Tuesday, 11 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege, but I understand that it would suit your convenience if the matter were deferred until the item dealing with Commonwealth Day is behind us. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, I think that would suit the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House express its profound sadness at the death on 1 March 1986 of Mr Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, its condemnation of the brutal act which took his life, and its condolences to Mr Palme's family and to the Government and people of Sweden. I am sure that all members of the House were shocked and saddened to hear of Olof Palme's murder. Such a criminal act should receive the strongest condemnation. Prime Minister Palme's tragic and untimely death was a great loss to Sweden and the world. He had served his country in various portfolios since 1963 and was Prime Minister of his country for 11 years. In the Swedish context, notable for its tradition of peace and non-violence, the senseless futility of this act stands out the more starkly. Sweden has lost an outstanding leader-a man with a deep personal political philosophy and strong social democratic ideals. As Prime Minister, Olof Palme worked vigorously towards maintaining a strong economy, achieving full employment and safeguarding the welfare of all. But it was a notable feature of his leadership that his concern for economic and social justice did not end with the affairs of his own country. He brought the same passionate commitment to these ideals to bear on his approach to world affairs and did so, moreover, with a real depth of intellect. Olof Palme was a man devoted to promoting economic development, social justice and peace and he understood the inter-relationship of these objectives. Mr Palme's global commitment to the democratic process and to the rights, freedoms and wellbeing of all people is attested by the policies he adopted. His stand for fundamental human rights can be seen in his championing of the campaign against racism. He promoted a generous refugee policy, believing it to be an important expression of international humanitarian solidarity. He believed that rich nations should join in the struggle against poverty to achieve a more just world order. Olof Palme was Vice-President of the Socialist International and led its working group on the southern Africa question. He was a member of the important Brandt Commission which studied questions concerning the relationship between rich and poor nations. In November 1980 Mr Palme was appointed as representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to seek a peaceful resolution of the Iran/Iraq conflict. He stood firm on Sweden's policy of neutrality and worked tirelessly to promote world peace and disarmament. Olof Palme's contribution to the international debate on arms control and disarmament won him wide acclaim during his chairmanship of the Commission on Disarmament and Security from 1980 to 1982. The Commission's report bears the Palme imprint in the importance it attaches to the objective of joint survival rather than the threat of mutual destruction as the basis for a true and lasting peace. Olof Palme was an idealist without illusions. He recognised that general and complete disarmament was a long term objective which could be achieved only through patient and careful negotiations that took account of international security concerns, and those of the United States and the Soviet Union in particular. Palme did not consider nuclear deterrence to be an acceptable permanent basis for international peace and stability, but he accepted that it is the only viable option as an interim security measure while arms control negotiations take place. The Australian Government's approach to arms control and disarmament shares many of the perspectives of the Palme report on these issues. Olof Palme also played a significant role in the setting up in 1984 of the Conference on Disarmament in Europe, which aims to build confidence and reduce the risk of conflict between states in Europe. Olof Palme firmly believed, as the Australian Government does, that questions of peace and disarmament in the nuclear age should be the concern of all nations and should not be left for the nuclear weapon states and the big powers alone to determine. His passing is a great loss to all of us throughout the world, regardless of ideological divisions between those in the East and those in the West and regardless of economic divisions between the people of the North and those of the South. It is for his contribution to the noble goal of transcending such divisions which exist in this imperfect world that Olof Palme will be remembered most widely. Senator Don Grimes, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Community Services, will represent the Government at Olof Palme's funeral, which is to be held in Stockholm on 15 March. Senator Grimes was a personal friend of the late Prime Minister, having met him on a number of occasions at meetings of the Socialist International, and is also a friend of Mr Palme's widow, Lisbeth. The attendance of Senator Grimes at the funeral is a mark of the deep respect which the Australian Government has for Olof Palme's achievements in the cause of world peace and social justice, and of the friendship which Australia feels for the Government and people of Sweden. It would be fitting, Madam Speaker, if the terms of the resolution could be passed on to Mr Palme's family and to the Government of Sweden. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is always with a particular degree of horror that the world reacts to political assassination. The circumstances of Mr Palme's untimely death draw properly from the Prime Minister and the House universal condemnation of such mindless and unjustified acts of terrorism and are a reminder to all of us of the relatively precarious nature of the lives of those who wish to live out the democratic ideal. Whatever one's views may be about Olof Palme's political views within the broad Western democratic spectrum, he was a dedicated supporter of the ideal of peace amongst nations. He served his country as Prime Minister for 11 years. He was respected in international political forums, and properly so. He worked very hard for the cause of world peace and lived out, in his political and personal life, the ideals in which he believed. I very warmly associate the Opposition with the words of condolence in relation to his death and the words of condemnation properly delivered by the Prime Minister regarding the circumstances of his very tragic and untimely assassination. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia, I too would like to endorse the motion of condolence submitted to this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the death of Mr Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden. Much has been written and said of Olof Palme in Australia, Europe and elsewhere. He was a Swedish leader who was known as much outside Sweden as he was within it. He was a man whose name and reputation for the cause of peace won acclaim from all sides of politics and many of the precepts and statements he issued, both on his own and officially, have become well known in the general tracts of the international community. Indeed, the volume that he produced on peace and disarmament security which he submitted to the United Nations was one of the bulwarks within which it is still hoped that negotiation will continue towards disarmament around the world. There are aspects of his life that I think many of us would do well to emulate. He certainly is one who, having been born as an aristocrat, devoted much of his life towards the cause of others. He was a man who worked for peace throughout his life, yet sadly died by a gun. It is a tragedy that one who had so much to contribute and who through his life did so much for others should have died this way. On behalf of all the members of my Party we submit our condolences not only to the nation and the people of Sweden but also to his wife and family. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Olof Palme was the inheritor of a remarkable, even unique political tradition. He was only the fourth leader in the history of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, and all four leaders from 1896 held the office of Prime Minister-Haljmer Branting, Per Albin Hansson, Tage Erlander and Olof Palme. Sweden is also noteworthy for its absence of political violence. As was frequently noted in the last few days, Palme's was the first political assassination in Sweden since the murder of King Gustav III in 1792, nearly 200 years ago. The traditions of tolerance, liberalism and compassion have been built into the Swedish social fabric. Palme was a tireless crusader for world peace and human rights. Although his outspoken views made enemies of some great powers at various times, both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were united in expressing their outrage at his savage and inexplicable murder. All Australians unite in our abhorrence of political assassination of rule by the gun. His death follows that of his mentor, Alva Myrdal, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, just a few months ago. Like her, his work deserves international recognition. It would be entirely appropriate for him to receive posthumously the Nobel Peace Prize for 1986. Not all such awards have been equally well deserved. In Olof Palme's case it would be. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —I rise to say a few words in relation to the work of Olof Palme in the development of democratic socialist tradition and democratic socialist theory. Olof Palme believed that it was possible to develop a political system and a political tradition which on the one hand was opposed to the general conservative tradition and on the other hand was not in line with the Marxist-Leninist tradition of the Soviet countries. Palme's work in relation to the development of democratic socialist thought and tradition has had an enormous impact on the Socialist International, of which the Australian Labor Party is a member party. He was behind much of the inspiration for the Socialist International's resurgence in recent times and for the getting together of social democratic parties in order to help not only to achieve peace, as people have mentioned before, but also to deal with some of the fundamental problems concerning the issue of the Third World-First World relations and the poverty of the Third World. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has said, Olof Palme was an outstanding man in our time. His contribution has been enormous and his death is a very great and sad loss. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I had not intended to make any remarks on this occasion, but I am moved by what I believe to be the great importance of it to briefly make my personal tribute to Mr Olof Palme. I did not meet the former Prime Minister, unlike our Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). However, I heard him speak on one occasion when I attended a conference of the international union of local authorities in Stockholm. His contribution to that conference will live with me for the rest of my life. I believe that his world leadership in attempting to promote international peace could not be borne out in any more substantial way than by the fact that upon his death, President Reagan praised his `untiring efforts to promote peace', while in Moscow the delegates to the Communist Party Congress rose for a minute's silence in tribute. Not too many people can claim a record of forthright and principled stands over a lifetime in support of world peace and in opposition to armed international aggression. Olof Palme demonstrated against both the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and the American war in Vietnam. I believe that his lasting contribution to this world is an inspiration to all those on all sides of politics who have a real commitment to peace and social justice, not just in their own country but throughout the world. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the Prime Minister that the resolution will be transmitted in the usual way. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a few remarks concerning Commonwealth Day. Madam SPEAKER —You may proceed. Mr HAWKE —Commonwealth heads of government decided at their meeting in Jamaica in 1975 that the second Monday in March each year would be designated as Commonwealth Day. This year, Commonwealth Day fell on 10 March. The Government regards the Commonwealth as having a valuable role to play in international affairs. It serves to bring together as equals governments representing a quarter of the world's population, a third of its sovereign and independent nations, people of all colours and creeds and countries at very different levels of development. It has generated a positive influence for peace and non-military solutions of international disputes and a powerful voice for non-racialism. The Commonwealth has developed this role because it has demonstrated a particular capacity to recognise in time the need for change, to discern civilised directions for change, and, at important moments, to be an effective agent for change. The Commonwealth's role is of particular current importance in South Africa. Southern Africa has been an issue of historic concern to the Commonwealth, and will continue to be so until the hateful system of apartheid is dismantled. The Government supports the efforts of the eminent persons group, of which the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, is a co-chairman, in its current task of facilitating political dialogue between the different groups in South Africa with a view to assisting an orderly transition to a just, fair and non-racial society. The House will be pleased to note that Her Majesty the Queen is in Australia for the Commonwealth Day celebrations. She has served as head of the Commonwealth for 34 years, a period which has seen the historic transition from Empire to Commonwealth. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition wishes to be associated with the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about Commonwealth Day. As the Prime Minister has suggested, this is a special association of nations. It has undergone enormous change over the last generation. I am very pleased to note that the attitude of the Australian Labor Party towards the Commonwealth has also undergone a remarkable change, and a change for the better. It is perhaps appropriate to observe to the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is absent. Perhaps that is appropriate on this occasion because, when he was Leader of the Opposition and when the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting took place in Melbourne late in 1981, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Foreign Minister, said that the Commonwealth was `an extravagant indulgence of little relevance to international affairs or Australia's role in the world'. I might say that, like so many other things said by members of the Labor Party when in opposition, they have little relevance or little point when the Labor Party gets into government. But on a bipartisan occasion such as Commonwealth Day, and given the good amendment of attitude by the Labor Party on the issue of the Commonwealth, let me say that the Opposition full-bloodedly joins with the remarks by the Prime Minister regarding Commonwealth Day. The Commonwealth plays an important role in world affairs. It brings together a quarter of the world's population. On behalf of the Opposition, I certainly say that the attempts now being made by the Commonwealth group relating to South Africa, which was established out of the last meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, has our good wishes. We hope that that group will contribute towards an improvement of the climate inside South Africa. It is worthy of note that the Commonwealth was capable of spawning such an organisation. It certainly serves the House well to observe the value of this institution. We welcome the manner in which the Australian Labor Party now embraces the value of the Commonwealth in world affairs. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. I refer to the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial of Saturday, 22 February 1986 and an article headed `Federal Politics' by Niki Savva. In the course of that article, she comments: Later that night, Mr Keating called his factional colleague, Mr Leo McLeay, to his office. Mr McLeay, as Deputy Speaker, was in the chair during the debate. The article concerns debate on a matter of public importance just before the Parliament rose for the last break. The article states: According to sources, Mr Keating bounced Mr McLeay around the office accusing him of not doing enough to protect him from the onslaught, then threw him out. Madam Speaker, in accordance with standing order 97, in a moment I shall table that document. But I wish to draw your attention to the procedures and practice of this place with respect to attitude to yourself, to members of this House and to chairmen of committees. Of course, within the Standing Orders and according to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, you will know that a reflection on the character or actions of the Speaker, inside or outside the House, may be punished as a breach of privilege. You will know that, indeed, there have been many occasions when such matters have been canvassed before the House. On 15 May 1964, a journalist, Mr Frank Chamberlain, during a parliamentary report, implied in a broadcast over 17 radio stations that another McLeay, the then Speaker McLeay, had given doubtful rulings and suggested that he should analyse the word `impartiality' before the next sitting. It was considered by the Speaker and the Clerk of the House that these remarks were a grave reflection on the character of the Speaker and accused him of partiality in the discharge of his duties. Subsequently, the matter was considered by the House. Madam Speaker, I also draw your attention to the fact that a similar resolution appeared before the then Chairman of Committees Scholes on 27 February 1975 with respect to an intervention by the then Prime Minister apropros the then Speaker relating to a breach of privilege in regard to the behaviour of the then Prime Minister Mr Whitlam, which was again considered by this House as a breach of privilege. In Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice there are a number of instances that one can draw on to illustrate