposing political party, should resort to such tactics. I cannot respond to all that the honourable member said, as the full text of his statement is not yet available from Hansard. The source of this attack was a local newspaper report in which I had corrected inaccuracies in information given to that newspaper by a local identity whom I will name as Mr G, as I do not think that people outside of this Parliament should be drawn into such statements. Mr Tim Fischer —The honourable member for Petrie did not name him either. Mrs DARLING —Nor did I. My purpose in answering Mr G's claims was to clarify the Government legislation and the history of veterans' entitlements in Australia as the basis for constructive communication on the matter. It was not to attack Mr G who, despite the fact that he had obviously been given wrong information in some areas, had undoubtedly shared my concern for veterans in the course of his career and since. The Hawke Government recognises the debt of gratitude owing to veterans of many wars and to their families as a result of their serving this country in times of dire need. Following Mr G's claims and my response to them-this was the basis of that report and the information which was used by the honourable member for Petrie-I called a meeting with 150 veterans for a two-way discussion regarding matters of concern. As a result of this meeting, which Mr G attended, I am indeed representing specific cases including those of some totally and permanently incapacitated applicants. But in context, everything that I have said regarding veterans' entitlements has been 100 per cent accurate. I received specific and up to date information from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in responding to Mr G and gave that information which the honourable member for Petrie has incorrectly slammed this evening. As a result of my response, which was published by a local newspaper, and which the honourable member for Petrie used as the basis for his unjustified attack on me and the Minister, I received a letter from a local branch of the Returned Services League of Australia. I quote the following part of it to show the feeling of the veterans in my area: It was pleasing to read your reply to Mr G . . . in the local press. A number of our members with myself are officers of the State Council of the RSL of Queensland. This gentleman went on to outline the way in which these representatives had followed through with consultations between government and ex-service organisations meeting in Canberra and said that they were kept well informed on their talks with the Minister and his representations to the Prime Minister for these organisations. The letter continued: From this it was known how much Mr G . . . was `off beam'. Recently two members of your government, one was Manfred Cross,- the honourable member for Brisbane- came to look over our War Veterans Home at Pinjarra Hills. What amazed these gentlemen was how happy we are with our treatment from the Government. It is only with this help that we are able to care for the bulk of our veterans in the home as they are base pensioners and could not afford more. It is regrettable that the honourable member for Petrie used misinformation as the basis of his attack. Despite the Opposition's well worn tactic of setting one section of the community against the other, or divide and conquer, this Government will pursue its course of honestly striving to better conditions for all sectors of our community, particularly the aged, the infirm and those whom we hold in affection and respect-our veterans. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.24) —Mr Deputy Speaker, you will certainly understand how damnably frustrated I have felt sitting here through this debate listening to the greatest load of pious garbage and claptrap that I have heard since I have been in this House. These humbugs sitting opposite on the Government benches have come in and piously and endlessly patted themselves on the back, taking the credit for the new Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Of course you know, as does every member of this Parliament and every veteran in this country, that the only reason we are here debating this legislation tonight is because of the Opposition's sunset clause, which forced the Government to go back and do the right thing by the veterans. I remind the House that this nation has a debt of honour to those who served it in time of war. That debt obligates us to cherish and respect the memories of those who fell, and to care for those who returned and who, because of their service, require the assistance of a justifiably grateful nation. It is totally unacceptable that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the accompanying Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill adopt the unseemly and gratuitously insulting attitude that veterans and their dependants are just another category of social welfare recipients. Pensions and medical treatment for veterans and war widows are compensation for the losses, injuries and disabilities which resulted from war service. They are not a gift, they are not charity and they are not a dole-they are just compensation. Whether an individual went to war as a six bob a day tourist or as a staff officer, the risk was the same and our debt to the individual is the same. The Hawke-Australian Council of Trade Unions Government should hang its head in shame for the way it treated our veterans during 1985-a year of national disgrace, the year our national Government attempted to welch on our debt to ex-servicemen and women. Not the least of that shame is that the Bills continue the operation of the iniquitous assets test in connection with veterans' entitlements. Prior to the 1983 Federal election the then Labor Opposition announced that if elected to government it would introduce an assets test which would be applied to social welfare payments as well as to veterans' entitlements. This was the first indication that the Australian Labor Party had decided to treat veterans' entitlements and social security payments in the same way. Consequently, the assets test has been applied to veterans' entitlements with drastic and devastating results. Unfortunately, in electing a Labor government the Australian people did not realise what the real effect of the assets test was to be on veterans. On 7 March 1985, the last pension pay day prior to the implementation of the assets test, there were 386,113 veterans receiving payments. By 18 June 1985 this figure had fallen by 6,175 veterans who were no longer eligible to receive payments because of the loathsome assets test. A further 7,206 veterans had part of their payments deducted because of the test. A total of 13,381 veterans have been unjustly penalised because their war service was disregarded by the mean and rapacious socialists sitting opposite, and these veterans have been swindled out of the just compensation owed to them by the Australian people. Thirteen thousand anguished and deprived people may not seem many to Labor, but to me even one veteran pushed into poverty is one veteran too many. It is important to realise that because of this vile assets test 7,155 veterans have lost all or part of their fringe benefits entitlements, such as access to medical, hospital, dental, optical and pharmaceutical services, along with travel concession and other assistance. For many the loss of the fringe benefits is more than disastrous. The assets test and its implementation is an abomination and a stain on our national honour. It punishes people for saving, persecutes them for working hard and victimises them for success. Its sole aim has been to penalise people who have accumulated assets. Is that a crime? All veterans are entitled to equal consideration, and to penalise some just because they have a few bob put away for a rainy day introduces a new and unacceptable punitive concept into the repatriation system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the veterans' organisations and the very many individuals in my electorate of Cowper who took the trouble to write protesting about the original veterans' Bill. It is because of people and organisations such as them all over Australia, which took advantages of the provisions provided by the Opposition's sunset clause, that we are here tonight debating much more acceptable legislation. This legislation, despite Government claims to the contrary and in spite of concessions dragged out of the Government by the RSL, other veterans' groups and the Opposition, ensures that veterans and their dependants are still worse off than previously. The Opposition's sunset clause forced the Government to act but it is still dragging the chain on several important issues. The first item is the Government's changes to disability pensions. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), in his second reading speech, said: It was never intended that the TPI rate would become payable to a veteran who, having enjoyed a full working life after war service, then retires from work, possibly with whatever superannuation and other retirement benefits are available to the Australian work force. This is patently untrue. I draw the attention of the House to the second reading speech of the then Minister for Repatriation, Senator Edward Millen, on 24 March 1920. Nowhere in that second reading speech is a TPI pension made conditional upon whether or not a veteran enjoyed the benefits of a working life. Nowhere in the existing repatriation legislation is such a nexus to be found. The connection between a TPI pension and whether an eligible veteran worked is entirely a creation of the present Minister's imagination. Indeed, if one reads the present legislation, it is perfectly clear that the eligibility of a veteran for a TPI pension is entirely war related; any other consideration is extraneous and unjustifiable. Let me make it quite clear that there is no difference between a veteran who was totally and permanently disabled on the battlefield and one who, 40 years later because of a condition resulting from war service, finds himself totally and permanently disabled. If the latter's incapacity is directly attributable to war service, he ought to receive a TPI pension irrespective of his age or whether he has worked in the intervening years between war service and total disability. The Government's approach to TPI pensions will definitely result in deserving veterans being deprived of their just entitlement to such a pension. No amount of quibbling on the part of the Minister will change the fact that the Government has restricted the availability of this form of compensation so as to deprive deserving veterans. The Government's proposed changes to TPI eligibility mean that some veterans who have a TPI disability will not receive adequate compensation for their disability. The Minister must continue to negotiate with the veteran community to ensure that justice is done and adequate compensation received by those people who have earned it. The proposal of the Returned Services League for an exceptional disability allowance which would cover the gap that exists at present in the proposed disability formula in the range from 65 per cent to 95 per cent is an effective way of meeting the requirement for additional compensation for those veterans who are totally and permanently incapacitated. I am also very concerned about the Government's refusal to provide coverage for all future full time members of the Australian defence forces who may enlist after the proclamation of this legislation. Future servicemen and women will be excluded from the benefits of the repatriation system unless they engage in either hazardous duties or peacekeeping duties. I remind the House that a previous Labor Government led by Mr Whitlam extended the eligibility of full time members of the Australian defence forces to benefits under the Repatriation Act provided they had been under colours for three years and that they had been discharged as medically unfit. Now the Hawke-Australian Council of Trade Unions Government is giving this country's armed services another undeserved kick in the guts. Under this Veterans' Entitlements Bill, the definition of `hazardous service' is to be determined from time to time by the relevant Minister, with no necessity for him to refer to or consult with the Parliament. That is not good enough. Australia's current and future service- men and women should be covered by the same compensation provisions as those now available to our ex-servicemen and women. There is no need to duplicate the existing system with a special armed services compensation package. The Minister and the Government in their offhanded manner are suggesting that servicemen and women who may become medically unfit because of their military service should be treated less fairly than their fathers and mothers. An excellent compensation scheme already exists in the form of the repatriation system. It should be retained for the benefit of men and women who may risk their lives for Australia in the future. The most blatant expression of the scrooge mentality which the Hawke-ACTU Government has displayed towards our nation's veterans is to be seen in its approach to the dependant's allowance. The dependants' allowance was made as part of the compensation package for injured and disabled veterans and their families. Regrettably, the allowance has not been increased for two decades. In an extraordinarily mental convulsion, the Minister does not suggest that the allowance be increased to make up for its having been ignored for all that time; rather, because it has not been increased for 20 years, he says that it should be abolished altogether. That is not good enough. The dependant's allowance should be retained and increased. Once again, the Minister is tinkering with a system that works well just because he cannot keep his nose out of the balance sheets. He continues to ignore some of the important real needs of real people. Veterans and their dependants are not just statistics. The obligations of this nation to its ex-service men and women should be sacrosanct. Debate (on motion by Mr Holding) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.40) —by leave-I move: That standing order 103, the 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. I inform honourable members that this motion is in order merely to conclude debate on this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(10.41) —I strongly support the propositions put by so many honourable members who have spoken from this side of the House in this important debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. Of course, the legislation is the consequence of a persistence on the part of representatives of service organisations, particularly the Returned Services League, in the State of New South Wales and in other States and at a national level here in Canberra. I applaud the tremendous and what can only be described as very pertinent effort made by the National President of the RSL, Sir William Keys, to bring to the Government's attention the very vital elements which needed correcting in the Government's original legislation. It will be recalled that in the last session there was considerable heated debate about the whole issue. I believe it is to the credit of those who have been prepared to listen that improvements have been embodied in this legislation. As time precludes further lengthy debate this evening, I wish to say very briefly that the other outstanding needs which have been catalogued by previous speakers are vital if we are to adhere to the principle that those who served this nation should receive compensation where it is appropriate and recognition where it is appropriate. In both categories that means granting entitlements that are the due of those who seek them, provided of course that the proper criteria are observed and the proper steps taken to establish the rights of those individuals who have served this nation. It would be a travesty of justice if, through this legislation, we were not able to correct the wrong course on which the Government had earlier set out in the matter of veterans' entitlements. There is no greater recognition of worth than that which applies to the veterans of this nation, those who served in each of the categories of service, whether it be the few left from the First World War, the large number from the Second World War or those who have served since that time. Had it not been for their dedication and contribution, we may have had today a situation very different from the freedom that we enjoy. Mr McGauran —A freedom abused by some. Mr IAN ROBINSON —As my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland says, there are instances when it could be said quite factually that that freedom is to some extent abused in this day and age. I conclude by saying that what has been proposed and recognised is to be commended. Other matters have been raised in this debate. I hope that they will not be overlooked by the Government, perhaps in another place, in the course of the passage of this Bill so that we will conclude with a very effective remedy for the unfortunate wrong that was there before action was taken. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.42) —I am very pleased and honoured to be speaking in this Parliament tonight representing the National Party of Australia on this very important legislation. Yesterday, of course, 11 November 1985, was Remembrance Day-the sixty-seventh anniversary of the World War I armistice. We all know that Remembrance Day was previously called Armistice Day and that in the 1950s it was changed to Remembrance Day so that we would be able to remember all those ex-servicemen and women who fought on behalf of this country to ensure that the freedom we enjoy continues. I was privileged to attend the Burpengary State School Remembrance Day ceremony at 9 a.m. I congratulate the Deception Bay sub-branch of the Returned Services League for organising this tremendous opportunity for the children of Burpengary to recognise the debt which we owe our ex-servicemen and women. I think patriotism is a great thing. It is important that ongoing generations remember the outstanding contributions of those who have gone before. In the World Wars Australian Federal Governments called upon young Australians to come forward, to stand up for God, King and country. It promised that, if people were injured or wounded, we as a nation would remember the debt which we owe ex-servicemen and women. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill purports to gather together all those sundry pieces of legislation which have been placed on the statute book by various governments in times past and to consolidate them into one Act. The Opposition is not opposed to the idea of a consolidation, but we are opposed to the way in which this Government proved, through its initial efforts to ram this legislation through the House, that it absolutely hated ex-servicemen and women. The one good thing to come out of the Government's shabby efforts in May this year was that it stood exposed, once and for all, before the people of Australia as a government which was not prepared to recognise the debt which we owe to those who served in time of war. Many of those people now are elderly; many of those people now are in need of medical attention. Yet the Government was trying to force that legislation through this Parliament. It managed to get it through this House because it temporarily has the numbers but, fortunately, the National-Liberal Opposition in the Senate and other honourable senators rejected Labor's disgraceful efforts. The result was that, for the third time in the history of this nation, the Parliament was recalled. The first two occasions were matters of great moment. In 1940 Parliament was recalled to decide the conduct of the nation in the greatest world conflict in modern history. On 11 November 1975, an Australian Prime Minister was dismissed for illegality and Parliament was once again recalled-and quite appropriately. In May this year our Parliament was called back for the third time, at a cost in excess of $100,000. One would expect some dire happening or national crisis to justify this action. The reality is quite different. The Parliament was recalled to pass a single Bill, the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, which some honourable members opposite thought was so important. We can all recall the sight of one Government member making some sort of music with his shoes on the desk in front of him. That was what he thought of the ex-servicemen and women of this country. It was an absolute disgrace! I would like to thank all those people in the community, the RSL sub-branches, the war widows and members of society generally, for writing to me to express their concern about what Labor was trying to do to our ex-servicemen and women. We owe a debt to them; we have a national responsibility to them. I am pleased that the Opposition has forced this Government to consult with the RSL and other groups. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill before the House tonight, while not satisfactory in all respects, is infinitely better than the one the Government initially brought forward. I am not happy over the way the Government has refused to come to agreement with all ex-service groups on all aspects of the Bill. I hope that there will be ongoing consultation. This Bill is better, although it is by no means perfect. I would like to congratulate the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is doing an excellent job in his new portfolio. I know that I speak for the ex-servicemen and women of my electorate when I pass on those congratulations. We can never forget what we owe to those people who permitted us, by their sacrifice in the past, to enjoy the freedom we have today. Countries overseas languish under communist and totalitarian regimes. If it had not been for the way in which people stepped forward during the two World Wars who knows where this country would be now? Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.46) —In concluding the second reading debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill I would like to set at rest a number of points raised during the debate. If veterans were listening to some aspects of this debate they may well have been misled, albeit it innocently, by some of the statements that have been made. Having spent a long time in opposition in Parliament, I think it is false to say that any one political party or any one group of parliamentarians does not have genuine and abiding concern about the need to see that our veteran community is adequately compensated and looked after. When I first became a Minister in this Government, I think in the very first fortnight, I was rung by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who had discovered, in one of the files locked away, a recommendation from the Attorney-General's office indicating that one group of ex-servicemen-Torres Strait Islanders-had been very glibly overlooked. They had entitlements in law which obviously had been brought to the attention of previous Ministers in other governments and had simply been ignored. I was in opposition when the Opposition fought very hard-ultimately I think it received support from members of the Government-for its assertion that those who had served the country well as merchant seamen ought to be included in veterans' entitlements. So when one looks at the history of this matter I think it is true to say that one sees that oppositions have generally pressed a broad range of claims and governments, caught with restraints of spending, have not always been able to meet what all members would want to see as a just and balanced entitlement for the veteran community. The reality of this legislation-I think this was picked up by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer)-is that, despite the very considerable debate that has taken place and while there are some concerns, which I will deal with, basically it is felt by the Opposition that the process of consultation-very lengthy, very exhaustive and very participatory-has produced a situation where many of the anomalies and many of the problems that have existed in previous legislation have been overcome. As I explained in my second reading speech, the purpose of these Bills is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the existing repatriation legislation. This represents the third stage of the Government's strategy for improving the repatriation system. In 1984, legislation based on a report by the Administrative Review Council restructured the repatriation determining system. The new system has been operating since 1 January 1985. Honourable members will be pleased to know that inroads are being made into the unacceptable backlog of pension claims that have built up under the old determining system. As well as the new determining system, complementary administrative reforms have been effected within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is the Government's aim to ensure that veterans and their dependants receive first quality service delivery in respect of their entitlements to pensions, allowances and treatment. I have no doubt that that is an objective that is supported by all honourable members on both sides of this House. These Bills are the outcome of most extensive consultative process that has been spread over three years. I would like to comment on one aspect of the consultative process and the legislative follow up. Under the draft legislation tabled on 20 May 1985, the Government indicated that Defence Force personnel who enlist after the Veterans' Entitlements Bill comes into operation would not be eligible for repatriation coverage. After considering views expressed by the veteran and regular Defence Force community, the Government reviewed its earlier decision. On 12 October 1985 the Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced the extension of coverage under the Bill to future enlistees in the defence forces, after the Bill commences, in respect of hazardous service in which they are engaged. I should also point out that any personal injury or disease suffered by a serviceman, whether while on hazardous service or not, is compensable under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act of 1971. It has come to the notice of the Government that there is a technical defect in the Bill before the House; that is, while the definition of `defence service' in clause 68 has been extended to incorporate the concept of `hazardous service', there is also the need to expand the application provisions in clause 69 to provide that Part IV of the Bill applies to any member of the Defence Force who renders hazardous service after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Because of the tight parliamentary timetable and the need to have this legislation in force by 5 December, it is not intended to amend the Bill before the House at this stage. The Government gives an undertaking that this drafting oversight will be rectified at the earliest opportunity and applied with retrospective effect to cover any specific period of hazardous service that members of the Defence Force might be required to undertake after 5 December 1985. It is the present intention to bring forward a Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill in the autumn sitings of 1986 to implement other Government decisions such as that announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his taxation state- ment concerning the elimination of certain poverty traps for people receiving income-tested pensions such as the service pension. Any machinery amendments, such as that mentioned above, will be incorporated in such an amendment Bill. There are a few matters that I would like to take up in relation to the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill moved on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Farrer. The Government is committed to the need for an assets test and to the provision made for that purpose by the Bill. I do not accept the comments, and the Government does not accept the comments, made by the honourable member in respect of the alleged iniquitous operation of that test. I stress there has been no change to the assets test or its operation. The honourable member also referred to the creation of different levels of entitlement in respect of allied veterans. In particular, he was concerned about the lack of entitlement to medical treatment for allied veterans. The Bill does not create a different level of entitlement in this respect. Allied veterans have never had entitlement to medical treatment under the repatriation legislation. The Government's priority, and the priority of previous governments, has been to ensure that Australian veterans and their dependants are adequately compensated in terms of pensions and have the best possible medical facilities available to them. Allied veterans have access to medical treatment under the Medicare arrangements. It is true that the Government has made an extension of existing entitlements to enable war widows whose pensions were cancelled on or after 28 May 1984, because of remarriage, to have those pensions restored. There will always be arguments that the repatriation entitlements ought to go further. I emphasise that but for the provisions made by the Bill no war widows whose pensions were cancelled after 29 May 1984 because of remarriage, or who remarry in future, would be entitled to repatriation benefits. The honourable member for Farrer also referred to the degree of anomaly associated with retrospectivity involved in this legislation. He referred in particular to the fact that pension claims determined under the new legislation, regardless of when lodged, will be subject to the O'Brien modification requiring that there be a reasonable hypothesis that a disability or death is war caused in order for a pension to be payable. This issue was raised in respect of the May amendments to the Repatriation Act by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I draw to honourable member's attention that the Senate Standing Committee in its report on the legislation now before the House accepts that there is, in fact, no retrospectivity involved. The Government's view is that personal rights flow from the determination of Commonwealth liability to pay a pension rather than from the mere act of lodging a claim. The Government does not accept that there is any basis for suggesting that the requirement that there be a reasonable hypothesis of war causality should not apply to all claims determined from the effective date of the legislation irrespective of when the claim was lodged. Presumably the Opposition does not argue that those provisions in the Bill which are more generous than those in the present legislation should not apply to claims already lodged. Much was made by the honourable member for Farrer about the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the commencement of the Bill before a new military compensation scheme can be considered. That point was repeated by other members of the Opposition. There will continue to be coverage for present members of the Defence Force under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Those enlisting after the Act is in force will be aware that they will have coverage under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. I think it was unfortunate that a number of people who were concerned to make this point may well have left the impression-I believe unintentionally-that if in fact one joined after this period there could be no benefit at all. I stress that the Government has made a significant concession in accepting that coverage under the Bill should be available for future enlistees in respect of hazardous service or peacekeeping service in which they engage. If I draw attention briefly to the entitlements that are available under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act I think some of the concerns expressed by honourable gentlemen opposite will dissipate. Members of the Defence Force are eligible to receive compensation under that Act in respect of injuries arising out of or in the course of their defence service or diseases to which the defence service was a contributing factor. For example, a lump sum payment is available under that scheme in respect of permanent facial disfigurement in the sum of $25,600. During the first 26 weeks of incapacity, payment is to be made at a rate equal to the Defence Force member's rate of pay for sick leave. Weekly payments are then available for total incapacity of $164.80 for the Defence Force member; $43.20 for the spouse and $20.50 for any dependent child. Full medical treatment is available for compensable injuries or disease. An allowance is also payable, where required, for constant help and attendance. The legislation also makes provision for redemption of weekly payments by way of a lump sum. Where the death of a Defence Force member is related to defence service, a dependant is eligible to receive a lump sum of $51,290. Having regard to the availability of these compensation entitlements and the Bill's continuation of repatriation coverage in respect of hazardous peacekeeping service, it can scarcely be argued that future Defence Force enlistees will be seriously disadvantaged by removal of Veterans' Entitlements Bill coverage. Looked at in the broad sense, very few young men or women considering joining the defence forces will be discouraged by the fact that for a fairly small period they will, in fact, be covered by Commonwealth compensation legislation in respect of non-hazardous defence service. A number of other matters were raised which I think also need comment in case some concern created among members of the veteran community. The honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), as did the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), raised objections to the TPI pension criteria and regarded the TPI pension as compensation rather than welfare. That was the subject of quite considerable argument by the honourable member for Petrie. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the old test for the TPI pension was that a veteran was prevented from earning more than a negligible proportion of a living wage by reason of his accepted disabilities. In 1981 the Full Federal Court of Australia in Bowman's case said of the old test that it adopted loss of earning capacity as the measure of the extent of war related disability. The Court explained the old test as follows: It is sufficient in testing whether an applicant's inability to earn is due to his war related disability to consider whether he would be equally unable to earn if he were free from the disability. The present Bill confirms that the TPI pension test is based on a loss of earning capacity. The present criteria are based on recommendation No. 10 of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. Contrary to what the honourable member for Petrie's adviser has told him, the TPI pension has always been payable on the basis of loss of earning capacity. Saying that veterans are not eligible for the TPI pension if they have already left the work force merely states the principle that has been in the legislation since 1920. The honourable member for Fairfax, as a former Minister, should have been aware of that. It does not mean, however, that such a veteran cannot get compensation. He is still eligible for a disability pension at up to the 100 per cent general rate, that is, $68.80 a week tax free and not subject to any assets or income test. Such veterans are also eligible for a service pension at a maximum weekly rate of $97.90 for a single person and $163.30 for a married person. Whilst service pensions are income and assets tested, disability pensions are not taken into account in the application of the income test. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) raised the need to update facilities at all repatriation hospitals and institutes. He was fairly critical of what he regarded as the situation at Concord Repatriation General Hospital. The sum of $17.6m was earmarked in the 1984-85 Budget to provide a new surgical and diagnostic complex and main stores building and other works, including two modern laboratories for cardiology, at Concord. Improvements of a comparable nature are being made at other hospitals serving veterans. Again, criticisms can be made of individual institutions throughout the Commonwealth. However, having regard to budgetary restrictions and constraints no-one can say that this Government, within the framework of those constraints and constrictions, has not endeavoured to meet what we all regard as an important aspect of servicing the health requirements of our veteran community. I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I believe that, from the point of view of the veteran community, the legislation as it now goes forward confers rights and entitlements, clarifies areas of doubt and provides the framework for further legislation which ultimately will ensure a record of which this Parliament can be proud. Basically, the history of our veterans' entitlements legislation, whatever its imperfections, still operates at a level about which all Australian governments, past and present, can say: `We have done our best to care for the needs of our veteran community'. By comparison with standards that operate overseas Australia can say that it is one of the leading nations in not having forgotten those who have served this country well and ably. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Tim Fischer's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.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.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) 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 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.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.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. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.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. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 53-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 54 (Pension reduction amounts). Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.18) —I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that clause 54 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is a fundamental clause which reasserts the imposition of the assets test with regard to veteran service pensions. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in his reply to the second reading debate a few minutes ago indicated that the Bill did not alter the assets test in any way. He indicated also that the assets test was not more rigorously applied to veteran service pensioners than it was to general service pensioners. I submit to the Committee that this is not in accord with a letter written by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), dated 17 October 1985, to my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). The Minister for Veterans' Affairs said in that communication: It is true that the Assets Test has had greater impact on DVA Service Pensioners than on DSS pensioners. To be fair, I will quote the Minister to the end of the paragraph: But I believe that a little thought should point to the fact that there are substantial age, marital, education and ethnic differences between the two populations- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Committee will come to order. The level of conversation is such that the speaker is having to shout in order to make himself heard. Would all conversations please cease, especially on the front bench. Mr TIM FISCHER —Clause 54 not only applies to the reassertion of Labor's assets test on service pensions, but, as I pointed out, it does so, on the Minister's own admission, in such a way that it has had a greater impact on veterans' affairs service pensioners than on other pensioners. There is one other statistic that I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee in relation to this matter. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has previously indicated that on a national basis 4.3 per cent of Department of Veterans' Affairs service pensioners have been affected by Labor's assets test, whereas again on a national basis only 2.6 per cent of Department of Social Security pensioners have been affected. In fact, as a stated percentage, the number of veterans affected by the assets test is much greater than the number of general pensioners affected. For this reason and also for broad philosophical reasons and because of the policy approach of the coalition to the assets test, the Opposition rejects clause 54 and its application of the assets test to service pensioners, and will vote accordingly Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel 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.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. 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.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.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. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.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. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 55 to 67-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 68 and 69-by leave-taken together. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.30) —Clauses 68 and 69 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill relate to the definitions providing for pensions for members of the Defence Force or a peacekeeping force and their dependants. Had Standing Orders allowed, the coalition would have sought to move an amendment to clause 68, page 87, lines 35 and 36, to omit `and before the commencement of this Act'; likewise, we would have moved an amendment to clause 69, page 90, lines 37 to 38, to omit `and before the commencement of this Act'. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), said in the second reading speech: The Government will also be considering further the development of a new Defence Force compensation package outside the repatriation system. This afternoon, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) intervened in the debate to reaffirm that there will be the development of a military compensation scheme to provide for the armed forces outside the repatriation system and in addition to, but separate from the Commonwealth compensation legislation. It was most interesting that the Minister for Defence, in making his contribution, saw fit to emphasise that he does not want any time pressures in respect of the production of a military compensation scheme. Those were his exact words. He submitted to the House-and with, I think, some justice-that the preparation of a military compensation Act needs to be done comprehensively. It needs to be done in a way that will ensure that when the legislation comes before the House there will be, for example, no drafting errors present in it-unlike the Veterans' Entitlements Bill now before the House. The present attitude taken by the Government to the Bill creates a finite time limit of three years. The Minister at the table, the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, would be aware that new enlistees, but for this legislation, would not have qualified for repatriation unless they had done three years continuous service. So in one sense, as in fact the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) pointed out, there is a three-year finite period by which a military compensation scheme would have to be in place on the statute book under that circumstance. If, however, the Government were to adopt the approach of the coalition and to allow new enlistees to remain under repatriation cover from this point onwards, at least until we have seen the legislation for a military compensation scheme and until that legislation passes through both Houses of Parliament, then there would not be any finite time limit on the Minister for Defence to produce that package. It is all very well for the Government to indicate that it is working on this military compensation package and that it will be forthcoming. We heard in May that we were going to have legislation on the defence service home loans scheme and that we were going to have two Bills on that scheme. The first was going to improve the housing loan scheme and the second was going to privatise the Defence Service Homes Loans Corporation at the initiative of this Labor Government. We have yet to see either of those Bills. No doubt they will be forthcoming. But the Government said that the defence service homes loans scheme would be in operation by 1 January next. That is a typical example of a timetable for legislation, following on the May mini-Budget, going off the rails. That is why the Opposition will not accept that the military compensation scheme is so near to coming forward by way of legislation that we can risk putting new enlistees in the Army, Navy and Air Force outside of repatriation cover and under merely the provision of the Commonwealth compensation legislation. I believe that the approach of the Opposition is the fairer one in the interests of justice for those who will be joining the Army, Navy or Air Force after 5 December next. I accept what the Minister at the table said when he stated that in the scheme of things it is probably not the most important issue influencing a recruit to join our armed forces. Nevertheless, the responsibility of this Parliament is to consider the totality of things. It has a responsibility to consider what is right, proper and correct in the circumstance. It was the Labor Party when in government which introduced repatriation cover for members of the armed forces on and with effect from 7 December 1972. Members of the armed forces have had repatriation cover for the 13 years since that time. Now a Labor Government is seeking to withdraw repatriation cover from enlistees in the Army, Navy and Air Force. I submit very strongly to the House that that is a very cheap approach. I suggest that it is perhaps only a matter of months-at the most one or two years-that we are looking at in regard to additional repatriation cover. I further submit that the amount of extra expenditure for the Government resulting from leaving new enlistees eligible for repatriation cover would be very little indeed, especially as such enlistees have to wait three years anyway to qualify for repatriation cover. In the interests of seeing this legislation proceed on time and in accord with the requirement that the legislation be on the statute book by 5 December when the sunset clause cuts out, I do not at this stage seek to push the matter further in this House. However, I serve notice as a matter of courtesy that this will be raised in another place and the result there might indeed be different. I commend in principle the amendments which the Standing Orders preclude my moving. I would not like to transgress on your ruling, Madam Chair, on this occasion by proceeding. I commend those amendments as being a very responsible approach and an absolute reflection of the determination of the coalition to see that justice is done not only to veterans but also to new enlistees of our armed forces. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.38) —I wish to make some brief observations in relation to clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I have had brought to my attention an opinion of legal counsel, Mr McInnes, QC, dated 8 November which suggests that there is an interpretation of clause 119 which might be somewhat at variance with the opinion given by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in his second reading speech. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to sub-clause 119 (1) and said: Sub-clause 119 (1) will require a favourable determination to be made in relation to a pension claim unless the Repatriation Commission is satisfied beyound reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for doing so. The Minister continued: However, the Commission will be required to be satisfied beyound reasonable doubt where, after consideration of the whole of the material relevant to a pension claim, there is no reasonable hypothesis raised and, if raised, there does not remain a reasonable hypothesis of a service connection to a veteran's death or incapacity. In consideration of this matter Mr McInnes raises the vexed question as to what happens if there are a number of hypotheses that might be advanced in relation to a particular claim. I will briefly read the page or so of his opinion which sets out the difficulties with the interpretation of clause 119. Opposition members-Table it! Mr RUDDOCK —I will certainly make available a copy of the opinion to the Minister so that he may at his leisure consider this matter and, if appropriate, at another time in another place consider amendments to it. He might care to assure the Parliament that, if some doubt arises in relation to the intention of the Government when this matter is judicially interpreted at some future time, the legislation will be amended. I would be satisfied with an undertaking in either events. Counsel had this to say: What the Commission is now required to do (s. 118 (3)) is to look at the whole of the evidence before it and determine if that evidence raises a reasonable hypothesis. It then becomes a question of `what is a reasonable hypothesis?' In my view, it is at least open to the construction that a reasonable hypothesis is that which the Commission considers most likely. In other words, where there are several hypotheses the Commission will determine which is the most likely and determine that to be the reasonable one. This contrasts with the situation where several hypotheses are advanced, some more likely than others, but nevertheless all reasonable. If this be the situation, and there has to be but one reasonable hypothesis before the Commission in favour of a veteran's claim, no matter how many others unfavourable to the veteran, I do not see the veteran as being greatly disadvantaged. However, with the present legislation the real possibility is that the veteran's claim will not be granted unless the Commission is convinced that the favourable hypothesis is the most likely and therefore the reasonable one. It is all very well to say there is not onus upon a claimant veteran. The fact is that the Commission no matter how diligent in investigation of a claim may not discover all the facts or all the hypotheses. In practice the veteran, to ensure success, will have to ensure that not only is his hypothesis brought to the attention of the Commission but that it is a reasonable hypothesis since it is of all hypotheses, the most likely. I do not see that the present provisions differ materially from the `sunset' clause passed earlier this year. The result then is that, although there is no legal onus of proof, there is an evidentiary burden placed upon an applicant. As I have said that factual or evidentiary burden is to establish a hypothesis favourable to the claim and further persuade the Commission that it is a reasonable hypothesis in that it is the most likely hypothesis. Then, and only then, is the veteran entitled to the benefit sought unless it can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that the benefit ought not to be granted. It follows that the provisions of reasonable doubt have no application to the determination of a reasonable hypothesis and such hypothesis would be determined on the usual civil standard. That is a very important matter and one which is of concern to veterans. This opinion will become more widely known and the matter ought to be clarified. Hopefully it can be clarified before examination of the legislation is concluded in the Senate. In any event, I seek the Minister's assurance that if at any time this doubt is shown to be a real concern amendments will be made to the legislation to give effect to the Government's stated intention as revealed in the Minister's second reading speech. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.43) —The matter having been raised in the form and spirit in which it was raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), I can say this to him: I think the intention of the Government in this matter is very clear, and certainly the intention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gieztelt) is clear. I take the point that he makes. He will be aware of the fact, as a lawyer, that it is possible to get more than one opinion on these sorts of matters. Accordingly I ask whether he could made a copy of the opinion immediately available and I will see that tomorrow it is handed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs so that the issues raised can be fully considered and the Minister can be in a position to deal with the matter in the Senate in the way which has been suggested. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.47 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Improvement of International Terminal facilities, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament Augmentation of taxiway system, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Federal Airports Corporation, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 in relation to fees for overseas students. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, and for related purposes. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to request, and consent to, the enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of an Act in the terms set out in the Schedule to this Act. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation. Mr Young to move- That so much of standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, be suspended as would prevent (a) Mr Speaker proposing the question-That the House do now adjourn-at 10.15 p.m.; (b) Mr Speaker interrupting the debate at 11 p.m. and (c) a Minister requiring that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., on each Wednesday, for the remainder of this period of sittings. Dr Blewett to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on all aspects of the government's proposals for an Australia Card, including- (a) the costs of introducing and operating the system; (b) the likely effectiveness of the proposed system in combatting evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare systems, and in fulfilling the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (c) the most appropriate means of identification which should appear on Australia Cards to ensure the effectiveness of the system; (d) the most appropriate method of establishing positive identification of individuals for the purpose of issuing Australia Cards; (e) the experience of other countries in utilising identification systems; (f) the inclusion of adequate protection against abuses of civil liberties and invasion of privacy; (g) the comparable cost-effectiveness of alternative proposals to combat evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare system, and the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (h) whether use of the Australia Card should be universal and/or compulsory and, if so, for what purposes and by whom; (i) limits which should be placed on the requirement for individuals to produce an Australia Card; (j) the extent to which the Australia Card may facilitate data linkage by Commonwealth departments and authorities, and the most appropriate means whereby such data linkage be subjected to adequate supervision and safeguards; and (k) other related matters which the committee may deem appropriate. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and the deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committtee. (8) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (9) That the committee have power to move from place to place. (10) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (11) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (12) That the committee report by 31 March 1986. (13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (15) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 12 November 1985: Air Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 276. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 292, 293. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1985-M24/85-1986 Performance. Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 184-Vice-Chancellorship Amendment Statute No. 6. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 291. Consular Privileges and Immunities Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 265, 266. Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 64-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 65-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 66-Vehicle Allowance and Language Proficiency Allowance. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations- Orders-1985- No. 9-Dairy Produce (Amendment). No. 10-Export Meat (Amendment). No. 11-Game, Poultry and Rabbit Meat (Amendment). Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 287. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 264. First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 267. Fisheries Act- Notice, No. 153. Plan of Management, No. 1. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 286. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Declaration under sub-section 4 (4), dated 31 October 1985. Grain Legumes Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 281. Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 290. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos 274, 278. Interim Forces Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 270. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 26 September 1985. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for Defence-Parish of Forbes, Qld. Statements (3) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 288. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 275. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 294. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 289. Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 273. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 277. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-by-laws-1985-Amendment-No. 6. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Grain Legumes Levy Act 1985-Provisions, other than sections 1 and 2-1 November 1985. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Act 1985-14 November 1985. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Aviation-Shannon, M.R. Determinations-1985-Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88. Remuneration Tribunal Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations- 1985/17-Executive Member, Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation and part-time holders of public offices. 1985/18-Secretaries of Parliamentary Departments. Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 268, 279. Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 269. Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 272. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 271, 280. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination listing fees for purposes of the Health Services Ordinance, dated 8 October 1985. Ordinances-1985- No. 55-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment). No. 56-Cemeteries (Amendment). No. 57-Artificial Conception. No. 58-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 59-Child Welfare (Amendment). Regulations-1985- No. 25 (Cemeteries Ordinance). No. 26-(Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance). States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Statements of particulars of directions given under- Sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (2), dated 29 October 1985. Sub-section 41 (1), dated 29 October 1985 (2). Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force for Australia- 1. Protocol between Australia and the Republic of Austria amending the Treaty concerning Extradition done at Canberra on 29 March 1973, signed at Vienna on 30 August 1985. 2. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Italy, signed at Milan on 26 August 1985. 3. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, signed at Rarotonga on 6 August 1985. 4. Agreement on Trade and Economic Relations and Technical Cooperation between Australia and the United Arab Emirates, signed at Canberra on 6 March 1985. 5. Agreement and Protocol between the Government of Australia and the Government of Finland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed at Canberra on 12 September 1984. 6. International Convention on the Harmonsied Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983, signed for Australia on 26 June 1984. 7. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and Ireland, signed at Dublin on 2 September 1985. 8. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Netherlands, signed at The Hague on 5 September 1985. 9. Treaty between Australia and Norway concerning Extradition, signed at Oslo on 9 September 1985. 10. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Kingdom of Belgium signed at Brussels on 4 September 1985. 11. Protocol between Australia and Sweden amending the Treaty concerning Extradition done at Stockholm on 20 March 1973, signed at Stockholm on 6 September 1985. 12. Protocol between Australia and Finland amending the Treaty concerning Extradition done at Helsinki on 7 June 1984, signed at Helsinki on 10 September 1985. To which Australia has become a party by signature- 1. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 6 October 1983 and 14 November 1983 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States further extending the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation of 16 October 1968. The Agreement entered into force on 16 October 1983. 2. Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, signed at Nicosia on 9 December 1983. The Agreement entered into force on that date. 3. Agreement establishing the Association of Tin Producing Countries, done at London on 23 March 1983 and signed by Australia on 22 November 1983. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 21 January 1984. 4. Exchange of letters at Rome and Canberra on 26 April 1983 and 1 December 1983 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Multinational Force and Observers amending the Agreement concerning Australian participation in the Multinational Force and Observers. The Agreement entered into force on 1 December 1983. 5. Exchange of Notes at Geneva on 31 January 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Patent Office of the Government of Australia an the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation amending the Agreement in relation to the establishment and functioning of the Patent Office of the Government of Australia as an International Searching and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Co-operation Treaty, done at Geneva on 29 February 1980. The amending Agreement entered into force on 1 March 1984. 6. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 17 February 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America amending the Agreement regarding future management and operation of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs done at Canberra on 28 February 1978. The amending Agreement entered into force on 17 February 1984. 7. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 16 April 1984 and 11 May 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America further extending the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation, signed at Canberra on 16 October 1968. The Agreement entered into force on 16 April 1984. 8. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Agricultural Co-operation, signed in Beijing on 17 May 1984. The Agreement entered into force on signature. 9. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 10 April and 10 May 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Access of Commercial Fishing Vessels to Australian ports. The agreement entered into force on 10 May 1984. 10. Exchange of Notes at Nauru on 2 and 3 February 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru amending the Agreement relating to Air Services, done at Canberra on 17 September 1969, as amended by on Exchange of Notes on 12 August 1976. The Agreement entered into force on 3 February 1984. 11. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 24 July 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on the Conduct of Long-Duration Balloon Flights from the Territory of Australia. The Agreement entered into force on 24 July 1985. 12. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 16 July 1984 and 18 October 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Use of Balloon Launching Facilities in Australia. The Agreement entered into force on 18 October 1984. 13. Agreement Establishing an International Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Bank, done at London and signed for Australia on 26 June 1985. The Agreement entered into force on 26 June 1985. 14. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 29 May 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Amend the Agreement for Air Service between and beyond their respective Territories 1958, as amended. The Agreement entered into force on 29 May 1985. 15. Exchange of Notes at Washington on 2 August 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Application of the Agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. The Agreement entered into force on 2 August 1985. 16. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on the Protection of Classified Information of Defence Interest, signed at Stockholm on 14 August 1985. The Agreement entered into force on 14 August 1985. 17. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic relating to the Exchange and Communication of Classified Information, signed at Paris on 15 July 1985. The Agreement entered into force on 15 July 1985. 18. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 1 May 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Co-operation on the Project for the Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-3 System. The Agreement entered into force on 1 May 1985. 19. Exchange of Notes at Beijing on 12 April 1985 and Canberra on 16 April 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Establishment of additional Consulates-General in their respective countries. The Agreement entered into force on 16 April 1985. 20. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Norway for the Exchange of Money Orders, signed at Melbourne on 27 March 1985. The Agreement entered into force on 27 March 1985. 21. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning the furnishing of launch and associated services for Australia's National Satellite System, signed at Washington on 7 March 1985. The Agreement entered into force on 7 March 1985. 22. Exchange of Letters at Washington on 16 January 1985 between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning Trade in certain Steel Products, with attached arrangement. The Agreement entered into force on 16 January 1985. 23. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 5 November and 9 November 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Employment Opportunities for Dependants of Officials Overseas. The Agreement entered into force on 9 November 1984. 24. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 18 October 1984 and 11 December 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America further extending the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation signed at Canberra on 16 October 1968 and extended by exchange of notes in 1973, 1978, 1983 and 1984. The Agreement entered into force in accordance with the provisions of the Notes on 16 October 1984. 25. Agreement on Economic and Technical Co-operation in the Iron and Steel Industry between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China, signed at Beijing on 7 August 1984 and Canberra on 10 August 1984. The Agreement entered into force on 10 August 1984. 26. Agreement between the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America in cooperation with the Committee for the Coordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas relating to the conduct of a Joint Programme of Marine Geoscientific Research and Mineral Resource Studies of the South Pacific Region -Second Phase, signed at Washington on 19 September 1984. The Agreement entered into force on 19 September 1984. 27. Economic and Commercial Co-operation Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Italy, signed at Rome on 26 September 1984. The Agreement entered into force on 26 September 1984. 28. Protocol between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on a Program of Co-operation in Agricultural Research for Development signed at Beijing on 14 September 1984. The Protocol entered into force on 14 September 1984. 29. Agreement between the Governments of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China relating to Civil Air Transport, signed at Beijing on 7 September 1984. The Agreement entered into force on 7 September 1984. 30. Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 30 March 1984 and Hobart on 23 July 1984 constituting an Agreement to extend the Interim Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources concerning certain Privileges and Immunities of the Commission. The Agreement entered into force on 23 July 1984. 31. Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing, signed at Canberra on 30 October 1984. The Subsidiary Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1984. 32. Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea, signed at Canberra on 16 October 1984. The Subsidiary Agreement entered into force on 1 October 1984. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- 1. International Agreement on Jute and Jute Products, 1982, done at Geneva on 1 October 1982, acceded to by Australia on 12 April 1984. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 12 April 1984. 2. Convention concerning the international Exchange of Publications, done at Paris on 5 December 1958, accepted by Australia on 15 June 1984. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 15 June 1985. 3. Convention concerning the Exchange of Official Publications and Government Documents between States, done at Paris on 5 December 1958, accepted by Australia on 15 June 1984. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 15 June 1985. 4. Amendment to Article VI.A.1 of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency done at New York on 26 October 1956, approved by the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency at Vienna on 27 September 1984 accepted by Australia on 14 August 1985. The Amendments are not yet in force. 5. Second Agreement to extend the Agreement establishing the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation, done at Vienna on 20 August 1984, accepted by Australia on 11 April 1985. The Second Agreement entered into force for Australia on 11 April 1985. 6. Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, done at New York on 20 June 1956, acceded to by Australia on 12 February 1985. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 14 March 1985. 7. Statute of the International Centre for the Registration of Serial Publications, 1974 as amended at Paris on 12 October 1976 acceded to by Australia on 22 October 1984. The Statutes entered into force for Australia on 22 October 1984. 8. International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, done at Kyoto on 18 May 1973. Annex D.1. (concerning rules of origin), done at Brussels on 10 June 1974; Annex E.1. (concerning Customs transit), done at Buenos Aires on 22 may 1975, and Annex F.7. (concerning Carriage of goods coastwise), done at Brussels on 18 June 1980, accepted by Australia on 5 March 1984. Annexes D.1. and E.1. entered into force for Australia on 5 June 1984. Annex F.7. is not yet in force. 9. Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, done at London on 2 November 1973, acceded to by Australia on 7 November 1983. The Protocol entered into force for Australia on 5 February 1984. To which Australia has become a party by ratification- 1. International Sugar Agreement 1984, done at Geneva on 5 July 1984, signed for and ratified by Australia on 31 December 1984. The Agreement entered into force provisionally on 1 January 1985 and definitively on 4 April 1985. 2. Protocol amending the International Convention relating to the limitation of liability of owners of sea-going ships dated 10 October 1957, done at Brussels on 21 December 1979, signed for and ratified by Australia on 30 November 1983. The Protocol entered into force for Australia on 6 October 1984. 3. Treaty between Australia and Finland concerning Extradition, signed at Helsinki on 7 June 1984. The Agreement entered into force on 23 June 1983 in accordance with article 23 (2) after notes were exchanged on 22 March 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 283) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What professions in Commonwealth employment require a Bachelors degree in Applied Science. (2) What is the duration of this degree course. (3) Are all people employed in the professions referred to in part (1) employed by the Commonwealth within the common science salary structure, if not, which professions are not included. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has advised me that in the answer previously provided to this question (Hansard, 10 May 1985, pages 2120-21), a number of designations where a bachelor's degree in applied science is specified among the qualifications acceptable for entry to those designations were omitted. The corrected answer is as follows: (1) to (3) Science Group Agronomist Arboriculturist Bacteriologist Biochemist Biological Scientist Biologist Chemist Dietitian Food Technologist Fuel Technologist Geologist *Geophysicist *Geochemist Geoscientist Glaciologist Haematologist Histopathologist Horticulturist Hydrogeologist Hydrologist Immunologist Materials Scientist Medical Laboratory Technologist Metallurgist Meteorologist Metrologist Microbiologist Mineral Economist Mycologist Nutritionist *Oceanographer Parasitologist Petroleum Technologist *Pharmacist Pharmacologist Physical Scientist Physicist Plant Nematologist Plant Pathologist Serologist Textile Technologist Toxicologist Virologist Wool Technologist Non-Science Group Area Manager Assistant Examiner of Patents Computer Systems Officer Construction Manager Chairman, Australian Fire Board *Audit Group Defence Food Science Advisor Design Manager Director, Development-Classification Education Officer Engineer Examiner of Patents Experimental Officer Land Surveryor Librarian Naval Architect Occupational Therapist Physiotherapist Project Manager Psychologist Quantity Surveyor *Scientific officer Senior Remedial Physical Training Instructor Social Worker Speech Therapist Superintendent (Hydrometeorology) Surveyor Valuer * Specific degree qualifications for entry to these designations are not prescribed; however certain subjects of study within degrees or diplomas, including for Bachelor of Applied Science, from tertiary institutions may satisfy entry requirements to these designations. The durations of the Bachelor's degrees in applied science will vary, in accordance with the specific degree and educational institution listed as acceptable for each of the above occupational categories. However, the duration of most Bachelor of Applied Science degrees range from 3 to 4 years. (Question No. 532) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Minister for Education's instruction to her department that for 1985 only government members and senators were to be advised of special programs and funding for Government funded projects. (2) Were similar instructions issued to the Minister's Department for 1985 and prior to the elections of 1984. (3) Was the list of people to be advised extended to endorsed Labor Party candidates for the elections of December 1984. (4) Will the Minister ensure that members and senators be the first to be advised of future funding and programs which effect projects in the member's electorate or the senator's state or territory. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (4) I refer the honourable member to the response provided by the Prime Minister on behalf of all ministers to House of Representatives Questions 732-759 asked by Mr Blunt on 17 April, 1985. (See Hansard of 10 September 1985 page 465). (Question No. 535) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Minister for Education's instruction to her Department that for 1985 only government Members and Senators were to be advised of special programs and funding for government funded projects. (2) Were similar instructions issued to the Minister's Department for 1985 and prior to the elections of 1984. (3) Was the list of people to be advised extended to endorsed Labor Party candidates for the elections of December 1984. (4) Will the Minister ensure that Members and Senators be the first to be advised of future funding and programs which affect projects in the Member's electorate or the Senator's state or territory. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The Government has adopted the following principles, for announcements: (a) responsible Ministers are to make such announcements, concurrent with the relevant Government member or senator when appropriate; (b) relevant Government members or senators are to have the opportunity to make announcements when the matter involves their electorates; (c) information on Government programs is to be provided to members or senators, irrespective of party affiliation, on request; and (d) relevant members or senators, irrespective of party affiliation are to be provided with press releases about announcements concerning their electorates. Procedures similar to the above would not be unfamiliar to members of former Governments. (Question No. 644) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What are the guidelines for the grant of legal aid and other payments in the nature of legal aid to Ministers, Judges and other public officials? (2) When were those guidelines determined? Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No guidelines for the grant of legal aid or other payments in the nature of legal aid to Ministers, Judges and other public officials as such have been adopted by me or my predecessor in office under any of the schemes of financial assistance towards legal costs administered by me, or by the Australian Legal Aid Office. The guidelines that have been adopted for the provision of financial assistance under those schemes and the ALAO guidelines for the provision of legal aid do not distinguish between Ministers, Judges, public officials and other applicants. I have no knowledge whether any guidelines such as are referred to in the question have been adopted by the Legal Aid Commission in N.S.W., Victoria, Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia, which are independent statutory bodies. (b) The following guidelines were adopted by the Government on 21 May 1984 for the provision of assistance to Commonwealth Government Ministers in relation to the defence of legal proceedings. GUIDELINES FOR THE PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT MINISTERS IN RELATION TO THE DEFENCE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Where a Minister becomes involved as a defendant in litigation arising out of the performance of his or her ministerial duties the facts of the matter should be referred to the Attorney-General for consideration whether it is appropriate for assistance in accordance with these guidelines to be provided at Commonwealth expense. 2. Requests for assistance will be decided by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Prime Minister. In the event that any one of these Ministers is the defendant the matter will be put before Cabinet for decision. 3. Where it is decided that assistance will be provided to a Minister, the Attorney-General will decide whether the Crown Solicitor* should conduct the Minister's defence or whether it is appropriate that alternative arrangements be made. (Where it is decided that the Minister should engage private lawyers it should be made clear that the Minister's legal costs will only be paid to the extent that they are certified to be fair and reasonable by the Crown Solicitor# or other designated officer-see sub-section 34 (2) Audit Act 1901 and Finance Direction 13/7). 4. A decision whether to provide assistance to a Minister will be made having regard to the following guidelines- * Now-the Australian Government Solictor. Now-the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS 5. In the case of civil proceedings for damages, the Commonwealth will normally undertake to the Minister to arrange for his or her defence at Commonwealth expense and to meet any damages and costs awarded against him or her or agreed to in a reasonable negotiated settlement, provided the claim arose: (a) in circumstances in which the Commonwealth is vicariously liable for the acts of the Minister, or (b) in circumstances in which the Commonwealth would not be vicariously liable but: (i) the Minister was exercising an independent discretion conferred upon him or her and acted reasonably and responsibly in all the circumstances; or (ii) the Minister acted reasonably and responsibly and the act giving rise to the claim was a reasonable means of performing his or her duties in the interest of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will not, however, give such an undertaking where the claim arose in circumstances where the Commonwealth may seek from the Minister contribution or indemnity in respect of the damages for which the Commonwealth is or might be liable. 6. Subject to paragraph 7, a decision to seek contribution or indemnity will normally only be made where the Minister acted irresponsibly or maliciously or with culpable negligence or in disregard of the Commonwealth's interest or otherwise in such a way as to make it proper for the Commonwealth to seek such contribution or indemnity. 9. In many cases a decision whether to give to the Minister all the undertakings mentioned above cannot properly be made before the facts have been elicited before a court. In those circumstances either- (a) no undertakings will be given but the matter will be considered after the proceedings have concluded and a decision then made whether the Minister should be reimbursed legal expenses in whole or in part, and whether the Commonwealth will meet the whole or part of any damages and costs awarded against him or her, or agreed to in a reasonable negotiated settlement, or (b) an undertaking may be given to arrange for the Minister's defence at Commonwealth expense but no undertaking will be given that the Commonwealth will meet any damages or costs that might be awarded against him or her or agreed to in a reasonable negotiated settlement. A decision whether to meet any such damages and costs, either in whole or in part, will be made upon the conclusion of the proceedings. 10. Where an undertaking has been given to meet any damages and costs that may be awarded against a Minister, or that may be agreed to in a reasonable negotiated settlement, the Government would reserve the right to take control of the conduct of the defence of the proceedings. CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC PROCEEDINGS 11. As a general rule the defence of a Minister will be arranged at Commonwealth expense where the proceedings arose out of: (a) an incident in respect of which the Commonwealth may have a substantial financial interest, eg where there is or is likely to be a common law claim against the Commonwealth; (b) a case other than a traffic case or one connected with the use of a motor vehicle, if the Minister was acting in the course of official duties and does not appear to have acted maliciously or with culpable negligence; or (c) a fault in a vehicle or other equipment issued by the Commonwealth. 12. Any undertaking to arrange for a Minister's defence in criminal proceedings for an indictable offence will be limited initially to the conclusion of the committal proceedings. 13. Where it is decided to arrange for the defence of a Minister at Commonwealth expense in criminal or traffic proceedings, no undertakings will be given to pay any fine imposed or costs awarded against the Minister. Any application by a Minister for reimbursement or payment of a fine imposed or costs awarded against the Minister will be considered on its merits by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Prime Minister. RECOVERY OF COSTS 14. Where the Commonwealth undertakes to arrange for the defence of a Minister it will be a condition that, if an award of costs is made in the Minister's favour, the Minister, in consultation with the Commonwealth, will take all reasonable steps to recover those costs and will reimburse the Commonwealth any costs so recovered. Any steps taken by the Minister to recover costs will be at Commonwealth expense subject, where appropriate, to the legal costs thereby incurred being certified to be fair and reasonable by the Crown Solicitor# or other designated officer. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVISION OF FUNDS 15. In the event that it is decided that the Commonwealth should incur any expenditure under these guidelines that expenditure will be funded from appropriations administered by the Department of the Special Minister of State.'' (c) Section 21 of the Finance Directions, and related Guidlelines, provide for the defence of Commonwealth officers from actions taken against them arising in the course of their duties. Those provisions can be found in the Finance Manual produced by the Department of Finance. I understand that persons who were not Commonwealth officers have been treated on the same or similar footing where their relationship with the Commonwealth was considered to warrant it eg. members of committees. # Now-the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. (Question No. 729) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: What percentage of students (a) enrolling at and (b) graduating from Australian universities in each of the years 1964 to 1984 were female? Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The tables below provide information on university course commencements and course completions by female students for the years 1973 and 1981 to 1984. Information is not available back to 1964. While information on enrolments and completions by sex has been included in statistical returns provided by institutions for some time the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission did not extract this detail prior to 1984, and therefore it is not readily available on an annual basis. The statistical returns were processed for 1973 to provide a comparison over a 10-year period. (a) THE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALES COMMENCING COURSES OF STUDY AT AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES FOR THE YEARS 1973, 1981-1984 UNIVERSITY 1973 1981 1982 1983 1984 Sydney... 42.4 45.4 46.5 47.0 47.4 New South Wales (a)... 27.9 35.5 36.8 37.1 36.5 New England... 41.2 48.5 48.6 48.1 48.9 Newcastle... 37.9 39.3 39.8 38.5 39.2 Macquarie... 37.7 50.4 49.7 49.5 53.3 Wollongong... (b) 35.9 36.4 35.5 33.8 Melbourne(c)... 36.1 44.9 46.0 45.8 47.2 Monash... 39.6 47.2 47.5 48.9 48.5 La Trobe... 42.3 53.0 53.7 54.8 56.0 Deakin... (d) 46.2 49.6 52.6 53.0 Queensland... 41.6 47.6 46.8 49.1 47.8 James Cook... 30.8 42.0 49.2 46.4 44.1 Griffith... (e) 46.2 43.4 49.9 49.5 Adelaide... 34.6 41.8 44.9 46.5 45.7 Flinders... 39.5 45.6 49.7 49.7 51.6 Western Australia... 38.4 46.1 45.0 43.9 45.8 Murdoch... (f) 51.4 52.5 50.3 51.8 Tasmania... 37.8 48.5 45.4 44.4 46.0 Australian National... 38.4 43.4 45.5 43.3 44.1 TOTAL... 37.6 45.2 45.9 46.4 46.9 (a) Includes RMC Duntroon and RANC Jervis Bay. (b) Included in the University of New South Wales. (c) Includes RAAF Academy, Point Cook. (d) Deakin University commenced operation in 1977. (e) Griffith University commenced operation in 1975. (f) Murdoch University commenced operation in 1975. (b) THE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALES COMPLETING COURSES OF STUDY AT AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES FOR THE YEARS 1973, 1981-1983 UNIVERSITY 1973 1981 1982 1983 1984(g) Sydney... 39.3 42.9 44.2 43.9 New South Wales (a)... 29.8 35.0 35.1 33.9 New England... 40.2 43.7 46.4 46.8 Newcastle... 39.7 42.9 41.6 41.2 Macquarie... 40.0 48.7 49.1 47.7 Wollongong... (b) 43.7 37.8 40.5 Melbourne(c)... 33.2 39.1 40.4 39.2 Monash... 37.5 47.4 45.2 46.0 La Trobe... 42.3 50.2 51.5 52.2 Deakin... (d) 51.1 54.3 50.3 Queensland... 38.7 44.5 46.7 46.7 James Cook... 30.7 39.3 47.7 41.6 Griffith... (e) 47.3 48.0 48.9 Adelaide... 28.8 37.5 38.3 38.1 Flinders... 37.0 46.9 47.2 46.0 Western Australia... 35.7 40.5 42.8 42.2 Murdoch... (f) 46.7 53.4 48.8 Tasmania... 39.9 47.1 49.9 45.6 Australian National... 33.2 38.8 38.7 38.6 TOTAL... 35.9 42.8 43.8 43.1 (a) Includes RMC Duntroon . (b) Included in the University of New South Wales. (c) Includes RAAF Academy, Point Cook. (d) Deakin University commenced operation in 1977. (e) Griffith University commenced operation in 1975. (f) Murdoch University commenced operation in 1975. (g) data for 1984 is not yet available. (Question No. 827) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) What major international and regional inter-governmental organisations exist which include all or many of the island nations or territories throughout the Pacific in addition to the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Economic Commission, and (a) what are the members of each organisation, (b) what are their principal purposes, (c) where are their headquarters and (d) how are they financed. (2) What is the current membership of (a) the South Pacific Forum and (b) the South Pacific Economic Commission (SPEC). (3) What was the total expenditure of SPEC for the last year for which data is available and who were the principal recipients of its expenditure. (4) What are the major current activities and programs of SPEC. (5) What were the (a) population, (b) gross national product, (c) GNP per head of population, (d) principal economic activities, (e) major imports, (f) major exports, (g) total value in $A of major imports, (h) total value of major exports, (i) total amount and proportion of national income, received in foreign aid and (j) total amount and proportion of foreign aid from the Australian and New Zealand Governments, of American Samoa, (i) Balau (Palau), (ii) Cook Islands, (iii) Easter Island, (iv) Federated States of Micronesia, (v) Fiji, (vi) French Polynesia (Tahiti), (vii) Guam, (viii) Kiribati (Gilbert Islands), (ix) Marshall Islands, (x) Nauru, (xi) New Caledonia, (xii) Niue, (xiii) Norfolk Island, (xiv) Northern Marianas, (xv) Papua New Guinea, (xvi) Pitcairn Island, (xvii) Solomon Islands, (xviii) Tokelau, (xix) Tonga, (xx) Tuvalu (Ellis Islands), (xxi) Vanuatu (New Hebrides), (xxii) Wallis and Futuna Islands and (xxiii) Western Samoa, for the last full year for which data is available. (6) What is the political status of each of the islands and to which other nations were or are these islands in some kind of colonial, trusteeship or other special relationship. (7) Which are members of (a) the United Nations, (b) the Commonwealth of Nations and (c) the Non-Aligned Movement. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The major regional organisations in the South Pacific besides the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation (SPEC) are the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the South Pacific Commission (SPC), and the Committee for Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas (CCOP/SOPAC). Details of these organisations are as follows: (i) Forum Fisheries Agency (a) Member states of the Forum Fisheries Agency are Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa. (b) The purpose of the Forum Fisheries Agency is to assist Member countries with the management and exploitation of the living marine resources of their exclusive economic zones. (c) The agency has its headquarters in Honiara, Solomon Islands. (d) The agency is financed by contributions from member governments and interested agencies. (ii) South Pacific Commission (a) The Members of the South Pacific Commission are American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna and Western Samoa. (b) The South Pacific Commission provides technical advice, training, assistance and dissemination of information in social, economic and cultural fields to twenty-two governments and administrations of the region. Its activities cover such fields as home education, agricultural development, environment and fisheries. (c) The Commission has its headquarters in Noumea, New Caledonia. (d) The South Pacific Commission is financed by contributions from members and interested agencies. (iii) CCOP/SOPAC (a) CCOP/SOPAC was created as an affiliate of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in 1971, and achieved a separate institutional status in 1984. Its members are the Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Guam and New Zealand. (b) CCOP/SOPAC conducts programmes of marine geoscientific research aimed at cataloguing the seabed mineral resources of the South Pacific. (c) CCOP/SOPAC has its headquarters in Suva, Fiji. (d) The CCOP/SOPAC technical Secretariat receives the bulk of its funding through the United Nations Development Program. Research programs are financed by external partners, including Japan, France and the Federal Republic of Germany. Australia has an involvement through a tripartite research program conducted in conjunction with the United States and New Zealand, and contributes to the institutional costs of the organisation ($A187,000 in 1985). (a) The members of the South Pacific Forum are Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Western Samoa. Federated States of Micronesia is an observer member; (b) Membership of SPEC is the same as for the Forum, except that Federated States of Micronesia is a full member rather than an observer. 3. It is not possible to identify the extent to which individual developing members of SPEC are recipients of its expenditure. The major areas of expenditure for SPEC in the years 1982-1984 are set out in the following table: SPEC SUMMARIES OF ORDINARY AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31 DECEMBER 1984 (AMOUNTS IN FIJI DOLLARS: $F1 = $A1.27) Approved 1984 Approved 1983 Est. Out-Turn 1983 Actual 1982 Ordinary Expenditure I. Establishment... 30,840 18,285 11,450 36,492 II. Administration... 109,104 470,991 445,300 410,066 III. Work Program. (Including Work Program salaries)... 560,657 151,260 116,790 129,592 IV. Office Services... 71,050 64,750 63,750 64,447 V. Transport and Travel... 10,000 10,500 7,500 42,394 VI. Property and Maintenance... 69,950 65,425 61,290 59,364 VII. Financial Charges... 59,255 58,597 52,490 45,864 VIII. Hospitality... 7,500 7,000 7,000 7,776 918,056 846,808 765,570 795,995 Capital Expenditure I. Office: Minor Works, Furniture, Fittings and Equipment... 7,400 5,600 5,000 3,999 II. Staff Houses... 5,500 4,500 3,760 11,851 III. Permanent Headquarters... 10,000 1,600 2,495 102 IV. Staff Housing... . . . . . . 5,719 V. Transport... . . . . . . 4,086 VI. New Proposals... . . . . . . . . 22,900 11,700 11,255 25,757 940,956 858,508 776,825 821,752 4. SPEC's role is to promote and co-ordinate the development policies of the South Pacific Island Governments in a number of key sectors. Major current activities and programs are as follows: Trade SPEC's trade activities cover trade promotion, the identification and development of export-oriented industries and the negotiation of export opportunities. Following a study of trade relations and industrial development in the South Pacific, SPEC co-ordinated and assisted island countries in the negotiation of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement (SPARTECA), a major step in the expansion of export markets and impetus to the development of island export-based industry. To promote the flow of island products to Australian markets, the South Pacific Trade Commission was established in May 1979 in Sydney under SPEC auspices, with the financial backing of the Australian Government. An in-depth investigation into the prospects for closer economic co-operation among Island members of SPEC has been completed and market surveys beyond the region have also been undertaken, notably in Japan and the United States. A UNDP-funded project for trade promotion, advisory services and training is located at SPEC. Recent research, with outside assistance, has included a South Pacific industrial survey, a study on the harmonisation of industrial incentives, an investigation of bulk purchasing possibilities and a study of regional crop insurance. SPEC has been instrumental in setting up arrangements such as the Regional Taro Agreement and the Regional Long-Term Sugar Agreement. Transport Regional transport is an important part of SPEC's activities. The assignment to SPEC in 1972 of the tasks of studying the financial and operational structure of a regional shipping line reflected the priority which island leaders attached to the concept, and to the linkage between trade and transport in the South Pacific region. As a result the Regional Shipping Council and its Advisory Board was formed in 1974 and in 1976 the Forum endorsed the formation of the Pacific Forum Line as a regional shipping venture. The documents establishing the Line were finalised in 1977. SPEC is also involved in other shipping matters including wage rates and working conditions for island seamen and uniform maritime standards for the region. Following a decision by the Rotorua Forum meeting in 1976, a Regional Civil Aviation Council and an Advisory Committee were established. Telecommunications Telecommunications has been another major field of SPEC activity, following the decision of the 1973 Forum that SPEC should act as the co-ordinating agency for telecommunications work being undertaken in the South Pacific by the United Nations and other agencies. Technical support has been provided to SPEC by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Energy Energy, including alternative energy sources, has become a top priority of SPEC member Governments. Following a study on appropriate regional institutional arrangements for energy matters, the Forum decided in 1981 that SPEC should assume the role of overall regional energy co-ordinator. A SPEC energy unit was established in 1982 to carry out this responsibility. Aid Aid co-ordination and in particular the development and implementation of regional aid projects funded by the EEC under the Lome Convention is another activity for which SPEC is responsible. Since 1981 SPEC has also acted as the Secretariat to the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Group Council which meets annually. Advisory Service In 1981 Forum Leaders decided that a Pacific Regional Advisory Service (PRAS) should be established under the auspices of SPEC. PRAS has two main functions-to maintain a systematic register of skilled personnel existing within Pacific Island countries which would be available to meet requests from governments in the region, and to facilitate transfers of such personnel. Other SPEC administers the SPEC Fellowship Scheme funded by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC). The fellowship scheme provides in-service training in island member countries for two candidates per country per year. SPEC manages a Regional Disaster Relief Fund which provides monetary assistance to countries in the region suffering from the effects of natural disasters and is involved in disaster preparedness co-ordination. Special attention is given by SPEC to the problems of smaller island countries. SPEC participates in the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) which is a co-operative effort between SPEC and SPC along with UN agencies working in the region. The program is aimed at co-ordinating and assisting Pacific island countries with the proper management of their environment and resources. SPEC is continuing to develop areas in its work program which will assist member countries. Investigations into the possibility of establishing a Pacific Islands Fund are being undertaken, regional priorities for development planning have been established and the positions of Regional Export Marketing Adviser and Regional Handicrafts Adviser have been created with outside assistance. 5. The following table sets out the information requested, where available, in respect of each of the entities named: Popu- lation GNP (US$M) GNP/ Capita ($US) 1983 Principal Economic Activities Major Imports Major Exports Total value of major imports ($Am) 1983 Total value of major exports ($Am) 1983 Total Foreign Aid received ODA Net $A 1983 Total amount of Foreign Aid from Australian Government $A1983-84 American Samoa... 32,395 (1980) 140 4130 Fishing, canned tuna, petfood, tourism . . Canned tuna, pet food 97.8 (1981) 164.4 (1981) . . . . Palau... 12,177 (1980) see TTPI . . Fisheries, coconut oil, handicrafts . . . . see TTPI see TTPI . . . . Cook Islands... 16,900 (1983) 21 (1981) 1170 (1981) Tropical fruit, copra, clothing, tourism Food, textiles, oil, vehicles Citrus juice, copra 27.4 4.8 10,303,470 371,000 Easter Island... . . n.a. n.a. Fruit, sugar-cane . . . . n.a. n.a. . . . . FSM... 73,755 (1980) see TTPI see TTPI Marine resources, tourism . . . . see TTPI see TTPI . . . . Fiji... 670,000 (1983) 1190 1790 Sugar and molasses, coconut oil, copra, fishing, gold, silver, cement, clothing, tourism Food, Fuel and fuel products Sugar, gold, fish, copra, timber 470 242 36,339,120 10,039,000 French Polynesia... 154,000 (1983) 1260 8190 Copra, vanilla, coffee, fruit, tuna, pearls, tourism Food, fuel, machinery, consumer goods Coconut oil, pearls 472 (1981) 25 (1981) 196,984,620 12,000 Guam... 106,000 (1980) 690 6070 Fruit, fishing, petroleum refining, concrete, tourism, military base Petrol and petroleum products Agricultural products 468 52 . . . . Kiribati... 58,600 (1980) 30 460 Copra, fruit and vegetables, fishing, forestry, tourism Food, fuel, machinery, vehicles Copra, fish 24.5 3.3 18,612,720 2,283,000 Marshall Islands... 31,041 (1980) see TTPI see TTPI Copra, handicrafts . . . . see TTPI see TTPI . . . . Nauru... 7,300 (1983) * * Fruit and vegetables, fishing, phosphate mining Food, machinery, fuels Phosphate 14.9 (1981) 76.8 (1981) . . 48,000 New Caledonia... 146,000 (1983) 1210 8050 Coffee, copra, fishing, nickel mining, tourism Minerals, food, manufactured goods Nickel 330 170 201,194,640 5,000 Niue... 3,200 (1983) 4 (1981) 1080 (1981) Timber, subsistence agriculture, coconut oil Food, machinery, fuels, manufactured goods Fruit, honey, handicrafts 3 0.6 6,204,240 132,000 Norfok Island... 2,175 (1981) n.a. n.a. . . . . Pine and palm seeds re-export 12.1 (1981) 1.2 (1981) . . . . Northern Marianas... 16.900 (1980) see TTPI See TTPI Tourism Food, fuel . . see TTPI see TTPI . . . . Papua New Guinea... 3,168,000 (1980) 2510 790 Copra, coffee, cocoa, forest products, tropical fruits, gold, silver and copper, tourism Food, fuel machinery Coffee, cocoa, tea, timber, gold 1115 838 368,707,120 302,280,000 Pitcairn Island... 45 n.a. n.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solomon Islands... 252,000 (1983) 160 640 Copra, rice, cocoa, palm oil, timber, bauxite, fishing Machinery, vehicles, manufactured goods, fuel, food Copra, timber, fish, palm oil 66.8 67.9 30,467,250 7,270,000 Tokelau... 1,600 (1983) 1 (1981) 670 (1981) Copra, fishing, fruit Food, fuel, machinery Postage stamps, handicrafts 0.37 (1981) 0.08 (1981) 1,994,220 5,000 Tonga... 98,100 (1983) 80 780 Coconut oil, copra, desiccated coconut, tourism Food, minerals, machinery, manufactured goods Copra, coconut oil, bananas, vanilla 37.3 6.6 20,052,990 4,986,000 Tuvalu... 7,600 (1983) 3.7 (GDP) 447 (GDP) Copra, fishing, tourism Food, minerals, machinery, manufactured goods Copra, postage stamps 2.89 0.90 4,653,180 1,187,000 Vanuatu... 129,400 (1983) 80 700 Copra, cocoa, fruit, fishing, coconuts, manganese, tourism Food, consumer goods, fuel, industrial materials Copra, cocoa, fish, coffee, beef, timber 60.5 25.3 29,913,300 5,134,000 Wallis and Futuna... 10,800 (1980) 11 (1981) 1020 (1981) Fishing, subsistence agriculture Food, fuel, raw and industrial materials Agricultural products, handicrafts, trochus shell 6.26 (1981) 0.023 (1981) 1,772,640 n.a. Western Samoa... 159,000 (1983) 119 (1980) 770 (1980) Copra, bananas, cocoa, timber, food processing Manufactured goods, food &live animals, machinery, vehicles, fuel Copra, cocoa, taro, bananas 48.8 12.8 29,691,720 5,301,000 N.B. TIPI (Total)... 133,000 (1983) 140 1,000 Fishing, coconuts, tourism, military installations . . . . 33.3 (1978) 16.5 (1978) 150,829,000 (1980) . . Trust territories of the Pacific Islands-Marshall Islands, Palau, Marianas and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) *Nauru does not publish figures on these statistics. Note on Part 5, (i) and (j): Any figures originally in $US have been converted to $A at the 1983 average rate of exchange of 1.1079. ODA Net for Nauru is shown as 0.0. As all totals were calculated with $1m as the minimum ODA, anything below that figure is not recorded. Proportion of national income and proportion of foreign aid have not been included as the information is not available. 6. Information on the political status of the islands is set out in the following table: i. American Samoa Unincorporated Territory of the United States ii. Palau Part of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), administered by the United States. Compact of Free Association process taking place. iii. Cook Islands Self-governing in free association with New Zealand which retains responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, in consultation with Cook Islands Government iv. Easter Island Dependency of Chile v. FSM Part of TTPI, administered by the United States. Compact of Free Association process taking place vi. Fiji Independent (former British dependency) vii. French Polynesia Overseas Territory of France viii. Guam Unincorporated Territory of the United States ix. Kiribati Independent (former British dependency) x. Marshall Islands Part of TTPI, administered by the United States. Compact of Free Association process taking place. xi. Nauru Independent (former Australian Trust Territory) xii. New Caledonia Overseas Territory of France xiii. Niue Self-governing in free association with New Zealand xiv. Norfolk Island Territory of Australia xv. Northern Marianas Commonwealth Territory of United States, part of TTPI. xvi. PNG Independent (former Australian dependency and Trust Territory) xvii. Pitcairn British dependency xviii. Solomon Islands Independent (former British dependency) xix. Tokelau New Zealand Trust Territory xx. Tonga Independent (former British protected state) xxi. Tuvalu Independent (former British dependency) xxii. Vanuatu Independent (former British/French condominium) xxiii. Wallis and Futuna Overseas territory of France xxiv. Western Samoa Independent (former New Zealand Trust Territory) 7. The information relating to membership of international organisations is set out in the following table: United Nations Common- wealth Non- Aligned Move- ment i. American Samoa... ii. Palau... iii. Cook Islands... iv. Easter Island... v. FSM... vi. Fiji... x x vii. French Polynesia... viii. Guam... ix. Kiribati... x x. Marshall Islands ... xi. Nauru... Associate Member xii. New Caledonia... xiii. Niue... xiv. Norfolk Island... xv. Northern Marianas... xvi. PNG... x x xvii. Pitcairn... xviii. Solomon Islands... x x xix. Tokelau... xx. Tonga... x xxi. Tuvalu... x xxii. Vanuatu... x x x xxiii. Wallis and Futuna... xxiv. Western Samoa... x x (Question No. 882) Mr Maher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) What building operations are being undertaken by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation within the Electoral Division of Lowe. (2) What are (a) the costs of each undertaking and (b) the estimated completion dates. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. In addition to minor repairs and maintenance to branch premises, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has advised that it is building a computer centre on a portion of the two blocks of land surrounded by Railway Crescent, Park Road, George Street West and John Street, Burwood, N.S.W. 2 (a and b) The cost of the computer centre is approximately $59m and is expected to be completed in early 1987. (Question No. 984) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) What grants have been made to the Tasmanian Unemployed Workers' Union (TUWU) under the Commonwealth Employment Program. (2) Were these grants recommended by the Tasmanian Government. (3) Is he able to say whether all the assets of the TUWU have been transferred to the Tasmanian Progressive Society (TPS). (4) Is he also able to say whether membership of the TPS is by invitation only. (5) Is he able to say whether the life-time president of the TPS is Mr Jim Percy of Sydney, the national secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). (6) Is he further able to say whether the auditor of the TUWU is Mr John H. Storey of Parramatta, NSW; if so, is Mr Storey also the accountant of Pathfinder Press (Aust) Pty Ltd, the holding company of the SWP. (7) Is it a fact that the TUWU funds a health food store which had a turnover of $157,551 and a net profit of $17,431 between 1 July 1983 and 28 April 1984. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two projects sponsored by the Tasmanian Unemployed Workers' Union (TUWU) under the Community Employment Program (CEP) have been approved. The first, in February 1984, was for $22,140 to train 2 unemployed people in shop assistant and management skills in the wholefood shop operated by the TUWU. The second, in October 1984, was for $42,114 to employ 2 unemployed people and provide a welfare and counselling service to unemployed people. (2) The projects were recommended without dissension by members of the Tasmanian CEP Consultative Committee, on which the Tasmanian Government is represented. (3) I understand that the Tasmanian Progressive Society (TPS) is a trusteeship set up by the TUWU to hold the Union's assets. The wholefood shop has been transferred to the TPS but I believe the few other assets of the TUWU remained with the Union. (4) Membership of the TPS consists of trustees who were initially appointed by the Executive of the TUWU. The TPS has the power to nominate other trustees. (5) I understand that Mr Percy is no longer the President of the TPS. (6) At the end of the 1983-84 financial year, Mr G. Peck was elected auditor of the TUWU for the following year. Mr John Storey who, I understand, is the accountant of Pathfinder Press (Aust) Pty Ltd undertook the mid-term audit and final audit of the first of the CEP projects listed above. (7) Yes. The CEP guidelines allow projects which involve activities that are revenue-raising to be funded on the condition that no private appropriation of revenue or assets occurs. (Question No. 1009) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) Has his Department recently sent a departmental F28 captain to inspect the aerodrome at Copenhagen so that Qantas could operate a charter flight from this airport; if so, what practical experience did this officer have in relation to 747 type aircraft and why was it deemed that Qantas did not have the experience to do such an inspection themselves. (2) What were the costs incurred and who paid for them. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department sent an Airways Surveyor to inspect Kastrup airport, Copenhagen, in March 1985. The officer holds an endorsement on the Fokker F28 aircraft. The flights proposed by Qantas were not charter flights but regular public transport flights which on two occasions were to be diverted through Kastrup. Practical experience in the operation of the Boeing 747 aircraft is not required for conduct of these inspections since the specialist knowledge which is utilised is quite distinct from that required for Boeing 747 type qualification. Officers engaged in inspection of airports are experienced in the detailed development and application of operational standards and have an appreciation of the legal and regulatory aspects of aircraft operations. It would not be reasonable to expect an airline employee without this background to accept responsibility for determining the suitability of an airport on behalf of the Secretary to my Department. (2) Qantas provided free of charge tickets and the officer's travelling allowance totalling $A1042.11. (Question No. 1131) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Is it a fact that in 1982-83 Australia provided $840m in overseas aid but tied only 28.3% to trade compared with an average of 43.6% for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. (2) Is it also a fact that a Department of Trade report has shown that Australia's share of world trade has fallen from 2.9% in 1950 to 1.2% in 1982. (3) What action can be taken or is being taken to increase the percentage of tied aid. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During the 1982-83 financial year, Australia provided $744.6m in official development assistance. International comparisons of the extent to which developed countries `tie' their official development assistance are most conveniently made from the figures compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. The DAC, however, compiles its figures on a calendar year basis. The following figures are derived from the 1984 DAC Review. (Paris, November 1984). The DAC Review lists separately the status of ODA as Untied, Partially Tied, and Tied, as well as separate provision for European Economic Community ODA, which appears to be effectively tied to procurement within the EEC member countries and its associated 64 ACP states. The average percentages for all OECD countries for 1983 of ODA in its various `tied' forms, were Tied Aid...30.6 per cent Partially Tied and Tied Aid...38.4 per cent Partially Tied, Tied, and EEC Aid...42.6 per cent. Australia registered no Partially Tied Aid, and its percentage of ODA that was tied was 29.6 per cent. This percentage needs to be viewed in the light that the bulk of Australia's aid to PNG, which comprises about 30 per cent of our total ODA, is provided as budget support, and hence, is completely untied. (2) The decline in Australia's share of world trade over the past 30 years or so is of the order shown in the question. The consequences for Australia of the decline, and proposals to improve Australia's export performance, are outlined in the statement `Australia's Trade Situation and Policies', which I made to Parliament on 13 May 1985. (3) The question of tying a greater proportion of Australian aid to the procurement of Australian goods and services has been canvassed frequently over the past two years, commencing with the Review of the Australian Overseas Aid Program, chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson, and more recently by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which reported to Parliament in May 1985. The Government is still considering the various reports and submissions it has received, relating to the future of Australia's overseas aid program. These reports support Australian commercial interests being taken fully into account, consistent with trade and industry policies, in the administration of the aid program. (Question No. 1186) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to criticisms that the Government is discriminating against sport and sporting men and women by its policies on contact with South Africa when trade between that country and Australia appears to proceed unfettered by the Australian Government's policies against the racist South African regime. (2) What is the Government's policy on trading between Australia and South Africa and will it give consideration to withdrawing all Government support from South African trade, including closing of the Australian Government Trade Office in South Africa. Mr Dawkins —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government has recently reviewed Australia's relations with South Africa and measures introduced by the Government in respect of trade with South Africa are set out in the attached statement issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 19 August 1985. 19 August 1985 SOUTH AFRICA Cabinet met again today to review the situation in South Africa. It did so in the light of the decisions reached on 12 August concerning measures to be taken by the Australian Government and the statement made by South Africa's President Botha on 15 August. Ministers expressed their grave concern and extreme disappointment that President Botha's statement was so negative and unhelpful. It did not offer the majority of the South African people a commitment to clear and defined progress towards a genuinely multiracial society. It held out little hope that the state of emergency will be lifted in the near future. It gave no commitment for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political detainees who will be necessary participants in any negotiations with the South African Government on black rights. Indeed, it failed to provide a credible basis upon which any representative black leaders could play an effective part in South Africa's political process. The statement missed the opportunity to create the atmosphere which could help lessen the present violence in South Africa. Ministers were assisted in their discussions today by the Australian Ambassador to South Africa, Mr Birch. They decided that Mr Birch should return to South Africa in order that the Government should continue to have his advice on developments there, including steps the South African Government might take to implement its stated commitment to press ahead on a reform program. They noted that the South African President's statement was unlikely to bring about significant early reforms and that effective action in the form of mandatory and comprehensive economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council are unlikely to be achieved in the near future. Consequently, Ministers decided to confirm the measures that were previously agreed at their 12 August meeting. Accordingly, the Government has decided that, while continuing to work closely with other governments in the United Nations and Commonwealth contexts for positive action to foster peaceful change in South Africa, Australia will introduce a range of selective economic and other measures consistent with recent United Nations Security Council resolutions. Ministers have decided that: 1. the Minister for Foreign Affairs develop a strategy to seek positive action in the UN context for effective sanctions against South Africa for presentation by the Prime Minister at the forthcoming CHOGM meeting in Nassau, including proposals for consideration at CHOGM (and, if appropriate, the UN General Assembly) for: the appointment of a group of international authorities to advance proposals for the peaceful transition of South Africa to a multiracial society based on universal adult suffrage; and, the appointment of an international expert group to study how the suspension of new investment in South Africa might be implemented and co-ordinated; 2. Australia, conscious of the inadequacy of unilateral sanctions, reaffirms its preparedness to work at the UN for the imposition of effective, mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa; 3. Australia's current policies on sporting contracts and civil aviation policies be maintained; 4. Australia maintain its diplomatic representation in South Africa at current levels but close the Trade Commission in Johannesburg from the end of September 1985; 5. normal trade relations with South Africa be maintained but avoiding official government assistance and that the Government also: prohibit exports to South Africa of petroleum and petroleum products, computer hardware equipment and any other products known to be of use to the South African security forces, and prohibit the import from South Africa of Krugerrands and all other coins minted in South Africa and all arms, ammunition and military vehicles; 6. all new investment in South Africa by the Australian Government and public authorities be suspended, except for that which is necessary to maintain Australian diplomatic and consular representation in South Africa; 7. all Australian banks and other financial institutions be asked to suspend making new loans, either directly or indirectly, to borrowers in South Africa; and 8. direct investment in Australia by the South African Government or its agencies be prohibited. In addition, and as a corollary to an earlier Government decision to deny Government construction contracts to majority-owned South African firms operating in Australia, Ministers have decided: to place an embargo on all new Government contractual dealings with majority-owned South African firms for contracts above $20,000; to terminate all export facilities available through EFIC*, EMDGS+, and AOPC* and certain industry assistance to such firms; to avoid Government procurement of supplies from South African sources, save that necessary for the maintenance of Australian diplomatic and consular representation in southern Africa and to restrict Government sales of goods and services to South Africa. South African Government agencies are included in this embargo. Furthermore, Ministers have decided that the way be prepared, through amendments to be proposed to relevant legislation, for the facilities avaliable through EFIC, EMDGS and AOPC, and tourism assistance under TOPS0 to be withdrawn in respect of South Africa at short notice in the light of the Government's assessment of developments in South Africa and international responses to these developments. These measures should be viewed in the context of actions taken earlier against South Africa in such areas as civil aviation, sporting contracts, business conduct and positive programs to help disadvantaged black South Africans. They show the Government's complete and unambiguous rejection of apartheid and its intention to demonstrate its rejection in as effective a way as possible. Ministers emphasized that in implementing these further economic and other measures, the Government wished to contribute to international pressure to accelerate a process of reform and peaceful change in South Africa. Ministers saw the Government's actions as part of a graduated step-by-step process, with the pace and nature of any further Australian Government action being conditioned by the South African Government's own response to the political aspirations of its black community. Australia wished to avoid a further deterioration in the situation in South Africa and believed that the establishment of a multiracial society based on universal suffrage should be the goal of Australian policy. * EFIC (Export Finance Insurance Corporation) + EMDGS (Export Market Development Grant Scheme) * AOPC (Australian Overseas Projects Corporation) 0 TOPS (Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme) (Question No. 1241) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, consultants have been employed in my Department and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau since March, 1983. The question has been answered in two parts. Part one provides details of consultants engaged in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Part two provides details of consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. 1. Consultants Engaged by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (a) (b) and (d). The following consultants were employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs at the costs indicated: (1) Dr J. Ritchie-History Department, Australian National University (ANU). Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 (2) Mr C. Findlay-Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course... $220.00 Dr R. Gregory-Economics Department Research School of Social Sciences, ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $110.00 Mr B. Smith-Economics Department-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 (3) Mr N. Hocking-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer. Review of Overseas Aid... $1,024.59 (4) Professor Stuart Harris-ANU... $300.00 Professor Richard Snape-Monash University... $300.00 Associate Professor Tom Parry-University of NSW... $300.00 Preparation of paper on North/South issues and presentation at a symposium on ``Australia and the development crisis of the 1980's (5) Miss Marj MacIlwain-Relaxation Therapist Lecture on relaxation techniques at Stress Identification seminar... $150.00 (6) Dr H. Kinlock-Dean of Students-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 Dr T. B. Millar-Research Fellow-ANU Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 Dr H. Collins-Lecturer-Department of Political Science-ANU Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 Dr G. Jones-Lecturer-Demography Department-ANU Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course.... $60.00 (7) Mr I. Miles-Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Planning your Retirement Accommodation''... $40.00 Dr J. Hill-Retired Medical Practitioner Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Health and Retirement''... $40.00 Mr Ross Walker-ACT Council of the Aging. Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Why Plan for Retirement?''... $40.00 (8) Mrs D. Outram-Consultant on Effective Writing Conducted a three day effective writing course for Departmental Officers... $585.00 (9) Mr R. W. Furlonger-former senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs Participation in senior promotion committee... $1,000.00 (10) Mr J. Casson OBE-consultant in the field of organisational communication. Lecture to Senior Management Seminar for Departmental officers on organisational communication...$1,000.00 (11) Mr B. Smith-Economics Department, ANU Conducted economic workshop for Foreign Service Training Course... $1,500.00 (12) Mr C. J. Lloyd-journalist, author and ANU research fellow Report writer and Editor attached to the Secretariat of the Committee to Review Australia's Overseas Aid Program... $9,793.30 (13) Dr C. Emerson-Research School of Pacific Studies-ANU Preparation of paper on North/South issues for the Department... $750.00 (14) Mr E. H. Hanfield-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer Participated in ADAB Committee for promotions of senior officers... $830.73 (15) Dr C. R. Wesson-Senior Lecturer in Economics at La Trobe University Preparation of paper on International Monetary Systems Issues...$4,980.00 (16) McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd-Consultants Trans Tasman Attitudinal survey for ANZF... $41,450.00 (17) Mr W. B. Pritchett-Former Secretary, Department of Defence Participation in Senior promotions committee... ...$916.66 (18) Mr J. M. McMillan-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer Participation in task force to examine the report on the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy... $18,302.56 (19) Ms E. Solly-Senior Lecturer in Secretarial Studies, CCAE Conduct Secretarial Management Seminars... $3,600.00 (20) Mr A. Farran-Lecturer in Law, Monash University Prepare paper on major commodity issues in North/South context for the Department... $1,747.00 (21) Mr P. Shields-Barrister-Pamela Coward &Associates. Examination of Department of Social Security draft Cabinet Submission on compensation for Department of Foreign Affairs Staff serving overseas...$740.00 (22) Mr M. Brown-MacIntyre, Brown and Associates-Training Consultants. To conduct senior management training workshops...$1,184.65 (23) Dr R. Pfanner-Former Senior ADAB officer. To participate in selection interviews for positions in ADAB...$496.76 (24) Mrs S. Cornelius-Vice President of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. To act as Director of 1986 International Year of Peace program....$45,000 pa (25) Mr B. Bray-Retired senior ADAB Officer. Participation in ADAB promotions committee...$1,801.00 (26) Mr Bill Nicol-former journalist. To conduct workshops for Departmental officers on understanding and working with the media...$550.00 (27) Mr M. Dando-freelance journalist. To undertake research, writing and preparation of a publication entitled ``Australia and the Third World''...$10,720.00 (28) Western Personnel-Personnel Service. Provision of a steno-secretary and Word Processing operator for SPNFZ conference...$950.00 (29) DYNJAB-Manufacturers of passport laminators and equipment. To produce and supply passport laminators, printer tables and dye cutters...$14,000.00 (30) Mr A. Ivancheft-interpreter. To interpret for Minister during Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister's visits...$399.00 (31) Mr W. R. Edeson-Academic Lawyer-ANU. To make legal analysis concerning UN Law of the Sea Convention...$500.00 (32) Mrs Morella Calder-Solicitor. To prepare paper on ``Recent Developments in Deep Seabed Mining''...$700.00 (c) Working plans appropriate to the consultants' specific tasks were provided as necessary. (e) Consultants were employed for various lengths of time. Full details are not recorded and to attempt to ascertain this information would require an inordinate amount of resources. (f) Our records indicate that payments were not made in excess of the initial quotes. All consultancies meet Public Service Board guidelines for the engagement of consultants, as advised by the publication Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Service-Guidelines for Department and Authorities, Australian Public Service Board, May 1978. Consultants involving payment in excess of $1,000 and engaged prior to 2 July 1984 were the subject of a fully documented Departmental proposal to and approval by the Public Service Board. 2. Consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. To answer the honourable member's question in respect of consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau would require an unreasonable expenditure of resources by the Bureau. From available information, however, the answers to the questions are: (a) and (d). The names of all consultant firms and individual consultants engaged at or since March 1983, and the total value of the projects for which they were contracted, are shown below. The amounts shown represent consulting fees and individual allowances costs on the one hand, and project-related costs including equipment on the other, in a very approximate overall ratio of 70:30. (b) The Bureau employs consultants to implement and manage aid projects in developing countries. Consultants are also employed to perform other overseas project-related tasks such as project appraisal, feasibility studies, evaluations, planning and the like, and for administrative purposes. (c) Working plans are specified in detailed `scope of services' clauses which are included in all Bureau contracts. Consultants are also fully briefed by Bureau staff before entering upon their assignments. (e) Periods of engagement vary from several weeks to over 5 years. About 75% of assignments are for periods up to a year, 20% for one to 3 years, and 5% for longer periods. (f) Consultants are not asked for quotes but rather for indicative costings. Fees are negotiated with them according to the levels of their inputs of technical expertise appropriate to the particular project, and in accordance with standard conditions of contract. All procurement is arranged in accordance with Commonwealth purchasing principles and variations from quotes are negligible. Increases are thus confined to the area of fees and individual allowances and arise from such sources as national wage decisions, determinations affecting allowances, extensions of project duration, changes in the project scope of services, etc. The Bureau's financial records do not permit a ready separation of cost increases arising from these various sources, and any such task would involve an inordinate amount of staff time. As a guide, however, the original value of new contracts awarded to private consultants from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1984 has been calculated as $54,135,469. Approved amendments to the contracts amounted to $2,549,150 or 4.8%. Name of Private Consultant Firm or Individual Total value of contracts Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation... 113,561,400 ACIL Australia Pty Ltd... 7,231,800 E.E. Treloar... 76,000 Laurie, Montgomerie and Pettit... 1,126,500 ASEAN-Australian Business Council... 400,000 Crooks, Michell, Peacock, Stewart... 23,101,955 AACM Pty Ltd... 8,297,000 Kinhill Stearns... 24,000 Sinclair Knight and Partners... 5,820,000 Australian Film and Television School... 615,000 Dr J.E.K. Galbraith... 105,000 Macdonald, Wagner and Priddle... 5,560,516 The Cooperative Federation of New South Wales... 159,000 Richard David Creak... 1,500 Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd... 26,398,484 R.A. Eyre-Smith... 33,000 Coopers and Lybrand... 2,583,000 MWA International Pty Ltd... 31,000 Professor R.V.S. Bain... 25,000 Price Waterhouse Pty Ltd... 1,808,000 Australian Administrative Staff College... 70,000 Mr T.J. Johnson... 9,000 Australian South Pacific Eye Consultants Pty Ltd... 784,000 D.G. Hill and Harvey Pty Ltd... 632,000 Scott and Furphy... 3,986,000 W.E. Bassett and Partners Pty Ltd... 70,000 Econsult... 31,000 Sloane, Cook and King Pty Ltd... 27,500 Rural Management International... 37,000 McGowan International... 13,363,500 Dr H. Newton Turner... 7,000 Emeritus Professor E.J. Britten... 10,000 Mr E.K. Fisk... 9,950 BHP... 1,782,920 Australian Mineral Foundation... 240,000 Cullen Grummit and Roe Pty Ltd... 15,500 Cornell, Eddie, Riedel and Byrne... 500,000 Rhan Services Pty Ltd... 4,255 Parity Computer Ltd... 35,000 Dr B. Radke... 1,100 Cameron McNamara... 1,664,621 CAA Development Service... 21,000 D.T. Hunt and Associates... 45,000 Maunsell &Partners Pty. Ltd, Pak-Poy &Kneebone Pty Ltd (Joint Venture)... 2,600,000 W.D. Scott... 5,200,000 MPW Rural Development Pty Ltd... 4,514,679 Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd... 11,598,900 MPW-CMPS (Joint Venture)... 8,752,000 Godfrey and Spowers Aust. Pty Ltd... 12,500 Dr R. McLeod... 5,000 Drs Jayasuriya and Hills... 7,200 Airport Consulting and Construction Aust. Pty Ltd... 4,556,418 Professor B.L.C. Johnson... 71,000 Pak-Poy &Kneebone Pty Ltd... 620,000 Luminis Pty Ltd... 37,660 Merz, McLellan &Partners... 60,000 Institute of Forresters of Aust. Inc.... 40,000 Gavan McDonnel &Co.... 30,000 Sheddon Pacific... 483,446 AMDEL... 777,500 Davy Agro... 250,000 Techsearch Inc.... 262,000 Diana Vukosavljevic... 18,400 Roy Spratt &Associates... 10,000 J. &M.B. Thomas... 3,660 Peter Knoll Byrnes... 13,000 Elizabeth Reid... 9,759 Thompson Douglas &Co.... 30,000 Film Australia... 12,000 Pacific Forum Line... 300,000 Association for Research, Exploration &Aid Ltd... 10,000 World Logistics Pty Ltd... 90,000 K.W. Catchford... 7,000 Dr Marion Ward... 43,000 Jeffrey Priddle... 25,000 Laurie Seaman... 25,000 David Chantrill... 25,000 Dr. R. Pfanner... 1,000 Burns Philp... 48,000 Davy Pacific... 7,650,000 McKillop, Williamson &Associates... 12,000 Ore, Arup &Partners... 1,236,000 Qantas (Bangladesh) Apprentice Training Program... 6,685,000 Lionel Davies... 42,000 Macdonald, Wagner &Priddle &W.D. Scott... 120,000 Dwyer Leslie Pty Ltd... 135,000 Von Schramek &Dawes... 520,000 SMEC/Leightons/ACIL... 24,000,000 Mr J.K. Mundy... 8,300 Valentine, Laurie &Davies... 800,00 Mr Tom Norris... 35,000 Millward Consultancy Service... 150,000 Trippett Allan &Associates... 1,390,406 McLennan, Magasanik &Associates... 325,000 ERM &Australian Port Consultants... 1,050,000 Layton Seismics Pty Ltd... 547,000 Maunsell &Partners... 115,000 Professor K.A. Blakey... 31,000 Alexander &Lloyd... 420,000 Mark Dando... 10,440 It should be noted that all consultancies involving payment in excess of $1,000 have been the subject of a fully documented Departmental proposal to and approval by the Public Service Board. All other consultancies meet Public Service Board guidelines for the engagement of consultants, as advised by the publication Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Service-Guidelines for Department and Authorities, Australian Public Service Board, May 1978. (Question No. 1317) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to (a) Paul Hogan, (b) Bobby Limb, (c) Sir Peter Abeles, (d) Ita Buttrose and (e) Mojo for services rendered to his Department and its agencies and statutory authorities for which he is responsible since March 1983 and for what services did they receive these payments. (2) What amount has been paid to each of these people for (a) travel allowances, (b) airfares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other form of expenses incurred and paid for by any instrumentality in his Department. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Nil. (b) Bobby Limb was appointed as a member of the ATC on 16 August 1984. Payments made to Mr Limb by the ATC since then have been $5,214 remuneration and $1,354.50 travel allowance and airfares for attendance at Commission meetings. Commissioners' remuneration and travel allowance are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) The following amounts have been paid to Mojo by the ATC in respect of the National Tourism Campaign and production of North American TV advertisements. $2,267,928.02 in 1983-84; $966,135.45 in 1984-85. (2) Paul Hogan-ATC paid $1,640 to Qantas for internal US airfares during his promotional visits for the launch of the second advertisement. Qantas flight sectors were charged to the ATC contra account. Other costs were charged to the US advertising company NW Ayer and were ultimately paid by ATC's Los Angeles office. Bobby Limb (a) Travel allowance: $155. (b) Air Fares: $1,143. (c) Accommodation: Included in travel allowance. (d) Taxis: $56.50. (e) Any other: Nil. Sir Peter Abeles-Nil. Ita Buttrose-Nil. Mojo-travel and accommodation costs incurred by Mojo in production of printed and electronic promotional material totalled $205,500. Costs have not been segmented or allocated among individual production team members. (Question No. 1374) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the percentage change in (a) quantity and (b) value of imports of (i) champagne, (ii) sherry, (iii) table wines (in packs not exceeding 4.6 litres), (iv) brandy, (v) sparkling wine, (vi) still wine and (vii) all wine, between December 1983 and December 1984. (2) What are the corresponding figures for each of these commodities comparing the total imports in 1984 to the total imports in 1983. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The percentage changes in imports into Australia for each of these categories for (1) the month of December 1984 over the month of December 1983; and (2) the calendar year 1984 over the calendar year 1983 are set out below: % change in imports Dec. 1984: Dec. 1983 with respect to quantity value % change in imports 1984: 1983 with respect to quantity value (i) champagne +212.1 +165.1 +91.0 +74.6 (ii) sherry -24.1 -34.1 +80.2 +31.6 (iii) table wines (in bottles or similar containers not exceeding 5 litres)(a) +35.5 +21.7 +55.8 +48.4 (iv) brandy -59.7 +33.5 -21.3 +26.8 (v) sparkling wine +51.7 +98.2 +24.8 +48.3 (vi) still wine +20.6 +12.6 +48.2 +44.1 (vii) all wine(b) +31.2 +52.6 +41.1 +45.8 Note: (a) Table wine in packs not exceeding 4.6 litres is not separately available. (b) Grape must, sparkling wine, still wine, and vermouth and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts. (Question No. 1375) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What is Asia Dairy Industries (HK) Limited present equity in the Philippine company, Holland Milk Products Inc. (2) What are the (a) lowest and (b) average wages for full time employees in the Holland factories. (3) Were employees at the Holland Manila factory engaged in an extended strike last year; if so, what was the duration of the strike and what were the issues in dispute. (4) Is he aware of allegations that some employees were arrested, tortured and forced to sign self-incriminating statements; if so, what action has he taken on these allegations. (5) Are some employees at the Holland factories underpaid; if so, what action will he take to have these wages increased. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Dairy Corporation's equity in Holland Milk Products (HOMPI) is 13 1/3 per cent. (2) I am advised that P67.20 per day is the minimum and P69.92 per day is the average wage for a full-time employee in HOMPI factories in the Philippines. (3) Yes. The duration of the strike at the Marikina plant was from 14 March 1984 to 9 July 1984. The central issue under dispute was wage levels. (4) The Australian Embassy in Manila has reported that two HOMPI workers are presently under arrest facing four charges of subversion including illegal possession of firearms. Two petitions relating to these charges are presently before the Philippine courts. I am aware of the allegations concerning these arrests and subsequent treatment of the workers. These allegations concern the administration of justice in the Philippines and are for the competent authorities of that country to address. However, Australia's commitment to observance of universally accepted standards of human rights and conformity to the principle of natural justice is an important aspect of the Government's foreign policy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has requested the Australian Embassy in Manila to monitor and report on developments. (5) The wages dispute at the Marikina plant last year was resolved by the signing of a new collective bargaining agreement between the union and employer. Similarly a strike this year at the San Pedro plant was settled temporarily with an agreement with the union at that plant. This agreement has been referred for a ruling by the Philippines Ministry of Labour and Employment as provided by Philippines law. (Question No. 1379) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV programs shown in Canberra have made reference to nuclear matters in each month since January 1985. (2) For each program (a) what was its (i) title, (ii) duration and (iii) time of showing, (b) what proportion of program time was devoted to nuclear matters, (c) did the proportion consist of picture, voice or both, (d) was the proportion related to (i) peaceful use of nuclear energy or (ii) nuclear weapons and (e) where was each nuclear segment produced. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (a) (i) Title (a) (ii) Duration (a) (iii) Time of showing (b) Proportion of prog. time % (c) Picture voice (d) (i) Peaceful use of nuclear energy (d) (ii) Nuclear weapons (e) Where produced Nuclear Strategy for Beginners... 56 mins 12.2.85 2115 100 both .. yes U.S.A. Our Time-Los Alamos... 24'20'' 28.2.85 2150 100 both .. yes U.S.A. Out There... 25 mins 19.3.85 1700 12 both .. yes ABC On the Eighth Day... 59'40'' 22.5.85 2130 100 both .. yes U.K. Nuclear Holocaust-The Earth Burns... 50 mins 29.5.85 2125 100 both .. yes Japan Nuclear Holocaust-The Earth Freezes... 50 mins 5.6.85 2125 100 both .. yes Japan A Secret Country... 60 mins 19.6.85 2000 10 both .. yes U.K. Out There... 25 mins 25.6.85 1700 17 both .. yes ABC Antenna... 25 mins 1.8.85 1700 14 both .. yes ABC Local National for A.C.T.-Hiroshima remembered... 10 mins 6.8.85 1830 5 both .. yes ABC Common Ground... 29'25'' 8.8.85 2155 100 both yes yes ABC Local National for A.C.T.-Sen. Jo Vallentine... 10 mins 20.8.85 1830 11 both .. yes ABC 7pm ABC News/The National Carleton/Walsh Report... various various .001 both unable to say ABC (Question No. 1387) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many physio and occupational therapists and speech pathologists are employed by the Commonwealth in Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centres. (2) How many of these positions were vacant at 30 June 1985. (3) What was the cost of providing private physiotherapy services to entitled veterans in (a) 1982, (b) 1983 and (c) 1984. (4) Would filling vacancies have reduced these costs and what would have been the cost in each year of filling the vacant positions. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The number of positions are- Occupational Therapists...95 Physiotherapists...54 Speech Pathologists...23 (2) The number of vacancies at 30 June 1985 was- Occupational Therapists...11 Physiotherapists...14 Speech Pathologists...3 (3) The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service does not provide services to veterans per se; such services are provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provides assistance to people with long term disabilities who are within the broad working age group. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service employs Therapists on a part-time contract basis where there is no full-time requirement for such staff. Seventeen such contractors from the above three disciplines are employed by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at an annual cost of some $250,000. (4) As the requirement for contractors is largely unaffected by full-time staffing levels, filling the vacancies would reduce contract costs only marginally. (Question No. 1394) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985. (1) How many consultants has the Minister engaged under the terms of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. (2) What is the name of each consultant. (3) What specific project is each consultant undertaking. (4) What qualifications does each consultant have to undertake the project concerned. (5) For how long has each consultant been engaged. (6) What is the salary or fee paid to each consultant. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) None. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 1422) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 August 1985. Did the Government agree to reimburse its contractors for 50 per cent of contributions to the Building Union Superannuation Fund; if so (a) from what date is reimbursement to be made, (b) will some contractors not be reimbursed, (c) will superannuation payments on behalf of workers under some awards be excluded, (d) why was reimbursement restricted to only 50 per cent of contributions and (e) what is the ensuing estimated additional cost of contracts current at 1 January 1985 for the years ending 30 June 1986 and 30 June 1987. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The Government agreed to reimburse contractors on its building projects 50 per cent of their contributions to the Building Unions Superannuation Scheme (BUSS) based on the following criteria: Reimbursement of BUSS contributions not to be made on contracts for which tenders closed after 30 June 1984 50 per cent reimbursement of superannuation contributions paid by principal contractors from 1 July 1984 until the completion of their contract (for on-site employees only) 50 per cent reimbursement of superannuation contributions paid by sub-contractors from 1 January 1985 until the completion of their contract (for on-site employees only) no reimbursement on individual contracts or sub-contracts of less than 39 weeks duration calculated at the date of awarding of the contract a contingency to allow the Commonwealth to reimburse contractors falling outside the above reimbursement criteria to meet cases where genuine hardship can be established and where failure to reimburse could lead to additional costs to the Commonwealth. (c) Reimbursement is made in respect of contributions on behalf of workers paid under all awards covered by those unions participating in BUSS, in accordance with the criteria listed above. (d) The Government agreed to share in the cost of BUSS on Commonwealth projects in recognition of its role in the BUSS negotiations and because of the benefits that would accrue to the industry through the accompanying industrial relations package. The decision on 50 per cent reimbursement was based on a number of factors including recognition that superannuation schemes are essentially a matter between the employee, the union and the employer concerned. The Government had no legal or contractual obligation to reimburse costs but acknowledged its role in the development of BUSS by agreeing to share costs on Government projects on a 50/50 basis. (e) Whilst estimates of additional cost have not been calculated for specific financial years, overall additional costs have been estimated to be in the order of $2.0m. The majority of this amount would be expended in 1985-86. Costs in 1986-87 would be minimal. (Question No. 1434) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member's question. The answer has been prepared in accordance with advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that `research studies' may be interpreted to mean market research studies and opinion polls. 1. Although the Department has placed advertisements on specific occasions such as the calling for tenders, seeking submissions, and inviting applications, it has not conducted any advertising campaigns in the period since March 1983. The Department has commissioned research studies into the establishment of a National Register of Industrial Capability (NRIC) and into small business training and owner/managers' knowledge of the Department's small business programme. 2. The NRIC study was jointly funded by the Department and the State Governments; however control and management of the study was the responsibility of the Department. Advice on sample design and other technical matters for the small business training study was received from the Department of the Special Minister of State, the Bureau of Labour Market Research and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3. (a) The consultancy team which worked on the NRIC study comprised representatives from the following firms: Coopers and Lybrand, WD Scott, and Tony Cohen and Associates. The market research firm used for the small business training study was Reark Research Pty Ltd. (b) The NRIC consultancy team was paid $25,500 in fees and $4,500 reimbursement for expenses. Reark Research Pty Ltd was paid $30,000. 4. (a) As for 3 (b) above. (b) Not applicable. (Question No. 1445) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Housing and Construction conducted a national advertising campaign to publicise the launch of the First Home Owners Scheme in October 1983. In April 1985 the Department appointed consultants to develop a communications and promotional strategy for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (1987). (2) Yes-the Australian Government Advertising Service. (3) Jirgensen and Naughton, a Sydney advertising agency, was paid $6,069 for the First Home Owners Scheme campaign. Connaghan and May Ayer, a Sydney advertising agency, was paid $19,601 in consultancy fees for its advice on communications and promotional strategy for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. (4) (a) $265,764 was spent on the First Home Owners Scheme campaign (b) the agency fee for the First Home Owners Scheme was $6,069 and the actual campaign cost was $265,764 No advertising campaign for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless has yet been launched. (Question No. 1459) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department has a nil response. (Question No. 1462)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member's question. This answer has been prepared in accordance with guidelines suggested by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, namely that only regular, publicly available publications be included. 1. The Australian Customs Service Staff Magazine. 2. (a) July 1 1985; (b) The Australian Customs Service's Public Relations Unit; (c) Five, of whom three spend 10 per cent of the time involved in the periodical's production, one 15 per cent of the time and one 50 per cent of the time. (d) Once every two months; (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing. Approximately 5,500; (f) 5,500, circulated to Central Office Staff, all Customs Collectorates, selected media representatives and interested parties; (g) A Journalist Grade A in the Public Relations Unit; (h) To help with the communication between Central Office Staff and the States. Also to distribute information within the ACS and outside. (i) Approximately $34,425.50 pa. (Question No. 1463)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, 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 Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (i) Since December 13, 1984 (when administrative arrangements for the Department of Community Services (DCS) were announced), only two publications have been regularly produced on behalf of the Department of Community Services: (i) Breakthrough, a nearly tabloid-sized four to six-page newsletter for people with disabilities. (ii) The Australian Disability Review (formerly the Australian Rehabilitation Review and before that the NACH Digest), a B5-sized journal on disability issues and developments. However, the first issue of Community, the departmental house magazine, has been printed. (2) BREAKTHROUGH (a) 1980. (b) Produced by the Department's information section for the Disability Advisory Council of Australia (DACA). (c) One journalist, who writes and/or edits editorial copy, takes occasional photographs, designs newsletter and supervises its production. The newsletter takes about 30 per cent of her time. (d) Ten issues per year. (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing-20,031 copies. (f) Breakthrough is circulated to people with disabilities, universities and educational institutions, rehabilitation services, Members of Parliament (State and Commonwealth), government departments, special schools and child assessment centres, voluntary organisations, service clubs, churches and others interested. (g) The journalist primarily. Copy is vetted by two DACA members before going to the printer. (h) Breakthrough aims to channel information for disabled people all over the country. (i) Printing costs, $3,140 per issue. Staff and administrative costs cannot be separated from other costs of the information section. AUSTRALIAN DISABILITY REVIEW (a) Established in 1976 as the NACH Digest. (b) The DACA secretariat. (c) Two staff: a clerk, 25 per cent of her time; and a clerical assistant, five per cent (organising the mailing). (d) Quarterly. (e) Graphic Services Pty Ltd, Adelaide-2031 copies. (f) Government departments and organisations, non-government organisations, voluntary associations and individuals interested in disability issues. (g) Information and awareness committee, DACA. (h) Dissemination of information on disability issues, rehabilitation, welfare and related matters. (i) Printing, $2,560 per issue and mailing $80. Other costs cannot be separated from the DACA secretariat's general running costs. COMMUNITY (a) August 1985. (b) Produced by public relations consultancy Neilsen McCarthy, Sydney. (c) No departmental staff yet. When it is established, DCS's information section will take over production. (d) Monthly. (e) Chippendale Printing Company Pty Ltd, Leichhardt, Sydney-5,000. (f) Departmental staff. Copies of the first issue were also distributed to the news media and MPs (where they have requested it). (g) DCS secretariat. (h) To inform departmental staff of policies and directions. (i) Printing costs $1,410. Other costs cannot be separated from the package offered by Neilsen McCarthy. (Question No. 1486) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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 Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) LMO Newsletter; Vetnews; The Journal of the Australian War Memorial; Vetaffairs. (2) LMO Newsletter (a) 1974 (b) Community Programs Section, Treatment Services Division, Central Office, Canberra. (c) One; 5 per cent. (d) Quarterly. (e) Various contractors-currently `Pirie Printers'; 15,000. (f) All general practitioners in the community who are appointed as Local Medical Officers by the Department. (g) An Editorial Committee consisting of a senior doctor from Medical Division, a representative from Public Relations and Publicity Section, and senior staff from the Treatment Services Division. (h) To impart information to Local Medical Officers on Departmental Treatment policies and procedures. (i) Printing: $942 per issue. It is not practical administratively to provide staff and administrative costs which are only minimal. Vetnews (a) July 1985. (b) Queensland Branch Office. (c) One; one day per month. (d) Bi-monthly. (e) Milestones Publications; 5,000. (f) Queensland Service Organisations Sub-Branches; Branch Office Staff; copies are also placed in public contact areas in the Branch Office and at Institutions. (g) Customer Liaison Officer (Clerical Administrative Class 9). (h) To advise the Veteran community within Queensland of any legislative conditions or local operational procedures which affect them. (i) Printing: $1,580 per issue. Staff and administrative: one staff-day per month at Class 9 salary ($126.51). The Journal of the Australian War Memorial (a) October 1982. (b) Editorial and Publications Section, Australian War Memorial. (c) Two: editor 10 per cent; production supervisor 16 per cent. (d) Twice yearly. (e) Macarthur Press, Parramatta; 2,500. (f) Libraries, RSL clubs, schools, academics and members of the general public. (g) A committee comprising the Assistant Director (Research and Publications) and the heads of the Historical Research and Editorial and Publications Sections. (h) (i) To expand general knowledge of the Memorial and material from the collections which would not otherwise be displayed. (ii) To foster widespread interest in Australia's military past and in the impact of war on Australian society. (iii) To increase awareness of the nation's leading historical museum and bring its richness to the many people who have no or only a limited opportunity to visit the Memorial. (i) Printing: $10,130 per issue. Staff (salary for time involved): $3,854 per issue. Administration: Minimal. Vetaffairs (a) 1983. (b) Public Relations and Publicity Section, Central Office, Canberra. (c) One Journalist A1 for three weeks per month. (d) Monthly. (e) Various contractors-currently `Canberra Times Print'; 8,000. (f) Ex-service organisations, Departmental staff, Media and Parliamentarians. (g) Director, Public Relations and Publicity. (h) To inform the ex-service community, staff and other interested parties of current developments and items of interest in the portfolio. (i) Printing-$916 per issue. Journalist-$24,000 p.a. Administrative Staff-Minimal. (Question No. 1487) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The regular, publicly available publications of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services are- (1) (i) Commonwealth Assistance for Local Projects [financial year] (ii) Guide to Commonwealth Assistance for Local Projects [financial year] (iii) Local Government and the Budget [financial year] (iv) Digest of Local Government Statistics [calendar year] (v) Local Government Development Program: Projects [financial year] (2) (a) (i) 1974-Although no editions were published from 1976 to 1980 it has been produced each year from 1981 onwards. (ii) 1983; (iii) 1983; (iv) 1981; (v) 1985. (b) All are produced by the Office of Local Government. (c) It would require a significant administrative effort to calculate the total number of staff involved and the percentage of time spent in producing each publication. The figures supplied are estimates of the number of Office of Local Government staff to be involved with the editions to be produced in 1985-86 and the estimated percentage of all officers' total time to be spent. (i) 3 (2.7%) (ii) 1 (0.2%) (iii) 4 (3.0%) (iv) 2 (10.9%) (v) 3 (2.4%) (d) All are produced annually. (e) All are produced by the Australian Government Publishing Service. (i) 3500 (ii) 3500 (iii) 2500 (iv) 2500 (v) 2500 (f) All are distributed to all members of Federal Parliament, Local Government authorities, Commonwealth and State Departments, representative and welfare bodies, educational institutions and other organisations/individuals concerned with Local Government affairs. (g) First Assistant Secretary, Local Government and Regional Development Division. (h) (i) To provide details on Commonwealth assistance, announced in each Federal Budget, available for local projects. (ii) To provide a quick reference guide to the contents of the Commonwealth Assistance For Local Projects Booklet. (iii) To provide an analysis of each Commonwealth Budget as it relates to Local Government. (iv) To consolidate into one publication the most timely, accurate and comparable data available on Local Government operations which will allow comparisons between States and studies of trends over time. (v) To provide details on projects approved each financial year under the Local Government Development Program. (i) It would require a significant administrative effort to compile the actual costs of all phases involved in producing each publication. The figures are estimates of total costs for the editions to be produced in 1985-86. (i) $18,500 (ii) $2,000 (iii) $11,500 (iv) $14,000 (v) $9,500 (Question No. 1491) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP 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 Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) WANG minicomputers, terminals, printers and micro computers, and Raytheon terminals, printers and communications controllers are currently the only ADP hardware used in my Department. (2) and (3) My Department does not have a major hardware system of its own, but uses the Department of Health and Department of Social Security systems on a bureau basis for the following applications: Nursing Homes Payment systems; Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit payment system, and the Subsidies Information System. The 3 WANG minicomputers in the department are used for word processing support. (Question No. 1499) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP 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 the 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 Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The brands of computer equipment in use in the Department of Trade are: Major computer: FACOM M360R Remote peripherals: FACOM VDU's (140 units) FACOM printers (30 units) Mini systems: 10 Honeywell DPS6 units in Australia and overseas posts. Micro systems: Sigma Data N-Gen (10 units) Sigma Data Elite (3 units) North Star (4 units) AWA Corona (3 units) IBM PC-XT (2 units) The FACOM equipment and the Honeywell equipment constitute two identifiable major systems: FACOM system (2) (a) General purpose computing facility, the main applications being: Trade statistics (Australian and international) Australian products and services directory Marketing systems General administrative systems. (b) Installed January 1984. (c) The hardware cost was $1,289,200 for the central computer and $527,650 for the remote VDU's and printers. (d) The anticipated life of the equipment is 5 to 8 years. (e) At present there is no action for replacement. The equipment is expected to be upgraded in 1985 (cost $267,000) and 1987 (estimated cost $500,000). (3) Whilst the system is not shared, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has access to the trade statistics application. Honeywell system (2) (a) Office automation and the recording of information on firms in the post's territory. (b) and (c) Installation dates and costs are as follows: Post Cost ($) Installation Abu Dhabi... 25,028 June 1984 Bahrain... 24,979 June 1984 Kuwait... 25,000 June 1984 Riyadh... 11,091 June 1984 San Francisco... 24,701 July 1984 Vancouver... 25,028 June 1984 Toronto... 25,028 June 1984 Auckland... 65,000 March 1985 Osaka... 48,107 May 1985 Canberra... 39,450 July 1984 Total... 313,440 (d) The anticipated life of the equipment is 10 years. (e) There is no action for replacement as yet. (3) The purchase and installation of office automation equipment for Australia's overseas posts is as joint program conducted by the Departments of Trade, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Foreign Affairs. Equipment is shared at a number of posts to reduce costs. Export Finance Insurance Corporation (1) The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation uses a Prime 550 system. (2) (a) General purpose computing including: General ledger Debtors accounts Policies and Statistics Claims recovery and payment delays Buyers credit rating Payroll Assets and investments (b) The equipment was installed in 1980. (c) The total system cost (including software) was $330,000. (d) The anticipated life of the equipment is 6 to 8 years. (e) Action for replacement is to be reviewed in 1986. (3) The equipment is not shared with any other user. Export Development Grants Board: (1) Sigma Elite microcomputer used for word processing. There are no major systems. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation: (1) Fortune 32:16XT minicomputer used for word processing and office automation. There are no major systems. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 1508)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP 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, whom and for what main purpose. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A list of all computer equipment associated with the central computing network is given in Table 1 with the equipment located in the laboratories being given in Table 2 and the equipment used by the Australian institute of Health, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory and the ACT Health Authority given in Table 3. (2) A table containing answers to (a), (b) and (c) for the major departmental computer hardware systems is given in Table 4. In response to question 2 (d) and 2 (e), the Department does not have specific dates on which it plans to replace computing equipment. All major equipment items are cost justified over a lifetime of between 7 to 10 years, however this can change depending on requirements and, for example, the availability of later model units with increased performance and/or cost effectiveness. Intended purchases are foreshadowed in the Department's ADP Strategic Plan, however actual purchases are, of course, dependent on the availability of funds. (3) The Department's central mainframe computer system is currently also used by a number of other Commonwealth Government departments: (1) the Capital Territory Health Authority-which operates several management systems. (2) the Department of Aboriginal Affairs-which uses the Department of Health installation as a computer bureau for all their major computer applications. (3) the Department of Primary Industry-which operates systems supporting the Plant and Animal Quarantine functions recently transferred from the Department of Health. (4) the Department of Community Services-which operates systems supporting the Nursing Homes and Long Term Care functions recently transferred from the Department of Health. In respect of the Health Insurance Commission the information is as follows: (1) The Health Insurance Commission uses IBM mainframe (i.e. central computer) equipment, while network equipment such as VDU's are a mixture of IBM, Raytheon and Telex. (2) The Commission has two central processors- (a) Both are used for the payment of benefits and administration of the Medicare program and the funds registered under the National Health Act under the name of Medibank Private, and the payment of some benefits on behalf of Department of Veterans' Affairs. (b) The first processor was installed in two stages from October 1983 to January 1984 prior to the implementation of Medicare and the second in July 1985. (c) Each central processor cost approximately $10 million. (d) and (e) It is expected to replace the older processor towards the end of financial year 1985-86, while the newer processor is expected to provide sufficient capacity for 2-3 years. (3) Apart from the arrangement with the Department of Veterans' Affairs (2 (a) above), systems are not shared with any other organisations. Table 1 HARDWARE USED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Make Model Description Quantity IBM MAINFRAME 3083-JX central processing unit... 2 2305 drum... 2 3211 impact printer... 1 3800 laser printer (model 1 and model 3)... 2 3725 comms controller... 1 2914 switching unit... 1 3814 switching unit... 1 3803 tape controller (model 2)... 3 3420 tape drive (model 8)... 14 tape drive (model 7)... 2 3274 console controller... 2 TERMINALS and CONTROLLERS 3179 VDU/console colour... 1 3180 VDU... 100 3268 hardcopy printer... 6 3272 controller for IBM model 3277... 2 3274 controller for IBM model 3279... 5 3277 VDU... 21 3279 consoles... 14 3284 hardcopy printer... 1 3286 printer... 2 3290 VDU-gas plasma 4 screen... 3 3767 printer... 1 3776 remote job entry station... 1 5160 PC-XT and Epson FX-100 printer... 2 5210 letter quality printer... 1 DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS series/1 minicomputer with disk and printer... 20 4078 VDU (including model 4055)... 456 STO MAINFRAME 4305 drum... 2 8380 disk... 25 8880 disk controller/director... 4 8890 disk controller and 3Mb cache... 2 3804 tape controller... 1 3670 tape drive... 4 Telex/Raytheon... 1025 local controller... 1 1074 remote controller... 11 1018 PTS remote controller... 22 2074 large remote controller... 8 2076 small remote controller... 22 2078 VDU... 62 2079 VDU colour... 1 2185 screen printer... 1 2187 dot matrix printer... 25 2188 letter quality printer... 2 2189 letter quality printer... 1 3408 printer... 1 3472 bi-directional colour printer... 10 4078 VDU... 166 4103 VDU... 151 Courier... 1200 printer... 1 2700 VDU... 45 2711 remote controller... 1 2721 local controller... 2 2730 printer controller... 1 Convergent Technology... CN2000 NGEN microcomputer workstation... 18 CN3000 NGEN microcomputer workstation... 16 CN3040 NGEN microcomputer workstation... 1 Data Products... 8050 dot matrix printer... 19 Anderson Digital Electronics... QUME letter quality printer... 8 MDS... 2408 data entry system-minicomputer... 1 General Automation... SPEC16 data entry system-minicomputer... 2 Eracom... ERA80 data management system-microcomputer... 1 ICL... CLAN microcomputer and 3 workstations... 1 AWA... TC2765 VDU TC278 controller T218B printer Memorex... SG2 colour graphics display and printer... 1 2079 colour VDU with graphics upgrade capability... 1 Thycoh... uninterruptible power supply... 1 Computer Resources... microfiche... 1 microfiche interlink... 1 Wang... OIS-60 word processor... 3 OIS-50 word processor... 4 VS15 word processor... 2 OIS-115 word processor... 1 WPS-5 word processor... 1 workstations for above processors... 48 Table 2 HARDWARE USED WITHIN DEPARTMENTAL LABORATORIES Make Model Description Quantity Australian Radiation Laboratory Data General... S-140 Minicomputer... 1 MV-8000 Minicomputer... 1 Wang... OIS-115 Word processor... 1 PC-002 Communications Link and 2 x workstations... 1 6340 Graphics Workstation... 1 Ultrasonics Institute Perkin-Elmer... 3230 Minicomputer... 1 Cromemco... C10 Microcomputer... 1 IBM... PC/XT Microcomputer... 1 National Acoustic Laboratories Perkin-Elmer... 3210/A Minicomputer... 1 PDP... PDP11 Minicomputer... 1 Hewlett Packard... Desk Top Microcomputer... 3 Tektronix... Desk Top Microcomputer... 1 Commodore... VIC 20 Microcomputer... 1 Interdata... 8/16E Microcomputer... 1 Digital Equipment... VAX 11/750 Minicomputer... 1 Table 3 HARDWARE USED WITHIN A.I.H., CSL AND ACTHA Make Model Description Quantity Australian Institute of Health Computer Hardware Digital Equipment... VAX 11/780 Minicomputer... 1 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Burroughs... B5930 Minicomputer... 1 IBM... System 38 Minicomputer... 1 ACT Health Authority Computer Hardware Burroughs... 1995 Minicomputer... 1 B25 Microcomputer... 20 Digital Equipment... VAX 11/750 Minicomputer... 1 Table 4 DETAILS OF MAJOR SYSTEMS Major computer system Principal function Hardware cost Installation date $ Central Computer Installation (2 IBM 3083 J) Multi function installation supporting - pharmaceutical benefits payments - Medical Literature Analysis (Medlars) - National Drug Information - Adverse Drug Reactions recording - Drugs of Dependence monitoring - Central Register of Medical Practitioners - Medicare Statistics - Item/Fee Statistics 9,350,000 February 1984 PHARMPAY (IBM Series 1)... Regional data entry of pharmaceutical benefits claims 3,250,000 1983-84 Australian Radiation Laboratory (DG MV 8000)... Radiation research and laboratory management 284,754 June 1985 National Acoustic Laboratories (DEC VAX 11/750) Neuroaudiological research 143,045 May 1985 Ultrasonic Institute (Perkin-Elmer 3230)... Analysis of ultrasonics echo data 144,000 September 1983 A.C.T. Health Authority (Burroughs 1995)... Hospital Patient Administration 480,000 June 1984 (Question No. 1519) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Further to his answer to question No. 992, why is information in regard to part (2) not available when the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided similar information for service pensioners. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information in the form sought by the honourable member in question No. 992 is not a part of the automatic statistical collections maintained by the Department of Social Security. Because of the large volume of appeals work in the Department of Social Security and the decentralised nature of its operations, the work involved in extracting the information manually would require the use of considerable resources which I am not willing to commit in view of the high priority given to finalising the appeals themselves. However, on this occasion I requested my department to provide what information on assets test appeals that it could relating to the honourable members question. Figures are not available for the number of appeals lodged in a particular postcode area, nor are figures kept which would indicate the occupation of appellants. However, in the postcode areas 2478 to 2490 there are three Department of Social Security Regional Offices; Lismore, Murwillumbah and Byron Bay. There had been, as at 9 May 1985, a total of 24 appeals under the assets test lodged in those offices of which 21 related to revaluation of property. Of these appeals it is not known how many were lodged either by farmers, by persons who owned more than one property, by persons who were not farmers but who owned rural property or by persons who lived on properties with curtilage of larger than 2 hectares. (Question No. 1529) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What is the reason for his Department's employment of advertising agencies in relation to the official handover of Ayers Rock to the Aboriginal community. (2) How much has been budgeted for any advertising campaign in relation to this event. (3) Who (a) suggested and (b) authorised the use of an advertising agency. (4) Who prepared or wrote the brief given to the advertising agency or agencies handling this campaign and will he supply a copy. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 to 4) The Department has not employed an advertising agency to undertake an advertising campaign in relation to the handover of title of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National Park. The Department has engaged a public relations consultant to assist in arrangements for the event. (Question No. 1537) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Will the Government ask the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities to formulate amendments to the Securities Industry Code, and the regulations made thereunder, so that members of the public seeking investment advice can have confidence in the practices and professional competence of licensed investment advisers. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has taken action on this matter. The recently introduced Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 contains a provision which is aimed at overcoming the practice by some investment advisers of advising clients to place funds into particular investments irrespective of whether there is a reasonable basis for that advice and irrespective of whether the investments are suitable for the clients. The main features of this provision are as follows: (a) A person licensed under the Securities Industry Act who makes a recommendation about securities to a client must have a reasonable basis for that recommendation. A licensee will not have a reasonable basis for a recommendation unless he has reasonably considered and investigated the subject matter of the recommendation to ascertain that it is appropriate in view of the investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of the client. (b) A client who suffers loss by relying on a recommendation made in breach of the provision will have a right to damages in certain circumstances. The proposals in an earlier exposure draft of the Bill requiring a licensee to disclose commissions or other benefits have been omitted. Further proposals will be developed with a view to such requirements being integrated into s. 65 of the Securities Industry Act. The honourable member may also be aware that the National Companies and Securities Commission is finalising a major review of the licensing provisions in the Securities Industry Act. I understand this review will be released for public comment in the near future. (Question No. 1561) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on August 1985: (1) Does Australia allow the importation of fully built up used car motors for sale to Australian motorists, if so, how many have been imported in each year since 1980. (2) What was the declared value of these imports. (3) Does the rate of duty and other taxes on such motors vary (a) from new motors or (b) between types. (4) Has the Minister's Department received information of action by importers to describe motors incorrectly in order to reduce import charges, if so, (a) what amount of revenue has been recovered from inquiries into this practice and (b) what percentage of estimated total lost revenue had been recovered. (5) What steps have been taken to protect revenue from duty and taxes on imported used car motors. (6) What mechanisms does the Customs Service have for advising other interested Departments of imported motors for consumer and environmental purposes. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes, the importation of fully built up used car motors is allowed. Statistics relating to the importations of used engines have been recorded separately only since 1 January 1985. Prior to that date, the only figures available relate to imports of new, used and reconditioned engines in total. In the eight months ended 31 August 1985 imports of used engines were 22,940 petrol, 4415 diesel; reconditioned engines 1724 petrol, 211 diesel, and `other' 3015 petrol, 547 diesel. `Other' comprises new, used and reconditioned engines for which information to enable separate classification is not available. In general petrol engines are considered to be imported mainly for use in cars while diesel engines are mainly for use in trucks and other commercial vehicles. (2) The declared values of these imports were-used petrol $2,776,472, used diesel $1,807,512; reconditioned petrol $193,786, reconditioned diesel $105,088; and other petrol $638,408 other diesel $360,250. (3) There is no variation of duty and other taxes on such motors (a) from new motors or (b) between types. (4) The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has received unsubtantiated allegations that some importers have been undervaluing engines on their invoices to reduce their duty and sales tax liability. The matter was one of the many issues which arose during the Department's recent consideration of a request for assistance from the Engine Reconditioners' Association of Australia. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button referred the engine reconditioning industry to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on 19 September, 1985. As is normal practice all relevant correspondence, including the correspondence in which the matter in question was raised, has been fowarded to the IAC for their consideration. I would add that no evidence to substantiate the claim of misconduct has been provided and thus no further action is contemplated at this stage. (5) Importations of used motor engine are subjected to the normal checks provided by the Australian Customs screen. (6) No prohibition or restriction associated with community or environmental standards attaches to the importation of fully built up used car motors. No mechanism therefore exists for the routine provision of import advice to other interested departments by the Australian Customs Service. Relevant import statistics are of course freely available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Question No. 1580) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Primary Industry, 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 Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, details are provided in answers to parts (2) and (3). (2) (i) Compensation: (a) Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $1,636,368 which includes an amount of $1,326,115 paid in respect of compensation for former employees of the Department. The remaining $310,252 covered compensation payments made in respect of employees of Statutory Authorities within the Primary Industry portfolio; (b) The bulk of expenditure covered regular on-going compensation payments for 77 former employees of the Department and salary maintenance payments in respect of curreny employees of Statutory Authorities, in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. Expenditure was also incurred to meet lump sum compensation payments and the cost of hospital/medical treatment and medical/specialist reports in respect of former employees and Statutory Authority employees. (ii) Legal Expenses: (a) Expenditure 1984-85 totalled $354,766; (b) The Bulk of expenditure arose from two actions against the Department-$210,829 in respect of a damages claim by an employee involved in a motor vehicle accident; $94,820 compensation for destruction of pigeons in relation to a quarantine matter. Expenditure was also incurred to meet the cost of legal fees for representation matter and to meet costs of obtaining legal opinions and instituting legal actions which did not proceed. (3) The major payments for legal expenses were as follows: Amount Recipient Nature of payment $ 201,049... Australian Government Solicitor... Damages awarded against Department in respect of motor vehicle accident involving employee 2,778... R. J. M. Anderson, Q.C.... Counsel and appearance fees for above case 7,002... Australian Government Solicitor... Plaintiff bill of costs for above case 75,000... McDonell, Morgan Milne, Salier... Compensation for destruction of pigeons 19,820... R. I. Rosenblum and Partners... Legal fees for above case 6,000... Lempriere, Abbot, McLeod Solicitors... Legal fees 5,370... W. H. Knight Solicitor... Legal fees 7,476... Professional Officers Association... Legal costs for representation before Royal Commissions and Inquiries (Question No. 1587) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $209,240. For the most part this covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($157,988) made to 28 former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($51,252) covered salary payments, lump sum payments and payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals, etc relating to employee compensation determinations. (2) (i) (a) and (b) $157,988-ongoing compensation payments to former employees $14,458-salary payments ie, total incapacity $22,416-medical expenses, etc $14,378-lump sum payments (ii) (a) and (b) Nil. (3) The Department had no recipients of payments related to legal expenses during this period. (Question No. 1588) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Detailed answers are provided in the replies to parts (2) and (3) of the question. (2) My Department spent the following amounts on compensation and legal costs in 1984-85: Expenditure from Division 325.3.15 Compensation... $ 817,008.03 Legal expenses... $ 412,714.81 TOTAL... $1,229,722.84 Expenditure from Division 326.2-Australian Institute of Health (AIH). Compensation... $80,565.17 Legal expenses... $ 1,405.00 TOTAL... $81,970.17 In addition, an amount of $664,355 was met from Division 325.1.01 (Departmental Salary Vote) and nil from Division 326.1 (AIH Salary Vote) for periodical compensation payments to officers and employees of the Department. The payments for compensation were made under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act covering: (a) periodical payments from Divisions 325.1.01 and 326.1 to employees and officers of the Department and from Divisions 325.3.15 and 326.2 to former employees/officers and person not employed by the Commonwealth. (b) medical and funeral expenses from Divisions 325.3.15 and 326.2. (c) lump sum payments from Divisions 325.3.15 and 326.2. The breakdown of the compensation cases occurred under three main areas of the Compensation Act under which liability was admitted. These were Section 27-Injuries sustained while on duty; Sections 29-31-diseases; Sections 32-36-injuries sustained while travelling to or from work. The main types of injuries involved in Sections 27 and 32-36 were fractures, sprains, lacerations, repetitive strain injuries, bruising, burns and contusions of the various bones and muscles of the body. Whiplash injuries were common injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents. Cases involving repetitive strain injuries are on the increase. The legal expenses incurred in 1984-85 relate to: Division 325.3.15. (a) court action concerning medical fraud and overservicing... $191,469.40 (b) offences or disputes under the Health Insurance Act... $ 8,317.00 (c) other legal matters... $212,928.41 TOTAL... $412,714.81 Division 326.2 court costs associated with compensation case... $ 1,405.00 The amounts were paid to organisations and individuals for witness expenses; counsel fees; preparation of briefs; memoranda of advice; judgment costs; servicing of subpoenas; certificates of conviction; transcript charges; tax on legal bills; stamp duty; legal fees (sale of house of employee); extension of patent applications; and damages awarded against the Commonwealth. (3) Payment for legal expenses in 1984-85 were made to the following organisations and persons: (a) ORGANISATIONS Attorney-General's Department South Australia and Western Australia; Australian Government Solicitor, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory; Australia &New Zealand Bank; Clerk of Petty Sessions, Wagga Wagga; Deputy Crown Solicitor, Victoria; Derham &Howard Solicitors; Director of Public Prosecutions, Queensland: District Court of New South Wales; Healh Insurance Commission, New South Wales; Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, New South Wales; Injuries' Liability Investigation and Assessment Service; Medibank Private; J. Marum Ltd; Pharmacy Locum Service Pty Ltd. South Australia; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia; Slatter &Gordon Solicitors; Webster Investigations. (b) PERSONS W. Anderson; L. J. Attard; T. Baker; P. Barton; D. Beck; E. Bence; M. Best; N. Bird; D. Black; M. F. J. Black; D. Brain; R. Brett; V. Bright; P. Buchanan; R. J. Burbidge; J. Cashman; B. Coles; M. Connell; C. Connors; N. Cowdery; A. E. Cramer-Roberts; J. Crumpton; D. Dark; O. Day; Mr Day; B. Dooley; M. Doutre; P. Doutre; E. Drews; P. Dwyer; A. Fizzel; G. E. Foot; J. J. Garnsey; S. W. Gibb; A. Gibbes; R. D. Giles; M. Gill; M. P. Ginn; C. Grenfell; D. Grieve; P. Guest; G. Gullock; P. Hammond; D. M. Hando; P. S. Hastings; J. Hattenbells; J. D. Heydon; M. Hicks; I. Hickson; M. Holden; J. D. Hrydon; B. Hungerford; W. Inglis; H. Janssen; F. Johnson; M. Johnston; J. Jung; L. Katz; A. M. Kelly; S. Kenny; D. Kilby; P. Kistler; P. Knox; L. Lambeth; J. H. Lawrence; J. Lillford; M. Long; M. E. Mansfield; D. Martin; K. Mason; L. Meyer; J. Middleton; M. Milvik; M. Morley; M. Moshinsky; N. Murphy; T. S. Murphy; B. Murray; L. MacDonald; B. McCarthy; M. McInnis; D. McGovern; Y. McMaster; P. G. Nash; R. Needham; V. Nolan; S. Opitz; M. D. F. O'Sullivan; A Perrin; W. Pensini; M. Peters; C. A. Poster; S. Prince; H. Raj; D. Read; J. Reid; R. Robson; A. Robertson; D. Sanderson; J. Santamaria; R. E. Stevens; J. W. Shand; C. Sheller; B. Shoemark; H. Shore; T. Simos; D. Simpson; R. Sunberg; B. T. Sully; E. Swords; M. Thomas; C. Thompson; S. Toder; J. H. Townend; J. Townsend; Mr Uren; J. B. C. van Loon; E. van Oostveen; I. M. Wales; P. Westwood; R. B. Wilson; P. W. Young; R. Young. (Question No. 1603) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: Why has $8,000 been appropriated for compensation and legal expenses for the Australia-Japan Foundation in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 when, in 1984-85, no moneys were expended for those services. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The amount of $8,000 has been appropriated to meet compensation payments due as a result of a determination made on 28 June 1985 under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 to an ex-employee of the Australia-Japan Foundation who retired on medical grounds. (Question No. 1625) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: What progress has been made on the implementation of 2 man rail crews on TASRAIL and Australian National trains. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: TASRAIL conducted trials of 2 person crew trains on 16 and 17 September 1985. The first scheduled 2 person crew train on TASRAIL commenced on 30 September 1985. Four return movements per day are currently operated. It is expected additional 2 person crew services will be progressively implemented. In South Australia successful trials of 2 person crews have been running on Australian National trains since late 1984. A total of some 320 freight trains per week are now operated by 2 person crews. A working party is examining further extensions of 2 person crewing in the light of operational requirements. (Question No. 1629) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Will the $80,000 repair program for Launceston Airport runway be adequate. (2) If so, for how long will it be adequate; if not, what further amount will need to be spent. (3) Is it a fact that one study recommends a $2m expenditure to repair the runway adequately. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The $80,000 repair program was established earlier this year to meet the need to keep the Launceston runway at a standard for the level of traffic using the airport. A program of regular inspections to identify any changes to the pavement's condition has been in operation for a number of years. At a recent inspection it was observed that increased deterioration has occurred. It is now proposed to undertake a larger project costing in the order of $350,000. This work is programmed for completion before December 1985 and should be adequate to meet current traffic demands. (2) Monitoring of the runway to ensure its safety will continue and maintenance work and upgrading will be carried out, as and when required. (3) The only reference to $2m of which I am aware related to a proposal for runway upgrading to allow unrestricted movements of B727-200 aircraft. (Question No. 1630) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Which Australian airports have special wind shear monitors. (2) What is the Government's attitude to the installation of this equipment. (3) Has a trial of a wind shear device been conducted at Tullamarine, Vic.; if so, (a) What was the result, and (b) What plans are there for use of that type of device in the future. (4) At which airports has new radar equipment been installed and when was it installed. (5) When will this equipment be installed at the other major airports in Australia. (6) At which airports is there shared defence and civil aviation radar. (7) Has the Department of Aviation refused Defence Department offers for shared radar at any major airport. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) There is no universally accepted equipment for the detection and monitoring of wind shear. There are a number of systems developed and evaluated. These include the ground based doppler radar, acoustic radar, laser system and the low Level Wind Shear Alert System which consists of arrays of ground based anemometers. (3) Yes. (a) The Department of Aviation, in collaboration with the Bureau of Meteorology, conducted a wind shear study using an instrument tower at Melbourne Airport. The purpose of the study was to provide a quantitative measure of the wind shear phenomenon and to provide data to assist the assessment of aircraft automated landing systems. The study was completed with a report in February 1970 ``Preliminary Study of Wind Shear in the Boundary Layer at Melbourne Airport (Tullamarine)'' by R. R. Brook. (b) The investigation used a 150 feet radio mast instrumented at three levels with anemometers; the device is therefore unsuitable for monitoring of wind shear on the flight path. (4) New radar processing and display systems are presently being installed in Adelaide and Melbourne. Installation of a similar system will commence shortly in Perth. These projects are the first phase of a programme to upgrade all civil Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar display systems in Australia. (5) The second phase of this programme will upgrade the ATC radar display systems in Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra. Planning for this second phase has commenced. A program of procurement, installation and testing is expected to be spread over a number of years, with all centres being completed by the early 1990's. (6) At Townsville and Darwin, Air Traffic Control radar systems provided by the Royal Australian Air Force are jointly used by civil and military Air Traffic Controllers. At Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth military controllers are located in the Air Traffic Control Centre and use the civil radar systems to co-ordinate the movements of military air traffic through civil airspace. Air Defence radar systems (as distinct from Air Traffic Control radar systems) operated by the military are not routinely used for civil air traffic control. (7) No. (Question No. 1640) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for Assistance. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Considerable work has been undertaken by my Department to introduce a telephone answering service accessible through a 008 telephone number for passport inquiries throughout Australia. Country clients will thus be afforded the same access and call costs as a city client. The system will be phased in over a period of 4 months commencing in mid-October. At this time telephone directories in Adelaide and Perth have been changed to reflect the new 008 number. All other directories will show the new number when they are released. Passport application forms due to be released shortly will also reflect the new number. After 6 months of operation a review will be undertaken in consultation with staff and unions, to gauge the benefits of the approach both for the public and the Department. (Question No. 1642) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The 008 toll-free telephone facility currently is not made use of by my Department. My officers are aware of the service, however, and are keeping it under evaluation for possible use in future. Of course, costs will be a major issue in any such consideration. Our 1985-86 budget makes no provision for such a service. Given the nature of the Department's activities, I do not see any reason to introduce it on a general basis at the moment. (Question No. 1643) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Trade has always sought to ensure accessibility to its services for as wide a population as possible. To this end, Regional Offices have been available in the State capitals for many years and more recently additional offices have been opened in Geelong, Newcastle, Wollongong and Townsville. The Darwin Office has also been upgraded to full Regional Office status during the current year. On 23 April 1985, I announced the Government's decision to establish a new statutory authority, the Australian Trade Commission, to consolidate Australia's export marketing efforts with the aim of making them more efficient and vigorous. The new Commission, which is scheduled to commence operations early in 1986, will assume the responsibilities, functions and powers of the Trade Commissioner Service, the Export Development Grants Board, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation and the present Department of Trade responsibility for export marketing, promotion and publicity. The Regional Offices of the Department will also become part of the Commission. On the other hand, the Department will concentrate its resources on matters of trade policy, broad strategic issues, multilateral negotiations and government-to-government trade relations. It is anticipated that the need for clients of the Trade portfolio to make contact by telephone would involve services which almost exclusively will become the responsibility of the Australian Trade Commission. The Interim Commission which is currently preparing operational procedures for the Commission has been asked to examine the provision of a 008 telephone service. (Question No. 1652) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services does not provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department. However, in the case of the Property Directorate, where there are major projects that affect the general public, the Regions indicate (particularly in advertisements) that inquirer's calls will be accepted on a reverse charge basis. As far as the Department as a whole is concerned the installation of a toll free 008 service to our clients would appear to be unwarranted on the grounds of both need and cost. (Question No. 1658) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: What procedures are adopted to screen the cargo of international passenger aircraft leaving Australia to ensure that the same level of safety is guaranteed as the procedures achieve which are used for screening passengers travelling on the same aircraft. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: All airlines operating in Australia are required to comply with aviation security programs approved by the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. Security requirements for cargo are included in these programs. (Question No. 1671) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: Is he able to say how many people were on the waiting lists for public housing in each State and Territory as at (a) 30 August 1985 and (b) 30 August 1984. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information is not available from the States on an end of August basis. However, State Housing Authorities provide information on waiting lists as at the end of June and the end of December each financial year. The number of persons on public housing waiting lists at the end of June 1984 and June 1985 for all States and the Northern Territory is set out in the following table. PERSONS ON PUBLIC HOUSING WAITING LISTS State 30 June 1984 30 June 1985 N.S.W.... 53,259 58,501 Vic.... 20,992 23,729 Qld... 10,304 8,794 W.A.... 10,326 8,543 S.A.... 32,800 35,000 Tas.... 3,909 4,046 N.T.... 3,843 3,690 Total... 135,433 142,303 Public housing in the Australian Capital Territory is the responsibility of the Minister for Territories. (Question No. 1672) Mr Langmore asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Is the Minister able to say what amount of emergency relief was provided by (a) government and: (b) non-government agencies in each State and Territory in (i) the most recent financial year for which figures are available and; (ii) the previous financial year. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The Commonwealth appropriation for emergency relief from the 1984/85 Budget was $5,950,000 and for 1983/84 $5,000,000. An amount of $6,000,000 has been appropriated from the 1985/86 Budget. Allocations of Commonwealth funds to voluntary welfare agencies on a State basis are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the amounts States/Territories are estimated to have distributed in the 1983/84 and 1984/85 financial years. (1) (b) The Commonwealth does not have information on the amount of emergency relief distributed by all voluntary agencies. Table 1 COMMONWEALTH EMERGENCY RELIEF ALLOCATIONS State/Territory 1983/84 1984/85 $ $ New South Wales... 1,911,700 2,335,000 Victoria... 1,000,500 1,197,000 Queensland... 806,000 980,000 South Australia... 449,000 525,000 Western Australia... 452,000 561,000 Tasmania... 149,000 184,000 Northern Territory... 92,000 112,000 Australian Capital Territory... 55,000 56,000 TOTALS... 4,915,200 5,950,000 Table 2 STATE/TERRITORY EMERGENCY CASH RELIEF EXPENDITURE State/Territory 1983/84 1984/85 $ $ New South Wales... 8,004,000 8,405,000 Victoria... Nil Nil Queensland... 514,206 568,336 South Australia... 1,070,491 1,160,000 Western Australia... 2,500,000 4,900,000 Tasmania... 374,018 527,262 Northern Territory... 609,000 624,000 Australian Capital Territory... 26,442 131,987 (Question No. 1673) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) What was the expenditure on rents for public service office space in each year from 1979-80 to 1985-86 (estimated) in (a) Australia and (b) the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: EXPENDITURE ON RENTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICE SPACE Excluding Department of Defence and Statutory Authorities Year ACT Australia 1978-79 10,967,278 55,597,304 1979-80 12,931,837 61,784,730 1980-81 13,361,244 68,942,734 1981-82 15,184,569 78,376,664 1982-83 17,698,920 100,236,562 1983-84 22,842,548 138,199,365 1984-85 31,046,348 177,566,443 1985-86 44,680,071 (estimated) 248,152,000 (estimated) (Question No. 1674) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: What amount of each type of fruit juice was imported into Australia in each of the last 3 financial years. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: IMPORTS OF FRUIT JUICES 82/83 ('0001) $000 83/84 ('0001) $000 84/85 (p) ('0001) $000 Orange Juice... 108 255 23 138 132 806 26 762 73 305 26 080 Grapefruit Juice... 1 219 323 1 677 399 81 45 Lime Juice... 797 340 1 199 429 762 366 Lemon Juice... 262 66 4 744 977 20 32 Mandarin and Other Citrus Juices... 7 2 Neg Neg 8 2 Pineapple Juice... 4 9 Neg Neg 56 97 Passionfruit Juice (a)... 11 15 12 18 42 55 Blackcurrant Juice... see fruit juice NES 29 150 134 542 Fruit Juice Nes... 1587 (b) 1559 (b) 1947 2641 7549 9517 Mixtures of Citrus Fruit Juices... - - 75 33 18 19 (a) containing under 25% added sugar (b) in 1982/83 includes blackcurrant juice. SOURCE: ABS (p) Preliminary (Question No. 1677) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) What is the proposed N1 design requirement for motorcycles. (2) When will the requirement be introduced. (3) What effect is the requirement expected to have on motorcycle noise levels. (4) What consultation took place with motorcycle organisations when the requirement was being prepared and does it have the support of those organisations. (5) Is it anticipated that the requirement will (a) reduce by 50 per cent the range of motorcycle models available in Australia and (b) increase the cost of motorcycles; if so, by what percentage. (6) Can he indicate whether other countries have (a) a similar design requirement and (b) a 90dB(A) `stationary test'. (7) Why is the 90dB(A) `stationary test' for motorcycles being introduced in Australia. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) N1 was a draft Australian Design rule prepared by the Noise Sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Emissions and Noise which advises the Australian Environment Council and the Australian Transport Advisory Council. As initially drafted N1 proposed that the noise level of all new motorcycles be limited to 80dB(A) on a `drive by' test and 90dB(A) on a `stationary test`. In subsequent deliberations the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Emissions and Noise has revised this proposal (see 6 below). (2) It was originally proposed that N1 be introduced in March 1988. No decision has yet been made relating to the revised proposals. (3) Permissible noise levels of new motorcycles would have been cut by 2-3dB(A) on the `drive by' test and 4dB(A) on the `stationary test' by N1. (4) Motorcycle organisations are represented on the Noise Sub-committee which formulated the Rule. Both the motorcycle industry and motorcycle users were consulted during the Rule's preparation. These bodies were strongly opposed to the `stationary test' limit on the grounds that it would be design restrictive. The motorcycle industry is not opposed to a revised `drive by' test provided this is aligned with an accepted international procedure. The motorcycle users consider that more attention should be given to enforcement of present requirements by States and Territories for vehicles in use before consideration is given to further standards for new vehicles. (5) (a) Advice from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries suggests that some 70 per cent of motorcycle models currently available in Australia may not meet the requirement of N1. (b) Costs would vary for each make of motorcycle and detailed information is not available. (6) (a) The `drive by' test procedure as originally proposed for N1 was based on United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulation 205. The revised proposal now under consideration is largely based upon the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe standards. These United Nations standards are now being considered by most advanced countries. The revised proposal still includes a `stationary test' put forward by State environmental authorities which departs from the international standard and would still impose unique Australian requirements. Consideration is also being given to different test limits than were originally proposed in N1. (b) No other country is known to have a 90dB(A) `stationary test' limit. (7) There has been no decision to introduce a 90dB(A) `stationary' test limit for motorcycles in Australia. The `stationary test' limit which might be included in the revised proposal is under consideration by officials preparatory to consideration of the future approach to motorcycle noise at the forthcoming meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council in December 1985. Council has previously agreed that any new standards will need to be fully justified and based upon United Nations standards unless there are overwhelming reasons why this cannot be achieved. Council will look closely at the `stationary test' element of the motorcycle noise proposals in this context, and in the light of the wide range of views that have been expressed on this issue. (Question No. 1679) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) How many crew members are required for each of the (a) new Trident fire fighting vehicles being obtained for the Department of Aviation and (b) vehicles they are replacing. (2) How many older vehicles are the reported 22 Tridents replacing. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1983 the Department of Aviation adopted a new policy for Rescue and Fire Fighting Service staffing in that the number of crew members per shift are determined in accordance with the Category of an Airport rather than the type of vehicle. The number of staff at a unit thus depends on a particular Airport Category rather than on the vehicles deployed. (a) the number of crew members employed on the new Trident fire fighting vehicles will vary between 2 and 5 depending on the Category of the Airport at which they will be located. (b) the number of crew members employed on each of the vehicles the Trident is replacing varies between 1 and 4 depending on the Category of the Airport at which they are located. (2) Following the introduction of the 22 Trident vehicles 31 of the older vehicles will be replaced. (Question No. 1681) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: Did his Department supply confidential information, provided by a Victorian applicant for a licence for a Telecommand Security System, using a Motorola Maxar 80 radio, to a competitor of that applicant under the Freedom of Information Act; if so, is this the usual practice of the Department. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A Freedom of Information request seeking access to certain information on approved radiocommunications equipment for use with security systems was received by my Department from a Victorian applicant in 1984. No confidential information was supplied in response to the request. Limited information only outlining make, model, manufacturer and supplier of the approved equipment, together with the names of licensees using that equipment, was provided. This information was obtained from Departmental Registers and is not exempt from release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. (Question No. 1829) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Did he recently state that the Federal Government was determined to complete the 16,000 kilometre national highway system to a quality, all-weather standard by 1988. (2) If so, will there be any change in the financial allocations for the arterial and local roads components in either the ALTP or ABRD program to allow this stated aim to be achieved. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) It is expected that the objective of the ABRD Program can be met from the existing allocations for national roads. (Question No. 1832) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Have any complaints been received concerning the noise level of low-flying helicopters following the recent decision to allow a 500 foot altitude flight path over the Parramatta River. (2) In particular, have any complaints been received from the Drummoyne area or between Ryde Bridge and Middle Head and Gladesville Bridge and Channel 10. (3) If so, what are they, and what has been done. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total number of complaints received by the Department to 30 September 1985 is 161 (including a petition of 114 signatures). A breakdown of these figures is: noise complaints: 137 (including petition) low flying helicopters and overflights of built-up areas: 19 both: 5 (2) Drummoyne area: 10 complaints Ryde Bridge and Middle Head: 151 complaints (including petition) Gladesville Bridge and Channel 10: 0 complaints (3) Officers of the Department have made two surveys of transit lane operations to observe any breaches of the designated lanes. No breaches were observed. The complaint areas have been plotted and circulated to the major helicopter operators. The Department brought the complaints to the attention of the Helicopter Association of Australia at a meeting with it on the subject on 12 August 1985. Since that date the number of complaints has decreased considerably. The Department is continuing liaison with helicopter operators to ensure compliance with the conditions for use of transit and access lanes. (Question No. 1853) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department provide (a) funds or (b) other services to assist in (i) management or (ii) promotion of the Rhodes Scholarship Scheme in Australia and maintain records on the operation of the scheme. (2) If so, is the Minister able to say (a) whether the Rhodes Trust currently pays each scholar approximately #1700 (sterling) per year and meets his or her university fees and accommodation costs, (b) who (i) the present Trustees of the Rhodes Trust are, (ii) its current Chief Executive is and (iii) whether any black Africans have ever served as Trustees, (c) whether the original #3 million (sterling) and subsequent investment income is managed by the Rhodes Trust to finance the scheme, (d) whether, of the Rhodes Scholarships usually awarded each year, 32 are awarded in the United States of America, 12 in South Africa, 9 in Canada, 7 in Australia, 5 in West Germany and 1 each in Bermuda, India, Jamaica, Malta, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Pakistan, (e) how many students have graduated from Oxford University under the scheme (i) in total and (ii) of South African origin, (f) how many (a) black, (b) coloured and (c) white South Africans were Rhodes Scholars in each year since 1948, (g) whether the records of the Department indicate the origin of the funds used to establish the scheme; and, if so, whether the source of much of the funds was the mining industry where reported wages for black Africans were low, (h) whether the Rhodes Trust has, or had, investments in (a) South Africa and (b) corporations beneficially owned by a majority of South Africans; if so, what are they, and (3) Were any of these matters taken into consideration when decisions were made on the provision of assistance to the scheme. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Particulars about the Rhodes Scholarship Scheme may be obtained from the Registrars of Australian Universities, or from Professor J. R. Poynter, Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne. (2) and (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 1836) Mr Hollis asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say which States have become parties to the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations adopted by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 26 October 1961 and which entered into force on 18 May 1964. (2) Is he able to say in what years there have been meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee of the Convention; if so, (a) at which of those meetings and (b) at what level, has Australia been represented. (3) Was a Performers' Copyright Bill prepared in 1974; if so, did the Government intend to ratify the Convention after the enactment of the Bill. (4) Has Australia taken steps since 1974 to become a party to the Convention; if so, what are the details. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, see attached list of States which are parties to the Convention as of 7 August 1985. (2) Meetings, in ordinary session, of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) are convened in accordance with the Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the IGC. Such meetings were first held in 1967, and since then in 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985. (a) Australia was represented at the IGC meetings in 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1983 and 1985. (b) Australia has been represented at these meetings by senior officers (including the Commissioner of Patents) of relevant Government Departments and instrumentalities. (3) A draft Bill was prepared for the Government in 1974 and circulated for comment to interested parties. It was not introduced in Parliament. Enactment of the Bill would have been consistent with the provisions of the Convention relating to performers' protection. However, I am not in a position to indicate what the then Government's intentions may have been regarding accession to the Convention. (4) In September 1983 the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Senator Gareth Evans, Q.C., established the Copyright Law Review Committee, and referred the question of performers' protection to that Committee. The Government is awaiting the report of that Committee before deciding on future action regarding implementation of the Convention. I am informed that the Committee is hoping to complete its report before the middle of next year. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERFORMERS, PRODUCERS OF PHONOGRAMS AND BROADCASTING ORGANISATIONS, ROME, 26 OCTOBER 1961-STATES PARTY TO THE CONVENTION AS AT 7 AUGUST 1985 State Date of entry into force Austria... 9 June 1973 Barbados... 18 September 1983 Brazil... 29 September 1965 Chile... 5 September 1974 Colombia... 17 September 1976 Congo... 18 May 1964 Costa Rica... 9 September 1971... Czechoslovakia... 14 August 1964... Denmark... 23 September 1965 Ecuador... 18 May 1964 El Salvador... 29 June 1979 Fiji... 11 April 1972 Finland... 21 October 1983 Germany, Federal Republic of... 21 October 1966 Guatemala... 14 January 1977 Ireland... 19 September 1979 Italy... 8 April 1975 Luxembourg... 25 February 1976 Mexico... 18 May 1964 Niger... 18 May 1964 Norway... 10 July 1978 Panama... 2 September 1983 Paraguay... 26 February 1970 Philippines... 25 September 1984 Peru... 7 August 1985 Sweden... 18 May 1964 United Kingdom... 18 May 1964 Uruguay... 4 July 1977 Total: 28 (Question No. 1837) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: Will he bring up to date the information given by his predecessor in answer to question No. 4831 (Hansard, 8 September 1982, page 1234) concerning diplomatic recognition accorded to (a) the Republic of Korea and (b) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question, according to information currently available, is as follows: Recognition of ROK and DPRK As of September 1985, formal recognition of the ROK and DPRK is accorded by the following countries. (Where precise dates are unknown, alternatives are given in brackets.) Country Date of Recognition ROK DPRK Afghanistan... - 26.12.73 Albania... - 17.5.49 Algeria... - 25.9.58 Angola... - 13.4.76 Antigua... 1.11.81 (2.11.81) - Argentina... 15.2.62 - Australia... 31.10.61 31.7.74 Austria... 22.5.63 17.12.73 Bahamas... - - Bahrain... 17.4.76 - Bangladesh... 18.12.73 16.12.73 (9.12.73) Barbados... 15.11.77 5.12.77 Belgium... 2.5.62 - Belize... - - Benin... - 5.2.73 Bolivia... 24.4.65 - Botswana... 18.4.68 27.11.74 Brazil... 31.10.59 - Bukina Faso... 20.4.62 11.10.72 Bulgaria... - 29.11.48 Burma... 19.5.75 16.5.75 (5.6.75) (Broken off 4.11.83) Burundi... - 11.3.67 Cameroon... 10.8.61 3.3.72 Canada... 10.8.61 (14.1.63) - Cape Verde... - 18.8.75 Central African Republic... 5.9.63 4.2.77 (5.9.69) Chad... 6.8.61 8.5.69 Chile... 12.6.62 - People's Republic of China... - 6.10.49 Colombia... 10.3.62 - Comoros... 19.2.79 13.11.75 (Broken off 3.12.83) Congo... - 24.12.64 Costa Rica... 15.8.62 10.2.74 (Broken off 5.12.83) Cuba... - 29.8.60 Cyprus... - - Czechoslovakia... - 21.10.48 Denmark... 31.3.59 17.6.73 Djibouti... 8.12.77 30.6.77 Dominica... 3.11.78 18.9.79 Domnican Republic... 6.6.62 - Ecuador... 5.10.62 (5.12.61) - Egypt... - 24.8.62 El Salvador... 30.8.62 - Equatorial Guinea... 14.9.79 30.1.69 Ethiopia... 23.12.63 5.6.75 Fiji... 30.1.71 14.4.75 Finland... 24.8.73 1.6.73 France... 15.2.49 - Gabon... 1.10.62 29.1.74 Gambia... 21.4.65 2.3.73 German Democratic Republic... - 7.11.49 Federal Republic of Germany... 1.12.54 - Ghana... 14.11.77 14.11.77 Greece... 5.4.61 - Grenada... 1.8.74 9.5.75 Guatemala... 24.10.62 - Guinea... 6.1.78 8.10.58 Guinea-Bissau... 21.12.83 16.3.74 Guyana... 13.6.68 18.5.74 Haiti... 22.9.62 - Holy See... 11.12.63 - Honduras... 1.4.62 - Hungary... - 11.11.48 Iceland... 10.10.62 27.7.73 India... 10.12.73 10.12.73 Indonesia... 17.8.73 16.4.64 Iran... 23.10.62 15.4.73 Iraq... 2.7.81 30.1.68 (Broken off 10.10.80) Republic of Ireland... 4.10.83 - Israel... 9.4.62 - Italy... 24.11.56 - Ivory Coast... 23.7.61 - Jamaica... 13.10.62 9.10.74 Japan... 22.6.65 (18.12.65) - Jordan... 26.7.62 5.7.74 Democratic Kampuchea... - 20.12.64 Kenya... 7.2.64 12.5.75 Kiribati... 2.5.80 - Kuwait... 26.6.72 (26.2.72) - Laos... - 24.6.74 Lebanon... 12.2.81 (1.10.69) 12.2.81 Lesotho... 7.12.66 (Suspended June 83) 9.7.80 Liberia... 18.1.64 20.12.73 Libya... 29.12.80 30.1.74 Luxembourg... 4.11.61 - Madagascar... 25.6.62 16.11.72 Malawi... 9.3.65 24.6.82 Malaysia... 23.2.60 30.6.73 Maldives... 30.11.67 14.6.70 Mali... - 31.10.60 Malta... 2.4.65 20.12.71 Mauritania... 19.12.78 12.11.64 (Broken off 15.3.76, restored, 19.3.80) Mauritius... 3.7.71 16.3.73 Mexico... 26.1.62 4.9.80 Mongolia... - 15.10.48 Morocco... 6.7.62 - Mozambique... - 25.6.75 Nauru... 20.8.79 25.2.82 Nepal... 15.5.74 15.5.74 The Netherlands... 4.4.61 - New Zealand... 31.3.62 - Nicaragua... 26.1.62 21.8.79 Niger... 27.7.61 6.9.76 (6.9.74) Nigeria... 20.2.80 25.5.76 Norway... 2.3.59 22.6.73 Oman... 28.3.74 - Pakistan... - (15.1.68) 9.11.72 Panama... 30.9.62 - Papua New Guinea... 19.5.76 1.6.76 Paraguay... 15.6.62 - Peru... 1.4.63 - Philippines... 3.3.49 - Poland... - 16.10.48 Portugal... 15.4.61 15.4.75 Qatar... 18.4.74 - Rumania... - 3.11.48 Rwanda... 21.3.63 27.4.72 Sao Tome and Principe... - 9.8.75 Saudi Arabia... 16.10.62 - Senegal... 19.10.62 8.9.72 Seychelles... - (28.6.76) - (24.8.76) Sierra Leone... 25.6.62 14.10.71 Singapore... 8.8.75 8.11.75 Solomon Island... 15.9.78 - Somalia... - 12.4.67 Sri Lanka... 14.11.77 15.7.70 South Africa... - - Spain... 17.3.50 - St Kitts Nevis... 19.9.83 - St Lucia... 23.2.79 13.9.79 St Vincent... 28.10.79 3.4.81 Sudan... 13.4.77 21.6.69 Surinam... 28.11.75 - Swaziland... 18.11.68 - Sweden... 11.3.69 7.4.73 Switzerland... 18.12.62 20.12.74 Syria... - 25.7.66 Tanzania... - 13.1.65 Thailand... 1.10.58 8.5.75 Togo... - 31.1.73 Tonga... 11.9.70 - Trinidad and Tobago... - - Tunisia... 31.3.69 16.7.75 Turkey... 8.3.57 - Tuvalu... 15.11.78 - Uganda... 26.3.63 30.7.72 (2.8.72) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... - 12.10.48 United Arab Emirates... 18.6.80 - United Kingdom... 18.1.49 - United States of America... 12.8.48 (20.3.49) - Uruguay... 7.10.64 - Vanuatu... 5.11.80 1.10.81 Venezuela... 29.4.65 28.10.74 Vietnam... - 31.1.50 Western Samoa... 15.9.72 28.6.78 (Broken off 21.12.83) Yemen Arab Republic... - 9.3.62 People's Democratic Republic of Yemen... - 7.2.68 Yugoslavia... - 30.10.48 Zaire... 1.4.63 15.12.72 Zambia... - 12.4.69 Zimbabwe... - 18.4.80 (Question No. 1843) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) How many war service pension recipients living in the electoral Division of Ballarat have had their pensions (a) affected or (b) cancelled under the provisions of the assets test. (2) How many war service pension recipients living in the electoral Division of Ballarat have (a) appealed and (b) had their pension partly or wholly restored as a result of appeals, under the hardship provisions of the Repatriation Act. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The information sought is not available by electoral division. Tables by postcode as at 8 May are available. The postcodes relevant to the electoral Division of Ballarat comprise: 3251 3327 3373 3260 3329-30 incl. 3375 3265 3333 3377-78 incl. 3271-74 incl. 3350-52 incl. 3381 3282 3355-57 incl. 3461 3289-91 incl. 3360-61 incl. 3467 3293-94 incl. 3363-64 incl. 3469 3322-25 incl. 3370 3721 In the postcodes listed above: (a) 212 service pension recipients were affected by the Assets test; (b) 130 of these had their pensions cancelled. (2) The information sought is not available by electoral division. In the postcodes listed above: (a) two appeals have been lodged under the hardship provisions of the Repatriation Act (b) neither was successful. (Question No. 1852) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) How many Filipino armed forces personnel have undertaken military or related training in Australia in each of the last 12 years. (2) Is he able to say whether the skills acquired have been utilised internally within the Philippines to aid in the repression of human rights. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following numbers of Philippine personnel received training in Australia over the past 12 years: 1974 - 13 1975 - 17 1976 - 27 1977 - 13 1978 - 25 1978-79- 31 1979-80- 34 1980-81-103 1981-82- 87 1982-83-112 1983-84- 66 1984-85- 62 (2) A main objective of training provided to the Philippines under the Defence Cooperation Program is to assist in the development of military skills relevant to countering external threats. Training in recent years has concentrated on the transfer of technical, managerial and specialist military skills. As is the case in all countries, the Philippines Government is responsible for the posting of Philippine trainees upon completion of their courses in Australia. Given the type of training provided we believe that most students return to their units where they apply the training they have received to their military duties. The Government's position on human rights abuses is clear. It does not condone them anywhere and would not accept any proposals under the Defence Cooperation Program which threatened human rights. It continues to be concerned about reports of human rights infringements in the Philippines and representations are made, as appropriate, regarding such infringements. (Question No. 1853) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) How many Indonesian military personnel have undertaken military or related training in Australia in each of the last 12 years. (2) Is he able to say whether any training acquired has been utilised in the invasion and occupation of East Timor by Indonesia. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following numbers of Indonesian personnel received training in Australia over the past 12 years: 1974 -141 1975 -126 1976 - 81 1977 - 47 1978 - 81 1978-79- 63 1979-80- 60 1980-81- 43 1981-82- 66 1982-83- 80 1983-84- 81 1984-85-127 (2) As with other regional countries a main objective of training provided to Indonesia under the Defence Cooperation Program is to assist in the development of military skills relevant to countering external threats. Training provided to Indonesian servicemen reflects these aims and has concentrated on the provision of professional military and technical training including Army corps training, specialist technical skills (helicopter and C130 engine maintenance) hydrography and survey training and attendance at Staff College courses. As is the case in all countries, the Indonesian Government is responsible for the posting of Indonesian trainees upon completion of their courses in Australia. However, we believe that most students return to their units where they apply the training they have received to their military duties. (Question No. 1858) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Is he able to indicate whether Australian prisoners of war were exposed to atomic radiation in Japan in 1945; if so, what was (a) the number of prisoners exposed and (b) their location at the time of exposure. (2) Have efforts been made to survey the medical histories and current health of those exposed; if so, what were the results of the assessments. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) It is known that a number of Australian prisoners of war (POWs) were in various locations in the city of Nagasaki at the time of the explosion of the second atomic bomb over that city on 9 August 1945. The actual POW camp was approximately 1,600 metres from the hypocentre of the explosion. (a) and (b) My Department does not know the total number of POWs in Japan who may have been exposed to radiation at the time of the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it is known that at least 27 POWs were in the Nagasaki area and at the time of the explosion were located as follows: 3 at the village of Mura (10 miles to the north) which is considered to be outside the effective range of nuclear weapon radiation. 24 either working in various locations in the city or located at Camp 14 at Fukuoka. One of the latter POWs was in a Camp air-raid shelter at the time of the explosion. It is understood that an unknown number of Australian POWs were repatriated to Australia through Nagasaki some weeks after the explosion, when the danger of exposure to residual radiation is understood to have been minimal. (2) Three surveys have been conducted to determine the effects of exposure to radiation on the 24 ex-POWs in the immediate Nagasaki area. The first was in 1949, the second in 1964, and the most recent comprehensive survey in 1974-75 was conducted by Professor Ilbery, with the support of the Department. In the latest survey, of the total of 27, the 3 ex-POWs who were in Mura were excluded; 5 had died, 1 was untraceable and 1 was unable to participate in the study. The remaining 17 were studied with a control group of 4 ex-POWs (Japan) who were not within the immediate vicinity of the atomic explosion. This study revealed that, apart from some chromosomal damage, which had repaired itself naturally, none of the POWs who had been exposed to radiation had suffered disabilities which could be attributed to that exposure. I would emphasise that these POWs are eligible for disability pension and for treatment for all disabilities irrespective of whether related to service or not. They have the opportunity, therefore, for regular monitoring of their health. (Question No. 1869) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave in answer to part (2) of question No. 5240 (Hansard, 26 October 1982, page 25) concerning membership of the Asian Development Bank by the Republic of China. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Peoples Republic of China indicated its wish to join the Asian Development Bank in 1983. Taiwan is currently a member of the Bank. The Bank is exploring possible terms of membership for the Peoples Republic of China. Australia firmly supports the application for membership of the Asian Development Bank by the Peoples Republic of China and has urged expeditious completion of formalities. (Question No. 1870) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Why was the use of prosthetists in Veterans' Affairs dentistry introduced. (2) Is it a fact that the $300 limit on Schedule 2 items may compromise quality of care. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that a number of private practice dentists are considering withdrawal from the scheme because of the introduction of the changes referred to in parts (1) and (2). Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The decision announced in the Economic Statement of 14 May 1985 allowed access by Veterans to dental prosthetists on referral from a Repatriation Local Dental Officer. These arrangements apply only where State governments have legislated to allow prosthetists to provide services. Representations have been made to me that eligible Veterans should have the same rights in regard to access to treatment providers as does the community. Ex-service organisations and prosthetists' associations have argued that the Veteran community was being denied freedom of choice for services available to citizens in some States and that the prosthetists were being discriminated against in not being able to participate in Repatriation treatment arrangements. (2) The $300 restriction on certain dental items does not apply to dental treatment for war-caused disabilities. Most dental treatment is not affected by the limit. There is no change in orthodontic treatment arrangements or financial restrictions on clinically necessary treatment (e.g. oral surgery or periodontia). There are no financial restrictions on providing full or partial acrylic dentures, but these require prior departmental approval if existing dentures are under eight years old. The cumulative limit of $300 applies to cobalt-chromium dentures, inlays, crowns and bridgework and mouthguards. The decision to introduce a financial limit was taken to contain escalating costs for these items while still maintaining adequate dental care for all Veterans and eligible dependants. (3) The Australian Dental Associaton (ADA) has given its views and those of some practitioners about aspects of the new arrangements. The ADA has pointed out the additional administrative responsibilities placed on their members and has sought variations in the arrangements. Senior officers of my Department recently met executives of the ADA and discussed these issues. Revised procedures are being drawn up which should resolve the problems. (Question No. 1878) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave in answer to question No. 5014 (Hansard, 14 October 1982, page 2137) concerning diplimatic recognition accorded to (a) the Federal Republic of Germany and (b) the German Democratic Republic. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) In respect of the Federal Republic of Germany-all countries except Albania and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; (b) In respect of the German Democratic Republic-all countries except: Andorra, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Republic of Korea, Western Samoa, Swaziland, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Tonga, Monaco, Israel, Bahrain, Brunei, Malawim, Honduras, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Holy See, Oman, Bhutan, Bahamas, South Africa, Barbados, Guatemala, Haiti and Qatar. The Ivory Coast established diplomatic relations with the GDR in 1982. (Question No. 1897) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Does his Department or any authority under his control make any payments to universities and other organisations for special studies and research; if so, (a) what universities and organisations receive payments, (b) what sum is paid to each organisation, (c) what studies are undertaken by the organisations, (d) will he supply copies of studies received as a result of payments made in 1984-85, (e) what is the estimated cost of payments in 1985-86, (f) to what organisations will payments be made in 1985-86 and (g) what work will be undertaken by organisations receiving payments in 1985-86. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) The University of New South Wales, Social Welfare Research Centre. (b) $688,986 in the 1984-85 financial year. (c) Publications produced by the Centre are listed in each quarterly newsletter issued by the Centre. Copies of these newsletters have been provided to the honourable member by the Centre. They are also available in the Parliamentary Library for reference purposes. (d) Due to the varying lengths of each project, the year of publication of projects does not strictly relate to the financial year in which grant payments were made. It cannot therefore be judged which projects are directly attributable to the 1984-85 grant, however, in the 1984-85 financial year 5 publications were produced by the Centre, while sixteen (16) were produced in the 1984 calendar year. All of these publications are available from the Parliamentary Library for reference purposes. (e) $696,000. (f) The University of New South Wales, Social Welfare Research Centre (g) The future publications to be produced by the Centre are as listed on page 22 and 23 of the Centre's Newsletter No 17 of May 1985. These are: Bruce Bradbury Chris Rossiter Joan Vipond The Affordability of Housing in Relation to Tenure November 1985 Adam Jamrozik and Don Stewart The Social Wage: The Concept and its Dimensions February 1986 David Tait Jill Hardwick Measuring Family Welfare: Indicators of Family Wellbeing February 1986 Loucas Nicoleau Adam Jamrozik Service for Children of Ethnic Minorities March 1986 Diana Encel An Annotated Bibliography of Unemployment: 1983-1985 March 1986 Jan Carter Indebtedness of Unemployed Persons March 1986 Elizabeth Dean Adam Jamrozik The Neighbourhood Houses as Family and Children's Services April 1986 Bruce Bradbury Joan Vipond The Impact of Unemployment on Income May 1986 Tania Sweeney Connie Comber Sarah Drury Child Care and Child Welfare: The Commonwealth- States-Family Interaction June 1986 David Tait Jenny James Fiona Brown The Geographical Distribution of Handicap July 1986 Chris Rossiter Housing Choices and Australia's Elderly Population August 1986 Bruce Bradbury Chris Rossiter Housing: Variations in the Capital Cities November 1986 Adam Jamrozik Don Stewart The Labour Market, Income Distribution and the Social Wage November 1986 David Tait Jill Hardwick Jenny James Need and Provision: Provision of Services to the Handicapped December 1986 The quarterly newsletters also outline other new projects outside this published program as they are developed. (Question No. 1912) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the cost to his Department and authorities under his control of training staff in matters relating to the assets test in 1984-85. (2) What was the (a) number of staff involved, (b) nature of training programs and (c) designation of those conducting the training programs. (3) Are training programs related to the assets test to be conducted in 1985-86; if so, (a) what will be the cost, (b) who will conduct them and (c) what (i) categories and (ii) numbers of staff will participate. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The training strategy was implemented in the two stages: a preparatory program using existing material to facilitate the withdrawal of data collectors from the Regional Offices, the actual training of staff directly involved in the implementation of the new legislation. The cost of training (excluding salaries) for the assets test was incurred against the travel and subsistence vote and the training services vote. preparatory program: Travel &Subsistence... $402,952 Training Services... $ Nil assets: Travel &Subsistence... $724,727 Training Services... $ 25,229 (2) (a) Staff trained: preparatory program... 2,151 assets... 3,647 Training staff used... 90 (b) There were two major courses conducted for assets implementation both using classroom learning: examination course of 8-10 days for all data collection and Regional Office staff pensions examiners, public contact course of 2 days for counter and field officers, hotline staff and social workers. (c) All staff used as instructors were in the range Clerical Administrative Classes 5 and 6. (3) There will be no specific assets test training conducted in 1985-86. An allocation of $10,000 has been made to the training services vote to cover the expense of incorporating the assets test training material into existing pensions training programs. These funds cover estimated costs of printing and production of the updated material. (Question No. 1919) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the number of approved staff years for Classes 9 to 11 and their equivalents in his Department and authorities under his control in 1984-85. (2) Is the estimated number of staff years for this category of employees expected to increase in 1985-86; if so, (a) why and (b) what is the estimated number. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1984-85 370 staff years were approved. However this allocation was made in the first year of the introduction of Human Resource Budgeting when adequate systems for the precise measurement of staffing levels by bands did not exist. Therefore both the Departmental estimate and the approved allocation for 1984-85 represented best estimates of staff year requirements in the Class 9 to 11 band. (Subsequent development of a better staff/establishment information system showed the figure of 370 significantly understated requirements in 1984-85.) (2) Yes. (a) to take account of: necessary adjustments to cover the under-estimation of staff years identified following the development of more precise staff accounting systems for the 1985-86 financial year; the creation of new positions in the Class 9-11 range for new or expanded Departmental functions in 1985-86; approved reclassifications from below the Class 9-11 range into this category; (b) 499 staff years total for Class 9 to 11 and equivalents. (Question No. 1925) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Is it a fact that bilateral negotiations between the Commonwealth and each State for funds under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program tend to (a) operate against a basin approach to water management in the Murray-Darling Basin and (b) weaken the authority of the River Murray Commission; if so, what steps has the Government taken to move towards co-ordinated funding for the entire basin and to ensure that Commonwealth funds for State water resource projects are consistent with management objectives and priorities for the entire river basin. (2) Will the Minister raise this matter at the forthcoming meeting between State and Federal Ministers. (3) Will the Minister ensure that this meeting (a) includes discussions on redrafting the River Murray Waters Agreement so that the powers of the River Murray Commission are extended, (b) considers the 11 main recommendations made by Professor Sandford Clark to the River Murray Working Party in 1975 which were not included in the current River Murray Waters Agreement and (c) considers the recommendations of Mr Gerald Hansler, Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin; 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) (a) No. The projects jointly funded by the Commonwealth and States are high priorities both from a basin and individual State viewpoint. (b) No, as the projects funded so far on a bilateral basis have been outside the scope of the River Murray Commission's responsibilities. (2) and (3) The purpose of the ministerial meeting is to explore options for improved inter-governmental collaboration in the management of the resources of the Murray-Darling Basin, and all matters related to the River Murray Waters Agreement of relevance to the purpose of the meeting will be taken into consideration. (Question No. 1927) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) How many signs were erected in 1984 in (a) Australia and (b) Tasmania advertising that road works being undertaken were Commonwealth projects. (2) What was the cost of (a) design, (b) construction and (c) erection of these signs in (i) Australia and (ii) Tasmania. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Such signs are erected for projects funded under either the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 (ABRD Act) or the Roads Grants Act 1981 (RGA Act). It is a requirement under the ABRD Act, introduced by the previous Government, that signs be erected at or near road projects. Although there was no requirement under the RGA Act for the erection of such signs, there was a policy, initiated by the former Government and continued by the present Government, that the co-operation of the States be sought in erecting signs at construction sites of National Highway projects. There is no requirement for the States to advise the Federal Government of the number of signs erected in respect of either ABRD or RGA projects. However, in 1984, under the ABRD Act, a total of 548 new construction projects was approved throughout Australia and 11 of these were in Tasmania. Over the same period, under the RGA Act, a total of 136 new National Highway projects was approved throughout Australia, none of these being in Tasmania. At each project there would usually be two signs erected, one at each end facing the oncoming traffic. (2) There is no requirement under either the ABRD or RGA Acts for the States to provide details of the actual cost of these signs, and in fact no such records are kept by the Federal Government. For each project, the cost of signs forms part of the total cost of the project. (Question No. 1985) Mr Andrew asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Does the Government intend to remove the title `Royal' from those elements of the Armed Services which have been awarded that title by the Queen of Australia or by her predecessors for services rendered to Australia. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government does not have before it any proposal to remove the prefix `Royal' as suggested. (Question No. 1988) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: Is he able to say what Australian towns and cities have sister cities in other countries and what are the names of the sister cities. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I understand that the detailed information sought by the honourable member is included in a booklet, Register of International Affiliations, published by the Australian Sister Cities Association and available from that Association C/o P.O. Box 12, Hampton, Victoria 3188. (Question No. 1990) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: Is he able to say whether inquiries are being conducted into aircraft crashes involving (a) a Boeing 747 in Japan, (b) a Boeing 737 in Manchester, U.K., (c) a DC9 in the United States of America and (d) a Boeing 747 from India; if so, what steps is he taking to ensure that the Australian public and the Australian aviation industry benefit from the inquiries. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In accordance with the provisions of International Civil Aviation Organisation Anex 13, all four accidents are being investigated by the appropriate aircraft accident investigation authorities of the State in which the accident occurred. (a) Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission, Ministry of Transport, Japan (b) Department of Transport Accident Investigation Branch, United Kingdom (c) National Transportation Safety Board, U.S.A. (d) Director General of Civil Aviation, India. Note: this accident occurred over the high seas and the investigation is the responsibility of the State of registry, India In all cases, except (c) the State of (aircraft) Manufacture, (USA), has provided an accredited representative and technical advisors from the aircraft and engine manufacturer to assist in the investigation. In the case of (b) a senior officer of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation was sent from Australia and participated in the field stage of the investigation. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation is receiving regular reports from the investigation authorities and a variety of other sources on the progress of the investigations. This information is being provided to the Flight Standards Division of the Department of Aviation and the Australian airlines using similar equipment. Appropriate inspection action, as recommended by the manufacturers and overseas certificating authorities, has been taken to ensure the continuing safety of Australian registered aircraft of the types concerned. (Question No. 2032) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: What is the meaning of a reasonable curtilage in terms of (a) area, (b) land valuation and (c) productive capacity for primary production. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The meaning of reasonable curtilage will be set out in a supplementary statement on design details of the capital gains tax that remained to be settled at the time of my statement of 19 September 1985. I propose to issue the statement shortly. (Question No. 2111) Mr Shipton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Father Walter Lini, received the self-styled representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Australia, Mr Ali Kazak, in April 1985. (2) Is he further able to say whether the Government of Vanuatu received Mr Kazak in his non-existent status of Australian Representative of the PLO. (3) In view of his refusal to meet Mr Kazak and of Australia's policy of non-recognition of the PLO until it recognises Israel's right to exist, did Australia's diplomatic representatives in Port Vila inform the Prime Minister of Vanuatu that Mr Kazak has no official status in Australia and that Australia does not recognise the PLO. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Father Walter Lini, received Mr Ali Kazak on 7 May 1985. (2) The Government of Vanuatu, including the Prime Minister, received Mr Kazak as Director of the Palestine Information Office, based in Melbourne, Australia. (3) Australia's diplomatic representatives in Port Vila informed the Government of Vanuatu of Mr Kazak's status in Australia. (Question No. 2139) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: Is he able to say what changes (a) France and (b) the United States of America have made in the last four years in their declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) France terminated its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 10 January 1974 and has made no further declaration since then; and (b) The U.S. Secretary of State, on 6 April 1984, notified the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States declaration accepting the compulsory ICJ jurisdiction was thereby amended so that it would not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America. On 7 October 1985, the United States notified the United Nations Secretary-General that it was terminating its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. That termination will take effect from 7 April 1986. (Question No. 2189) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: When will the Bureau of Transport Economics (a) commence and (b) conclude an investigation into the economic and social effects on Tasmania on the closure of TASRAIL. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) On 11 September 1985 I directed the Bureau of Transport Economics to undertake a comprehensive economic and social assessment of the costs and benefits of closure of the Tasmanian rail system to AN, the Federal and State Governments and the Tasmanian community. (b) The Bureau is to report by 31 December 1987. (Question No. 376) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The information provided covers these authorities as well as advisory councils and committees within the Transport portfolio. Office Name of appointee Date of appoint- ment Period of appoint- ment Remuneration Annual salary or fees Annual expenses of office allowance Travelling allowance (per overnight stay) Capital City Other than Capital City $ $ $ $ Australian National Railways Commission Chairman Mr L. E. Marks 16.3.81* 5 years* 26,940 0...- 140 105 Deputy Chairman Mr J. W. McArdle 25.1.85 5 years 13,564 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr C. F. Clements 14.10.85 1 year 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr D. G. Scrafton 14.10.85 3 years 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr P. J. Murray 14.10.85 5 years 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Dr D. J. Williams 14.10.85 2 years - - 140 105 Australian Shipping Commission Deputy Chairman Mr W. Bolitho 19.1.84 5 years 26,940 - 140 105 Chairman Mr R. M. Whyte 14.10.85 3 years 13,564 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr E. A. Rouse 14.10.85 2 years 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr S. P. Smith 11.11.83 4 years 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Mr C. H. Fitzgibbon 1.10.84 5 years 9,052 - 140 105 Commissioner Ms M. J. Calder 9.8.85 5 years 9,052 - 140 105 Managing Director Mr M. W. Moore-Wilton 26.1.85 5 years 88,347 3,967 140 105 Inter-State Commission (Canberra) President Mr Justice M. G. Everett 15.3.84 7 years 88,971 4,536 140 105 95 Member Professor H. M. Kolsen 15.3.84 7 years 68,460 1,984 110 85 95 Member Mr E. W. A. Butcher 1.9.84 7 years 68,460 1,984 110 85 95 * Full time 16.3.81 to 27.7.84 Part time 28.7.84 to 15.3.86 0 Current (part-time) remuneration Office Name of appointee Date of appointment/ re-appointment Period of appoint- ment Remuner- ation daily sitting fee Travelling allowance (per overnight stay) Capital city Other than capital city $ $ $ Transport Industries Advisory Council Chairman Mr L. E. Marks 30.6.85 1 year 163 110 85 Deputy Chairman Mr N. Docker 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Dr H. F. Bell, A.O., O.B.E. 1.6.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr W. Bolitho 31.10.82 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr R. D. Bradford 1.10.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr T. Bull 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Mr W. H. Close 1.6.84 2 years 131 110 85 Member Mr S. Crean 1.10.83 3 years 131 110 85 Member Dr H. W. Dick 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr E. F. F. Finger 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr M. Fleming 1.10.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr P. Geraghty 1.10.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr W. K. Hicks 1.7.84 2 years 131 110 85 Member Mr I. Hodgson 1.6.84 2 years 131 110 85 Member *Air Commodore T. Holyoake, A.M. 1.4.84 3 years nil 107 75 Member Mr A. J. Hope 31.10.82 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr J. C. Jenkins 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr N. F. Kent 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr B. R. Lunn 30.6.85 2 years 131 110 85 Member Mr W. I. McCullough 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Mr J. B. Prescott 30.6.85 2 years 131 110 85 Member Mr A. S. Reiher 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Ms K. P. Robertson 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr P. Rowsthorn 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Mr M. C. G. Schrader 31.10.82 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr R. C. Taylor 30.6.85 1 year 131 110 85 Member Mr J. F. Ward 30.6.85 3 years 131 110 85 Member Mr K. J. Turtle 1.7.84 3 years 131 110 85 Member *Mr N. F. Wicks 1.6.83 3 years nil 107 75 Executive Member *Deputy Secretary, Federal Department of Transport (Ex officio) nil 107 75 * Federal Government Officer-does not receive daily sitting fee. Office Name of appointee Date of appointment Period of appoint- ment Remuner- ation daily sitting fee Travelling allowance (per overnight stay) Capital city Other than capital city $ $ $ Marine Council Chairman *Mr J. Hodgson 17.6.82 . . nil 80.20 63.00 Member Captain G. J. Smethurst 18.1.82 . . 131 110 85 Member Mr R. Stephenson 18.1.82 . . 131 110 85 Member Captain D. A. McBain 18.1.82 . . 131 110 85 Member Mr P. S. Eutrope 18.1.82 . . 131 110 85 Member Mr A. R. Dailey 2.12.81 . . 131 110 85 *Member Mr K. Court 21.8.85 . . 131 110 85 Member Mr K. MacLeod 5.11.84 . . 131 110 85 Member Mr P. Geraghty 18.1.82 . . 131 110 85 *Member Mr R. Chapman 6.5.84 . . 131 110 85 Crew Accommodation Committee Chairman *Mr J. Hodgson 17.6.82 . . nil 80.20 63.00 Member Captain G. J. Smethurst 18.1.82 . . 76 110 85 Member Mr R. Stephenson 18.1.82 . . 76 110 85 Member Captain D. A. McBain 18.1.82 . . 76 110 85 Member Mr P. S. Eutrope 18.2.82 . . 76 110 85 Member Mr A. R. Dailey 2.12.81 . . 76 110 85 Member Mr K. Court 21.8.85 . . 76 110 85 *Member Mr K. MacLeod 5.11.84 . . 76 110 85 Member Mr P. Geraghty 18.1.82 . . 76 110 85 *Member Mr R. Chapman 6.5.84 . . 76 110 85 * Federal Government Officer-does not receive daily sitting fee. ** Messrs Chapman and MacLeod alternate between Member and Deputy Member on an annual basis. Mr MacLeod assumes membership from 5 November 1985. Office Name of Appointee Date of Appointment Period of Appoint- ment Remuner- ation Daily Sitting Fee Travelling allowance (per overnight stay) Capital City Other than Capital City $ $ $ The following committees are convened irregularly by the Department of Transport to advise on specific issues. They are not permanently constituted-members are appointed only for each meeting. Manning Committees 1. Committee convened to consider application for a Manning Notice under Section 57AM of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-appointed by the Secretary to the Department of Transport N/A N/A nil . . nil 2. Convened by the Department of Transport to consider operators' applications for variations to manning levels. N/A N/A nil . . nil Livestock Advisory Committee Convened by the Department of Transport to propose policy changes to the industry. N/A N/A nil . . nil Bulk Cargoes Advisory Committee Convened by the Department of Transport to discuss International Maritime Organisation matters. N/A N/A nil . . nil Maritime Services Advisory Committees - NAVIGATION SAFETY - MARINE POLLUTION - OFFSHORE INDUSTRY - SHIP STANDARDS - MARINE CREWS Convened by the Department of Transport to consult industry on proposed changes N/A N/A nil . . nil (Question No. 523) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation regional television services from Rockhampton and Townsville been terminated. (2) Was there an understanding reached with both Mackay and Cairns that provision would be made for camera crews to operate out of both centres and link into the state and national news services; if so, has provision been made for these crews. (3) What is the saving to the ABC in discontinuing these regional services. (4) What is the estimated cost of providing the camera crews in Mackay and Cairns. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) On 27 April 1984, the ABC announced a withdrawal of locally produced television services from Rockhampton and Townsville. The ABC regional television services from Rockhampton and Townsville have now ceased, but some staff have been retained to service ABC National, Farmline, and other programs. (2) No. Mackay and Cairns are serviced from Townsville, Rockhampton or Brisbane by ABC staff and on occasion use is made of freelance camera crews. A regional Review Committee is currently assessing feasibility of single reporter/field crew operations in such centres. (3) The immediate saving is $210,000 per annum in salaries (including on-costs and miscellaneous expenditure). (4) The estimated cost of providing a reporter and film crew/editing and equipment in Mackay and in Cairns would be: $ Salaries per annum... 160,000 Capital equipment (includes camera/editing/vehicle/accommodation)... 300,000 Operational costs per annum... 140,000 600,000 (Question No. 1452) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) Advertising and research studies conducted or commissioned since March 1983 are: Advertising campaign/market research Government co- ordinating agency Agency responsible Costs Medicare/N.S.W. doctors' dispute, March 1984 ICB Forbes Macfie Hansen $20,400 including $2,297 agency fees Community reaction to Govt/A.M.A. dispute, April 1984 - Aust. National Opinion Polls $20,000 Medicare/N.S.W. doctors' dispute, April 1984 ICB Forbes Macfie Hansen $54,566, including $6,674 agency fees Blood bank campaign, December 1984-March 1985 ICB Connaghan and May Ayer $469,303, including $91,179 agency fees Anti-drug campaign, January 1985 ICB U.S.P. Needham $91,277, with nil agency fees Anti-drug campaign, July 1985 (preparatory work for 1986 media campaign) ICB John Bevins Forbes Macfie Hansen Doyle Dane Bernbach U.S.P. Needham (Vic.) Australian National Opinion Polls Ms D. Waddell Mackay Research $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,289 $10,000 $5,500 $7,600 Notes: ICB=Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In this context, an advertising campaign has been taken to mean a sustained period of advertising or a substantial cost, with advertising directed toward one central issue. (Question No. 1532) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Did the Jamaican Government request the Australian Government to support financially a conference of young political leaders held in Jamaica in April 1985 for International Youth Year; if so, was the request accepted; if not, why not. (2) Did the Government decline to assist delegates from South Pacific states to attend the conference; if so, why. (3) Did the Government contribute $10,000 towards the costs of representatives from the same South Pacific countries attending a regional peace seminar in Bangkok; if so, why. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A verbal request was received from the Jamaican Deputy Prime Minister. A letter outlining the Festival's activities and requesting Australian participation was subsequently received by the High Commission. No. Priority was given to the co-ordination and promotion of International Youth Year at national level. It was considered important to foster local initiatives in Australia which would bring about long term changes and improvements in young people's lives. IYY limited resources for international activities were concentrated on activities in the Asia Pacific region. (2) No request was received from any South Pacific state to attend the Conference. (3) Yes. On 1 March 1985 Australia pledged a voluntary contribution of $10,000 to a specially constituted United Nations fund to help defray the costs of UN-sponsored International Year of Peace activities. Australia suggested that an appropriate use for this voluntary donation would be to assist in meeting the travel costs of representatives of smaller Pacific nations to an Asian-Pacific regional IYP seminar then being organised by the United Nations in Bangkok. In the event none of the smaller Pacific countries was able to send representatives to the seminar. The Australian contribution of $10,000 therefore remains in the special United Nations Trust Fund for International Year of Peace to be used to promote the activities of the year. (Question No. 1539) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Is he able to say (a) approximately how many Indonesians from other parts of the country have settled in Irian Jaya since the province became part of Indonesia and (b) what the estimated annual level of transmigration into Irian Jaya in the last 5 years has been. (2) Is he further able to say what the Indonesian Government's plans for transmigration into the province are. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to the Department of Transmigration of the Republic of Indonesia: (a) As of the end of the third five year plan in 1984, approximately 82,000 Indonesians from other parts of the country have been settled in Irian Jaya under the transmigration program. (b) The estimated annual level of transmigration into Irian Jaya in the last 5 years, was approximately 15,375. (2) In the fourth five year plan covering 1984-89, it is proposed that around 600,000 transmigrants will be moved to Irian Jaya, as part of the national transmigration program involving approximately four million transmigrants. The Indonesian Government is strongly committed to the program which it sees not only as helping to reduce population pressure in Java, but also as encouraging economic development, including food production, and the extension of Government services to outlying areas. (Question No. 1547) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 September 1985: (1) Will the Minister give an assurance that uranium sales to Egypt will not lead to nuclear escalation in the Middle East. (2) Is the Minister satisfied that the political situation in Egypt is stable enough to guarantee Australian nuclear safeguard obligations. (3) Is the Minister aware of any link between Israel's nuclear arms policies and those of neighbouring Arab countries; if so, is he able to give an assurance that uranium of Australian origin will not be used to fuel a Middle East nuclear arms race. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has been considering a proposed nuclear co-operation agreement with Egypt and the format of legal arrangements covering such co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The basis for this consideration has been a draft text of a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement negotiated ad referendum by officials following authorisation of negotiations with Egypt in 1982 by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. The proposed agreement has been examined in the light of the Government's nuclear policy statement tabled in the House on 23 May 1985 in response to the ASTEC Report on Australia's role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. There are some matters to be discussed with Egypt in relation to the proposed agreement before the Government will be in a position to make an announcement. The proposed agreement covers the framework of the strict non-proliferation and nuclear safeguards arrangements which would apply in the event of nuclear co-operation between Australia and Egypt. Like bilateral safeguards agreements already concluded by Australia it does not constitute an agreement or commitment to supply uranium. As the situation currently stands no commitment has been entered into by Australian mines to provide uranium to Egypt; and at this time Egypt has no nuclear power generating capacity. Egypt does, however, plan to have a nuclear industry in the future. If there were to be exports of uranium to Egypt in the future the proposed agreement would ensure such exports were governed by the stringent non-proliferation and safeguards conditions laid down in Australia's bilateral Treaty network which itself is designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. These arrangements would provide direct and binding assurances that any uranium exported to Egypt was used for exclusively peaceful, non-explosive purposes to meet legitimate energy requirements. Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements also contain provision for fall-back safeguards which would apply if at any stage NPT or IAEA safeguards ceased to operate. Further provision exists in each agreement for the imposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance with the agreements. These aspects of Australia's safeguards network were highlighted in the ASTEC report in paragraphs 7.4.22 and 7.4.23. Further, physical protection arrangements which are adhered to by nuclear suppliers and consumers-and which form binding international obligations in Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements-provide for strict measures against theft of material. Through its adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, (NPT) Egypt has committed itself not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and to accept IAEA safeguards on all of its current and future nuclear facilities. These are positive factors in reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation in the region. The nature of Egypt's current and planned nuclear facilities is also fully consistent with the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The only nuclear facility in Egypt at present is a small nuclear research reactor. This reactor and planned power reactors would be inappropriate for production of weapons grade plutonium unless operated in a way which could be readily detected by safeguards. Where such assurances and binding commitments exist in respect of non-proliferation, as in Egypt's case, it is the Government's view that assistance in meeting a country's legitimate energy requirements would advance the cause of non-proliferation. (2) In considering the proposed agreement with Egypt the Government has given full and detailed consideration to all factors, including questions relating to stability in the Middle East. As indicated in my answer to the first part of the honourable member's question the Government has also considered Egypt's non-proliferation credentials as a prospective partner in nuclear co-operation. On the basis of this detailed consideration the Government has satisfied itself that the prospects for continued political stability in Egypt are good. The Government has noted that Egypt has an excellent record in the area of non-proliferation, including through its commitment to the NPT and IAEA. The Government has also noted that Egypt has taken a leading role in recent years in supporting peace in the Middle East. (3) Clearly there is a linkage between the security policies and security perceptions of members of any given region. This is no less true in the Middle East than elsewhere. Australia's network of safeguards agreements provides assurance that any uranium exported from Australia is used for exclusively peaceful, non-explosive purposes and will not be used in any Middle East nuclear arms race. Further, the government has made known to Israel on a number of occasions Australia's view that it would be desirable for both regional and international security for Israel to accede to the NPT or at least to place its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Most recently, the Australian Ambassador to Israel put his position to senior Israeli officials in Tel Aviv in mid-June. The Government will continue actively to pursue opportunities to impress upon Israel and other non-parties to the NPT including those in the Middle East the benefits, both in terms of security and of co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, of accession to the Treaty. The NPT provides its maximum contribution to regional stability when all countries in a region are party to it. In this respect, accession to the Treaty by Israel and all other non-parties in the Middle East would be a constructive step in the search for the comprehensive settlement to the Middle East dispute. (Question No. 1583) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditures 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 Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $253,655. The major item covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($92,859) made to 22 former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($155,696) covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals etc. relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 148 officers and comprising 663 individual transactions. (2) Other Compensation Payments-Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $5,100. This covered payments arising out of other claims for compensation for damage to clothing, personal effects etc. in respect of 38 officers and comprising 44 individual transactions. There were no payments in 1984-85 for funeral expenses or lump sum payments of compensation. (3) Legal Expenses-Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $117,389. For the most part this covered legal costs associated with detection, custody and deportation. Item 360.3.01. The balance of expenditure ($5,153) covered other legal costs under item 360.2.07. III (a) LEGAL EXPENSES (Item 360.3.01) Amount Recipient Service 1. $150.00... P. S. Hastings... Counsel fees prosecution SALIM under Migration and Passport Act 2. $30.00... Darwin Court... Complaint and Summons PNC R. Folger 3. $15.00... Darwin Court... Complaint and Summons PNC B. Dalusung 4. $350.00... Australian Government Solicitor... Instruction-English and Co Solicitors 5. $3,180.00... P. Flemming... Min. DIEA v Arslan &Anor 6. $4,475.00... B. Sully... Min. DIEA v Arslan &Aydin 7. $600.00... J. Santamaria... Advice in conference re: N.A.A.T.I. 8. $550.00... R. Marr... A.A.T. hearing KUSWARDANA advice from counsel 9. $200.00... C. Gunst... Kalani Pongi v Min. DIEA Federal Court 10. $1,365.00... L. Katz... Min. DIEA v SUKARNO 11. $150.00... S. Kenny... Pnina Lazar v William Perry &Anor Federal Court 12. $900.00... J. Santamaria... Federal Court Order of Review-PETROVSKI family 13. $1,590.00... P. Heerey... TABAG v Min. DIEA Federal Court 14. $4,600.00... C. Gunst... Jason KIOA &Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 15. $1,800.00... C. Gunst... Jason KIOA &Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 16. $685.00... J. Farmer... Gillespie application for stay contested 17. $7,800.00... A. Uren... Jason KIOA &Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 18. $2,700.00... A. Uren... Jason KIOA &Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 19. $250.00... A. Robertson... Pnina Lazar v William Perry &Anor Federal Court 20. $650.00... P. Heerey... Federal Court application for Review Mr T. KAFOIKA 21. $375.00... D. Curtain... Gurnaham-Singh SIDHU v Min. DIEA AD(JR) 22. $1,200.00... N. Moshinsky... BALOV v Min. DIEA Federal Court Application Order of Review 23. $1,000.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v WAKLEY 24. $700.00... J. Middleton... Writs of Habeas Corpus AJIT, RANJIT &S. SINGH &H. GILL 25. $4.00... Court Reporting Bureau... Transcript D. L. GIBBONS v Min. DIEA 26. $140.00... Law Department Melbourne... Hakam Singh GILL &R, S &A SINGH Habeas Corpus applications transcript of proceedings &judgments 27. $100.00... L. Katz... DIEA ats Western Medical Service 28. $350.00... C. Jessup... D. J. LALLY v Min. DIEA Federal Court 29. $1,620.00... G. Nash... BALOV v Min. DIEA Federal Court 30. $1,100.00... S. Kenny... AD(JR) D. J. Lally v Min. DIEA 31. $650.00... N. Moshinsky... Kafoika v Min. DIEA Federal Court 32. $1,950.00... C. Jessup... Gurnham-Singh Sidhu v Min. DIEA 33. $100.00... C. Gunst... Jason Kioa and Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 34. $700.00... P. Flemming... Rafet Arslan v Min. DIEA High Court 35. $2,100.00... N Moshinsky... Bedros and Sirris v Min. DIEA 36. $350.00... S. Kenny... AD(JR) D. E. Lally v Min. DIEA 37. $200.00... C. Jessup... Gurnham-Singh Sidhu v Min. DIEA 38. $350.00... C. Jessup... Gurnham-Singh Sidhu v Min. DIEA AD(JR) 39. $300.00... N. Moshinsky... Bedros and Sirris v Min. DIEA 40. $300.00... D. Shavin... H. Miyakawa and Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court Application for Review 41. $1,100.00... C. Gunst... Kioa and Others v Min. DIEA High Court 42. $500.00... J. Santamaria... H. Miyankawa v Min. DIEA Federal Court Application for an Order of Review 43. $650.00... Legal services... Mayer v Min. DIEA Federal Court 44. $350.00... J. Middleton... Tran Phuoc and Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 45. $100.00... J. Middleton... Tran Phuoc and Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 46. $649.58... Legal Services... P. Hogan-Order for Review to Federal Court 47. $850.00... R. Viol... A. K. Dean Application to Federal Court 48. $1,095.00... J. Farmer... M &G Yilmaz-Application for stay 49. $435.00... L. Katz... Sharma v Woodward and Min. DIEA 50. $900.00... N. Young... G. S. Sidhu v Min. DIEA 51. $3,200.00... J. Karkar... G. S. Sidhu v Min. DIEA Federal Court 52. $800.00... J. Karkar... G. S. Sidhu v Min. DIEA High Court 53. $900.00... N. Moshinsky... Williams and Beaudry v Min. DIEA Federal Court-Application for Review 54. $2,867.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v Mayer Federal Court 55. $4,076.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v Mayer Federal Court 56. $300.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v Mayer 57. $170.00... J. Santamaria... N.A.A.T.I. draft instrument of indemnity 58. $680.00... S. Kenny... D. J. Lally v Min. DIEA Federal Court 59. $1,995.00... P. Roberts... Karu Nakaran v Min. DIEA 60. $4,250.00... C. Gunst... Kioa and Others v Min. DIEA High Court 61. $505.00... L. Katz... Gonaseelan v Min. DIEA 62. $1,002.00... Legal Services... Kioa and Others v Min. DIEA High Court 63. $800.00... J. Middleton... Tran Phuoc and Others v Min. DIEA 64. $1,525.00... J. Farmer... Prasad v Min. DIEA 65. $2,800.00... S. Kenny... D. J. Lally v Min. DIEA Federal Court 66. $800.00... N. Young... J. Said v Min. DIEA Federal Court 67. $5,900.00... S. Kenny... J. Kioa v Min. DIEA High Court 68. $2,300.00... S. Kenny... D. J. Lally v Min. DIEA 69. $950.00... F. Douglas... Prasad v Min. DIEA 70. $800.00... N. Moshinsky... Kemel Akbas v Min. DIEA Federal Court 71. $655.00... L. Katz... Hounslow v Min. DIEA 72. $3,600.00... N. Moshinsky... Kadirdallikavak v Min. DIEA 73. $1,525.00... P. Roberts... Min. DIEA ats Kar Unakaran High Court 74. $2,215.00... M. Beazley... Min. DIEA ats Booth 75. $400.00... N. Moshinsky... K. Akbas v Min. DIEA AD(JR) 76. $8,400.00... Ryan Brett R.E.... D. J. Lally v Min. DIEA Federal Court 77. $200.00... J. Middleton... Tran Phuoc and Others v Min. DIEA Federal Court 78. $1,410.00... L. Katz... Min. DIEA ats Kardakaris AD(JR) 79. $250.00... L Katz... Haj-Ismail and Others v Min DIEA AD(JR) 80. $1,282.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v Mayer High Court 81. $1,880.00... Legal Services... Min. DIEA v M. Mayer High Court III (b) LEGAL EXPENSES (Item 360-2-07) Amount Recipient Service 1. $146.80... Mr and Mrs A. Gaphoor... Disciplinary Appeal Board hearing pursuant to Regulation 151 (1) 2. $400.00... Unisearch Limited... Civil Engineering Report Adam Obarzanek v C of A 3. $2,424.30... Australian Government Solicitor... Solicitors cost and disbursements Administrative Appeals Tribunal K. A. Immonen (applicant) C of A (respondent) 4. $725.00... Mr R. C. Tonner... Supreme Court action A. Obarzanek v C of A 5. $548.00... Stephen James and Company... Surveillance fees A. Obarzanek v C of A Supreme Court action 6. $400.00... Unisearch Limited... Engineer Report A. Obarzanek v C of A 7. $100.00... Australian Government Solicitor... G. Michaelidis v C of A district court action 8. $108.45... R. Smith... Witness A.A.T. Hearing 9. $115.80... TAA.... Airfare R. Smith A.A.T. Hearing (Question No. 1594) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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 Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Expenditure for compensation and legal expenses in 1984-85 as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 was- $ Compensation... 3,009,285 Legal Expenses... 130,053 3,139,338 (2) The amounts and natures of the expenditure were as follows- (i) Compensation...$ Medical expenses... 645,570 Fortnightly payments... 1,638,083 Lump sum payments... 146,131 Common law cases... 579,501 3,009,285 (ii) Legal Expenses-as detailed in (3) below... 130,053 (3) The recipients of payment for legal expenses in the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 were: Recipient Item Amount $ R. French... Counsel's fees... 15,300 High Court of Australia... Court fees, transcripts and judgments... 122.70 L. Katz... Counsel's fees... 1,305 P. Flemming... Counsel's fees... 7,070 S. Kenny... Counsel's fees... 6,578.80 R. Burbidge, Q.C.... Counsel's fees... 450 Dr C. Jessup... Counsel's fees... 2,825 D. H. Cohen &Son... Respondent's legal costs... 705 Graham Correy &Co.... Respondent's legal costs... 5,500 M. Lee... Counsel's fees... 3,000 A. L. Hill... Counsel's fees... 665 Archer Busby &Co.... Solicitor's costs... 20 N. Moshinsky... Counsel's fees... 975 Duneway P/L... Binding appeal books... 102.18 Purvis &Co.... Applicant's solicitors costs... 2,302.50 L. Katz and R. Burbidge Q.C.... Counsel's fees... 2,635 J. Steel... Counsel's fees... 10,867.50 Muir, Williams, Nicholson &Co.... Respondents' legal costs... 44,679.19 J. Purnell... Counsel's fees... 300 G. Thompson... Respondent's legal fees... 1,748.89 E. M. Franklin Q.C.... Counsel's fees... 850 Dr H. Bailey... Medical report... 300 P. E. Dwyer... Counsel's fees... 2,245 J. E. Brownie... Counsel's fees... 1,366 M. Holmes... Counsel's fees... 925 University of Queensland... Witness fee-Professor Tryer... 200 J. Perry Q.C.... Counsel's fees... 1,071 Lloyd &Partners... Applicant's legal costs... 1,121 R. Cooper Q.C.... Counsel's fees... 2,400 D. J. McGill... Counsel's fees... 1,500 T. V. Martin &Co.... Respondent's legal costs... 2,868.70 Vickery, Wilson &Parkhill... Applicant's legal costs... 2,312.50 J. Farmer... Counsel's fees... 1,495 K. Boulton... Counsel's fees... 115 P. Galbally... Counsel's fees... 80 D. Gostelow... Reimbursement of legal expenses... 2,157.29 Howard, Piggot &Son... Applicant's legal fees... 1,894.30 Total... 130,052.55 (Question No. 1621) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What preparation or planning is the Australian National Line undertaking to provide cheaper and more efficient cartage of phosphate when the present Christmas Island contract expires in 1987. (2) What is the (a) current freight rate per tonne for phosphate and (b) estimated saving when contract expires. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Prime Minister announced on 11 September 1985 that mining on Christmas Island will cease before the end of 1986. (2) (a) and (b) The freight rate per tonne for phosphate rock from Christmas Island is commercially sensitive information that I cannot discuss. It should be noted that ANL won the contract to ship phosphate from Christmas Island in open competition with other Australian ship owners in 1981. A condition of the contract was that the Line take over vessels chartered long-term by the British Phosphate Commissioners in the late 1970s. The high charter costs of these vessels are reflected in current freight rates. (Question No. 1653) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Has the Government provided aid to (a) South Korea to assist them develop their steel manufacturing industry and (b) Bangladesh to assist them develop their sugar industry; if so, in what form was the aid provided. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Australia has not provided assistance to South Korea under Australia's official aid program to assist it develop its steel manufacturing industry. (b) Australia has a program of assistance to the Bangladesh sugar industry, which commenced in 1977 and is due to be completed in December 1985. Assistance has included part rehabilitation of two sugarmills, introduction of a clean seed program, upgrading of training and research capacity and the introduction of improved cultivation and farming techniques. It is expected to cost a total of $A18m over the whole period. $A6.82m will be spent on the purchase of equipment, of which $A6.2m or over 90% will be spent in Australia mostly for purchase of machinery from machinery manufacturers in Queensland. The balance of the $A18m will be provided to support Australian consultants engaged under the program. In addition Australia has funded in 1984-85 a sugar industry sub-sector study which will be used by the Bangladesh Government to determine its sugar industry policies. The people of Bangladesh require a substantial improvement in the energy content of their nutritional intake. Sugar production has however, been declining as a result of the pressure on land from other crops. Bangladesh in recent times has been a net importer of sugar and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. In 1984-85 Bangladesh imported 300,000 tonnes of sugar from Singapore refineries using Australian raw sugar. (Question No. 1867) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Are there any plans for the construction of a Commonwealth Government Office block in Geraldton, Western Australia, (a) in 1985-86 or (b) before 1990. (2) Are there any plans to relocate current office accommodation leased by the Commonwealth in Geraldton before 1990. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) No. Should the Commonwealth demand for office accommodation in Geraldton significantly increase, however, consideration will be given to the options for satisfying the requirement, including the construction of a Commonwealth Office block. (2) Consideration is being given to relocation of a number of Commonwealth Departments in Geraldton and investigations are currently underway to determine overall space requirements and the availability of suitable alternative leased premises. (Question No. 1868) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave in answer to question No. 5015 (Hansard 16 September 1982, page 1619) concerning recognition of the Republic of China. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Countries: According to information currently available, the countries which recognise the authorities on Taiwan as the `Republic of China' are: Costa Rica Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Paraguay St Christopher and Navis St Lucia St Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Solomon Islands Honduras Republic of Korea Malawi Nauru Nicaragua Panama South Africa Swaziland Tonga Tuvalu Uruguay Vatican City International Organisations: The authorities on Taiwan no longer have any membership of United Nations bodies. They still have membership of the Asian Development Bank and the International Cotton Advisory Council. They also claim membership of the International Union for the Publication of Tariffs; the Permanent Court of Arbitration; the International Committee of Military Medicine and Pharmacy; the International Office of Epizootics; the Asian Productivity Organisation; the Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organisation and the Asian and Pacific Council. The authorities on Taiwan further claim to be represented on 280 non-governmental international organisations. (Question No. 1883) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: What duty is levied on academic gowns imported into Australia by graduates of (a) Australian Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education and (b) foreign universities. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Academic gowns imported into Australia by graduates of Australian Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent and $15 per garment. There are, however, several ways in which this duty rate can be reduced. Holders of valid tariff quota instruments are entitled to import at a rate excluding the $15 `penalty' element of the duty. For base quota allocations the rate is determined in accordance with the tender (for the 1985 quota year the tender rate for general sources is 121 per cent). There is a concession available to private importations where the value for duty of the article is less than $100. Under this concession the general rate of 50 per cent is applicable. Academic gowns which have been conferred on the importer by an overseas tertiary institution in recognition of a degree or diploma achieved at that institution are admissible free under the provisions of by-law 7262134 to item 17 of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. (Question No. 1917) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the cost of temporary employees engaged by his Department and authorities under his control in 1984-85. (2) What was the (a) number of staff years represented by and (b) employment categories of the employees. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security conducts surveys of temporary employees at June and December each year to provide returns requested by the Public Service Board. The details collected in those surveys indicate that the salary cost of temporary employees in 1984-85 was in the order of $9m. (2)- (a) Again using the information compiled in the June and December surveys, it is estimated that approximately 600 staff years were used for the employment of temporary staff in 1984-85. (b) The estimated distribution of those 600 staff years by employment category is as follows: Staff Years Clerical Administrative... 57 Clerical Assistants... 314 Keyboard... 78 Other... 151 Total... 600 (Question No. 2029) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What are the (a) export markets and (b) values of exports, lost as a result of the Mudginberri dispute to date. (2) Are the losses permanent. (3) Are the losses recoverable from the Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (a) I am not aware of any export markets lost as a result of the Mudginberri dispute. (b) I am not in a position to provide a figure on the value of exports lost as a result of the dispute. Any detailed figure would include contractual information to which I do not have access. (2) I am unable to advise you of whether the losses are permanent. (3) This is a question that is currently being considered by the Federal Court in an action for damages brought by Mudginberri abattoir against the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union. (Question No. 2072) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No amounts have been paid to either Mr Phillip Adams, Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, by the Department of Veterans' Affairs or authorities under the Minister's control for services rendered. (Question No. 2178) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: Are telephone services to doctors disconnected in the event of accounts remaining unpaid, as is the case with other subscribers; if not, why has such a policy been adopted. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: No. Telecom policy provides that services of an essential nature meeting community needs are not disconnected, unless the debt becomes protracted. Essential services include those of doctors, police, Members of Parliament, et cetera. (Question No. 2186) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) What is the Shipping Advisory Service. (2) How many personnel are employed and in which offices. (3) Is this service being expanded; if so, (a) why, (b) where and (c) how many extra employees will this require. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Shipper Advisory Service is an activity within the Department of Transport which provides assistance and advice to exporters with such matters as the availability of shipping services, sailing schedules, documentation and packaging. (2) Eight officers have Shipper Advisory Service functions among their duties. They are located in the Department's regional offices in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth. (3) The Service was extended to all States during 1984-85. No further extension is under consideration. (Question No. 1263) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: When may I expect an answer to Questions Nos. 64, 66, 133. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (Question No. 1388) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many physio and occupational therapists and speech pathologists are employed by the Commonwealth in the ACT Health Authority. (2) How many of these positions were vacant at 30 June 1985. (3) What was the cost of providing private physiotherapy services to entitled veterans in (a) 1982, (b) 1983 and (c) 1984. (4) Would filling vacancies have reduced these costs and what would have been the cost in each year of filling the vacant positions. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. of positions Full and Part-time No. Employed Vacancies Physiotherapists...67 67 Nil Occupational Therapists...35 33 2 Speech Therapists...19 18 1 Total...121 118 3 (3) Nil. The ACT Health Authority is not responsible for arranging or providing private physiotherapy services to entitled veterans. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1390) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Will the Government extend to all TPI veterans from World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the same eligibility for free rail passes for State railways and Australian National railways as that provided for World War I TPI veterans. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Commonwealth Government is responsible only for transportation on the Australian National Railways network and, in this regard, provision is made for all Victoria Cross and George Cross holders, Australian Veterans of World War I, their wives and widows to receive unlimited free first class travel on services operated by Australian National Railways. Australian National Railways also provides 50% fare concessions on all lines to service pensioners who hold a Pensioner Health Benefits card. The cost of the extension suggested would be substantial. No such extension is currently proposed. While conditions of eligibility for travel concessions for other than Australian National Railways network are matters for state or local governments to determine the Minister for Veterans' Affairs continues to pursue means of drawing the needs of veterans to such authorities. There is no indication that additional concessions will be granted in the foreseeable future. (Question No. 1458) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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 Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A. (1) A research survey of Department of Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries accommodated in nursing homes to assess newly admitted patients and determine the appropriateness of nursing home care. (2) The survey was approved by the Public Service Board on 20 March 1984. (3) (a) National Research Institute for Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine-Monash University (b) $41,505. (4) (a) $41,505. (b) Not applicable. B. (1) A research project entitled `Descriptive Study of an Aged and Extended Care Department Providing Restorative Care' to investigate the use and functioning of the Age and Extended Care Unit at the Repatriation General Hospital, Hollywood, Western Australia was commissioned by the Department of Veterans' Affairs on 11 October 1984. (2) No. (3) (a) University of Western Australia. (b) $27,443. (4) (a) $27,443. (b) Not applicable. C. (1) Three research studies were commissioned by the Income and Assets Test Task Force in January and July 1984 which involved pre-marked testing of questionnaires and pamphlets to be used in connection with the introduction of the Income and Assets Test. (2) The Department of the Special Minister of State negotiated and co-ordinated the contracts involved with these studies. (3) (a) Lynehan, Lynton and Bloom of Sydney (b) $13,125. (4) (a) $13,125. (b) Not applicable. D. (1) A campaign was conducted over the period 14 November 1983 to 24 September 1984 by the Income and Assets Test Task Force to publicise the `Hotline' telephone numbers installed to provide information to Veterans regarding the Income and Assets Test. (2) The Department of Social Security conducted a similar publicity campaign. (3) (a) Australian Government Advertising Service (b) $35,370. (4) (a) $35,370. (b) The total amount of $35,370 for this campaign was paid to the Australian Government Advertising Service by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. E. (1) A study entitled `Report on an Evaluation of Departmental Public Information Programmes' was commissioned in November 1983. The study, which included a questionnaire survey of 2000 veterans and widows, was undertaken to gauge the suitability and performance of information programmes used by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (2) The Department of the Special Minister of State provided advice and co-ordinated the study. (3) (a) W. D. Scott and Company Pty Ltd. (b) $25,000. (4) (a) $25,000. (b) Not applicable. (Question No. 1498) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP 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 share with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Brands of computer or ADP hardware. IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ENERGY Processors Peripherals Word Processors Micro or mini-computers CENTRAL OFFICE (CO) Prime Prime HP DEC Epson Tally Impact Information Electronics Micronic Consolink Datacraft Toshiba Qume Hyse Volker Craig IMS ACS NEC Wang IBM HP Wang NEC BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES (BMR) HP DEC Sun Intergraph Comtal Televideo Teletype Corp. Tektronix Nicolett Zeta HP Calcomp HP Sirius Convergent Tech Apple Commodore Zenith N-GEN DIVISION OF NATIONAL MAPPING (Natmap) DEC HP Perkin Elmer interdate UT Corp Case Kongsberg Altek Summagraphics Tektronix Calcomp Tally Control Data Ergo Emulex Apple HP IN RELATION TO EACH AUTHORITY FOR WHICH THE MINISTER IS RESPONSIBLE THE PIPELINE AUTHORITY IBM Leeds and Northrop IBM Leeds and Northrop Toshiba Otrona Micro-Bee AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IBM IBM Philips Olivetti IBM Pyramid DEC Data General Apple HP Ohio Intel Sirius Commodore Hitachi Osborne Mitsui Plexus JOINT COAL BOARD ICL ICL SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY Philips HP Apple DEC (2) For each major system. IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ENERGY Major System Function (a) Installation date (b) Hardware cost (c) Anticipated life (d) (from 1985) Replacement action (e) Prime 2550 (x2) CO-Administrative functions, policy analysis, statistical analysis. February 85 $650,000 10 yrs None Wang OIS 140-3 CO-Word processing 1981 $150,000 5 yrs None HP 1000 BMR-to pre-process field data, plot geophysical data, nearly all data base systems, and some computer modelling of geophysical anomalies. Also used to acquire data from various laboratory instruments set up in the BMR Building. 1972-1984 $200,000 3 yrs Replacement system presently out to tender (1985) at an expected cost of $1.1 million. (the replacement system will be gradually phased-in.) HP 1000 BMR-To process seismic data collected in marine surveys. This function has been taken over by the new Seismic Processing Centre, and the principal function will be for processing and storage of non-seismic marine geophysical navigation data. 1978 $150,000 5 years Replacement system to be purchased when funds available and priorities allotted. DEC VAX11/780 BMR-Seismic processing. 1984 $1,050,000 10 years None. Sun Workstations BMR-Nuclear monitoring data storage. 1985 $160,000 10 years None. Perkin Elmer Interdata 832 Natmap (Landsat Station)-Processing of satellite imagery to customer product orders. 1980 $1,500,000 3 years Policy proposal for upgrade in preparation. DEC PDP 1170 Natmap-Digital data acquisition for topographic and thematic mapping. 1974-1982 $664,200 10 years Add on system upgrade 1985-86. DEC VAX11/750 Natmap-Digital data acquisition and photogrammetric computations for topographic mapping. 1977-1985 $759,500 5 years None. HP 1000 Natmap-Geodetic data bases and Survey Information and Management Information System. 1985 $110,000 5 years None. IN RELATION TO THE PIPELINE AUTHORITY Leeds and Northrop 5400 To process the engineering variables required to monitor the operation of the Authority's pipelines. 1975-76 $465,000 2 years Contract for a replacement computer awarded to Leeds and Northrop. The new computer should be in service in 1987. IBM 4361 To provide accounting related services to the Finance Division and engineering relating services to the Technical Division. 1979 $512,000 Unknown None. IN RELATION TO THE AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC COMMISSION IBM 370/4381/3 To provide essential scientific services to the Commission's research divisions and for two CSIRO Divisions co-located at Lucas Heights which use the Commission's services to support their activities. 1985 $990,000 pa (leasing & maintenance) 3 years Will be by competitive tender. IBM S38/Model 6 Administrative purposes, including a commercial aspect related to the Commission's production and sale of radio-pharmaceuticals. 1982 $110,000 pa (leasing & maintenance) 4 years Will be by competitive tender. IN RELATION TO THE JOINT COAL BOARD ICL ME29 Worker's Compensation Insurance 1984 $910,000 5 years None. (3) Is any major system shared. DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ENERGY: No. THE PIPELINE AUTHORITY: No. AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION: Two divisions of the CSIRO co-located at Lucas Heights share the use of the Commission's IBM main frame computer. JOINT COAL BOARD: No. SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY: The Authority uses the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's HP 3000 on a bureau basis for general ledger, payroll and a variety of technical applications. (Question No. 1516) Mr Blunt asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to statements from the Australian National Opinion Poll survey of young Australians' attitudes, entitled ``Young Australians Today'' that (a) for its more important communications messages, the Federal Government might consider a communication program which attempts to `persuade' the script writers and directors of popular Australian television serials and soapies to include certain themes of relevance in realistic and natural plot settings, likewise, some key editorial writers in the youth popular print media and (b) without at all suggesting a `government line', it may be put to these editorialists of influence that it is in everybody's interest to reflect accurately the aspirations, fears and expectations of young people in some of their scripts and settings. (2) Has this proposal been considered by Cabinet; if so, with what result. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am aware of the Report of the Australian National Opinion Poll survey of young Australian's attitudes entitled ``Young Australians Today''. The Government receives many such reports and other indicators of community views. They make a useful contribution in informing the process of Government decision-making. They are not, however, documents which this Government or any previous Government has, to my knowledge, been obliged to address specifically. (Question No. 158) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Expenditure on compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act in 1984-85 totalled $1,236,264.40. This comprised: Expenditure on compensation for $ current employees... 735 971.81 Expenditure on compensation for former employees... 130 238.31 Lump sum payments... 20 874.87 Medical expenses... 349 179.41 Expenditure on legal expenses in 1984-85 totalled $200,764.45. This comprised: $ Legal expenses/costs... 54 868.00 Settlement costs... 97 097.44 Title search costs (First Home Owners Scheme)... 6 853.00 Other costs (damage to property etc.)... 41 946.01 (3) The following were recipients of payments for legal expenses (whether costs or fees): Workers' Compensation Amount $ Recipient Service 120 AGS Solicitors costs paid to K. Peebles representing B. W. Kemp Re: Kemp v Common- wealth. 2200 AGS Bill of Costs paid to Cridland &Bower representing J. J. Cody Re: J. J. Cody v Commonwealth and Kenneth Inskip. 315 AGS Fees to counsel Ian Curlewis representing the Commonwealth Re: Commonwealth ats Murray Leonard McDonogh. 300 AGS Fees to Council J. R. Dunford representing the Commonwealth Re: Murray Leonard McDonogh. 685 DAS Memorandum of fees paid to John Carr representing the Common- wealth Re: Beckett v K. Magi &Commonwealth. 585 C. Simpson Memorandum of fees paid to C. Simpson representing the Common- wealth Re: Stojiljkovic v Sawyer 250 AGS Bill of Costs paid to Livingston &Tantala representing the Common- wealth Re: Defence costs for employee Jeremy Stewart in negligent driving case. Contractual Matters 250 M. O'Sullivan Memorandum of fees paid to M. O'Sullivan representing the Com- monwealth Re: Australian Groundwater Consultants v Commonwealth. 505 T. Ginnane Memorandum of fees paid to T. Ginnane representing the Common- wealth Re: S &M Ovek Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. 90 AGS Fees to counsel C. A. Pitt representing the Commonwealth Re: Commonwealth v Munro Aviation. 1200 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to D. Graham QC representing the Com- monwealth Re: Commonwealth v Godfrey &Spowers. 540 D. Graham Memorandum of fees paid to D. Graham QC representing the Com- monwealth Re: Godfrey &Spowers v Commonwealth. 1750 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to D. Henshall representing the Com- monwealth Re: Commonwealth v A. J. Galvin 13500 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr R. J. Hauger representing the Com- monwealth Re: Blue Rock Quarries v the Commonwealth. 15885 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr D. P. Drummond representing the Commonwealth Re: Blue Rock Quarries v the Commonwealth. 980 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr P. DeJersy representing the Com- monwealth Re: Citra Constructions v Commonwealth of Australia. 2758 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr U. F. P. Grun representing the Commonwealth Re: Citra Construction v the Commonwealth. 1450 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr R. N. Wensley representing the Commonwealth Re: Citra Constructions v the Commonwealth. 4675 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Mr H. G. Fryberg representing the Commonwealth Re: Citra Constructions v Commonwealth. 350 N. Francey Memorandum of fees paid to N. Francey representing the Common- wealth Re: Coronial Enquiry re fire Goldberg House. First Home Owners' Scheme 2151 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to Messrs. Butler, McIntyre and Butler representing R. K. &K. S. Wildman Re: R. K. &K. S. Wildman v Commonwealth. 890 AGS Bill of Costs paid to Murdock, Clarke, Cosgrove and Drake representing R. K. &K. S. Wildman Re: R. K. &K. S. Wildman v the Common- wealth 1130 AGS Memorandum of fees paid to K. B. Procter representing R. J. &W. Townsend Re: R. J. &W. Townsend v Commonwealth. 2309 AGS Bill of Costs respondents (R. J. &W. Townsend) taxed costs Re: R. J. &W. Townsend v Commonwealth. (Question No. 1624) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What progress is being made with the backlog of repairs for damaged timber rail wagons for TASRAIL. (2) Is TASRAIL losing revenue by its inability to meet the demand for wagons. (3) Has the union ban on overtime for the repair of wagons been lifted. (4) Is there a union ban on train movements on Saturday except for those servicing Australian National Line ships at Bell Bay. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised by the Australian National Railways Commission (AN) that (1) Significant progress has been made by AN in reducing the number of log wagons out of service. From 1 August, when bans on overtime for the repair of wagons were lifted, to 17 October a total of 201 wagons had been repaired. This leaves only 39 wagons currently awaiting repair. (2) Revenue was being lost due to the number of wagons out of service. However with the quantity of wagons recently returned to service it is expected that the lost revenue will be quickly recouped. (3) The bans placed by unions in respect to the working of overtime on repair of wagons were lifted on 1 August 1985. (4) This ban was lifted at the end of September 1985. (Question No. 1631) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What amount of rock phosphate is mined annually at Christmas Island. (2) To which countries and in what quantities is the rock phosphate exported. (3) What is the (a) FOB price for each of these markets and (b) expected life of first grade rock phosphate at the present extraction rate. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 2.5 million tonnes of phosphatic ores are mined to support annual rock phosphate sales of around 1.2 million tonnes, which also include materials from stockpiles accumulated over time. (2) In 1984-85 sales were: (a) First grade rock phosphate- Australia...-around 500,000 tonnes New Zealand...-around 260,000 tonnes Japan...-around 50,000 tonnes Korea...-around 60,000 tonnes Other Asian Countries...-around 20,000 tonnes (b) Tropics compatible rock phosphate and by-products- Malaysia...-around 250,000 tonnes Indonesia...-around 60,000 tonnes (3) (a) Commercial considerations require that FOB prices be kept confidential. However, price setting has been primarily determined by market forces, with an objective being to generate sufficient revenue to cover known and forseeable liabilities. (b) The expected life of first grade rock phosphate at present extraction rates is continually under review, as it fluctuates in accordance with prices, difficulty of extraction and specific market requirements. (Question No. 1826) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: Did he provide any copies of the Report of the Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission to interested parties before 24 July 1985; if so, (a) to whom and (b) when did he give the copies. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I did not provide copies of the Interim Committee's report to anyone prior to the date mentioned in the question. (Question No. 1877) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: (1) How many inspectors are employed under the ACT Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance. (2) How many (a) inspections and (b) prosecutions have been made under the ordinance in each of the last 3 financial years and what were the results. (3) What other approaches have been used to attempt to ensure safety in the building industry in those years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is a Chief Inspector and 8 Inspectors appointed under the ACT Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance. (2) a) Inspections...b) Prosecutions 1982/83 3700...Nil 1983/84 3600...Nil 1984/85 3550...Nil A co-operative approach between employers and the inspectors has resulted in quick implementation of the inspectors' recommendations. As a consequence prosecutions have not been necessary. (3) Emphasis has been placed on safety education and training within the industry. Specific examples include: (a) Over twenty different handout data sheets have been circulated by the Department of Territories advising on safe methods of operating cranes, hoists, plant and scaffolding. These sheets and other assistance are given to applicants so they may achieve appropriate levels of knowledge in order to satisfy examination standards; (b) Lectures on occupational safety in industry are given by Department inspectors to students and apprentices attending Australian Capital Territory schools and colleges; and (c) The Department assists in forming syllabi and in producing lectures at night classes for scaffolders and riggers at the Bruce TAFE College. (Question No. 2109) Mr Robert Brown asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 9 September 1985: (1) Is Tuggeranong Station, Isabella Plains, Australian Capital Territory, owned by the Commonwealth; (2) Is it currently leased to private individuals; if so, what are the terms and conditions of the lease; (3) Who are the present occupants of Tuggeranong Station; (4) Are the terms and conditions of the lease being upheld. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The lease, issued under the Leases Ordinance, is for a period of twelve years commencing 2 September 1980 for the purpose of sheep farming and associated agricultural uses, exhibition areas and kiosk to serve the needs of visitors and such other tourist orientated activities as are approved by the Commonwealth. Land rent is payable annually and under the lease the lessee is required to maintain and restore certain historic buildings and equipment. (3) The lessee is Tuggeranong Pastoral Co Pty Limited. (4) Yes.