the extent to which such an action by any member against any other member, and in particular against one who has responsibilities as Chairman of Committees, is a breach of parliamentary privilege. Indeed, I draw your attention again to page 655 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. At the bottom of the page it says: To attempt by any means to influence a member in his conduct as a member is a breach of privilege. If the honourable gentlemen on the other side are not content with that, I refer them to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. On page 157 of the twentieth edition, it is stated: An attempt at intimidation of a member-- Mr Hawke —This is a great start to the week. Mr SINCLAIR —The Prime Minister seems to be laughing at this. Let me read from this article again: . . . Mr Keating bounced Mr McLeay around the office accusing him of not doing enough to protect him from the onslaught, then threw him out. I again quote from May: To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege. I refer to a precedent given on page 156 of May that no doubt several honourable members on the other side will be interested to hear: The Commons, on 12 April in 1733- no doubt within the wit and wisdom of several honourable members over there- and the Lords on 17 May 1765 resolved, `That the assaulting, insulting-- Mr Holding —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is this: As I understand it, when a matter of privilege is raised it is preceded by notice being given to the particular member against whom a breach is alleged. At this stage, apart from a general series of allegations based on a newspaper report, there has been no specific allegation of a breach of privilege directed against any particular member. I point out that the mere reciting of a set of allegations in a newspaper is not a basis upon which the House should be considering such a matter, particularly if notice has not been given to the member concerned. If the Leader of the National Party is in fact making an allegation of breach of privilege against a member, he ought to begin by specifying the member against whom the breach is alleged. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Minister. I am waiting for the Leader of the National Party to draw that to my attention. Mr SINCLAIR —I intend to do so, Madam Speaker, but it is relevant for you to have in mind our own Standing Orders and the circumstances of your predecessor's acceptance on another occasion that intimidation against a person sitting in the chair of this place is such as to constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. While that may not have applied to the Richmond City Council, I suggest that our Standing Orders, thank goodness, are slightly different. Mr Holding —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I point out that no allegation has been made against any member and if an allegation is to be made it ought to be made now. I also take a further point of order in that it is not appropriate to use simply a newspaper report as a basis for founding an allegation of breach of privilege against a particular member. If we worked on that basis, honourable members could not sit in this House with the Leader of the National Party or they would be likely to be locked up for consorting. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for his intervention but the Leader of the National Party is allowed to make his case. I ask him to get to the point. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Speaker, I do not take kindly to the suggestion that anyone in this place would be guilty of the crime that the honourable gentleman suggests, particularly as he remains a member. I remind the House of the quotation from May: . . . the assaulting, insulting or menacing of any Member of this House, in his coming to or going from this House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is an high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour, . . . I submit that in the Parliament of the United Kingdom this matter, as alleged in this article, would be adjudged to be not only a breach of parliamentary privilege but also a high crime and a misdemeanour. Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to page 159 of May's Parliamentary Practice. It states: Analagous to molestation of Members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as Members. Madam Speaker, I submit to you that that is directly relevant to the intervention by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). May continues: As examples of speeches and writings which have been held to constitute breaches of privilege or contempt . . . Reflections on the character of the Speaker and accusations of partiality . . . in the discharge of his duties. I suggest that that is directly pertinent to this case. May continues, in other examples: Reflections upon the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. . . Reflections upon the impartiality of the Chairman. . . Madam Speaker, again I suggest that both of those examples emerge from this comment in a statement, allegedly by the Treasurer, to your colleague, the Deputy Speaker of this place. Page 235 May's Parliamentary Practice states: Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege . . . Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensible condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognised. Madam Speaker, I put to you that the nature of this suggestion of an interview by the Treasurer with the Deputy Speaker of this Parliament is such as to constitute a breach of privilege both within the definition of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice and May's Parliamentary Practice. If there is any suggestion that the Deputy Speaker, in the light of his exercising his independent authority in this place, is having the Treasurer coming along and doing as the article suggests-that is, bouncing Mr McLeay around the office and throwing him out-I suggest that it is about time the Treasurer apologised to the Parliament and to the Deputy Speaker and that we have his assurance and yours that such behaviour by the Treasurer will in no way interfere with the Deputy Speaker's actions, his independence or his impartiality in the exercise of his duties. I table the document on which the case is made. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will understand that these issues, going as they do to the conduct of the business of the House, are extremely important. However, the House will appreciate that I am in a most difficult position because I have no knowledge of the accuracy or the authority of the report. I will, however, hear the Chairman of Committees before I reply to the Leader of the National Party. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —It is indeed unfortunate that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) chose to take his line from the newspapers rather than by contacting either of the people who are alleged to be the principals in Niki Savva's article. If the Leader of the National Party had contacted me, as an officer of the House, I would have been quite happy to tell him, as I am willing to tell the House now, that the story as put out by Niki Savva is quite incorrect and the activities outlined in it never occurred. Madam SPEAKER —I will give consideration to the matter raised by the Leader of the National Party and advise the House of my decision in due course. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, whose name has been so unfairly brought into discussions in this place recently, is overseas on government business. As honourable members may be aware, he is currently in the Philippines for discussions with the new Government there. He will return to Australia tomorrow. In his absence the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is acting as Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, will represent the Acting Minister in this House. Madam SPEAKER —As respondents to the relevant industrial award, the Presiding Officers and the Public Service Board have lodged with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a formal notification of an industrial dispute involving the parliamentary catering staff. In taking this action we are seeking an early cessation of the campaign of strikes and to open the way for the aspirations of staff for higher wages to be properly considered and resolved in harmony with national wage case principles. We have requested that the dispute be listed for hearing in the Commission as a matter of urgency. The President and I have called a meeting of the Joint House Committee for tomorrow morning at 8.30. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the only members of the Government who had available the confidential draft Cabinet submission that was leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald were himself and the Prime Minister? Mr KEATING —As I understand it, the submission had gone to all members of the Ministry. Mr LEE —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to an article in the National Times of 7 March which states that he decided to take no action when allegations of corruption in the Transport Workers Union were referred to him? What action in fact did the Minister take on these matters? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, I have seen the article attributed to Wendy Bacon. The facts are that on 18 October 1985 the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations sent a telex to the Attorney-General with a copy to me. In that telex the Minister referred to allegations published in the Bulletin and the National Times concerning officials of the Transport Workers Union and asked that there be an immediate examination of the allegations to determine whether Commonwealth laws were involved and, if so, what action may be necessary. The Minister's telex was referred from my office to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police for his advice and any necessary action. I received advice from the Commissioner on 1 November to the effect that no breaches of Commonwealth laws were involved in the allegations made in the article, but that possible breaches of State law were being investigated by the New South Wales Police. This advice was conveyed subsequently to Mr Willis. I understand that similar advice by the Director of Public Prosecutions as to breaches of Commonwealth law was passed to Mr Willis by the Attorney-General. Subsequently the matter has not been raised further with me. I am advised that information as to the Commissioner's and the DPP's views was passed to the National Times before the publication of last week's article. Yet Ms Bacon chose to write that I had decided to take no action-the clear implication being that I was acting improperly. Again the National Times has decided not to let the facts spoil a good story. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is it true that the Prime Minister's trilogy promise is to keep taxation receipts at no more than 25.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1985-86? Is it also true that this figure is higher than for any year in the post-war period and compares with an average of only 23.8 per cent in the seven years of the coalition Government? Having already established himself as the biggest taxing Prime Minister in over 40 years, can the Prime Minister confirm the leaked report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 4 March that the Government now expects to break its trilogy promise in the very first year by breaking its existing record on taxation collection? Mr HAWKE —We have history repeating itself. This is the second year now that the Leader of the Opposition has said that we will not meet our trilogy commitments. He made this bold assertion on the last occasion. He was wrong then; he will be wrong again. It is a matter of interest that the Leader of the Opposition has put down a motion of public importance today. It is remarkable, and I do not know whether all my colleagues have had the opportunity of seeing its wording. It is in these terms: The urgent need for a major change in the direction of economic policy to avoid further damage being done to the Australian economy. In one sense one can understand the Leader of the Opposition referring to us on this subject because we are the authorities on the question of the need to make dramatic changes in the direction of the Australian economy. We inherited the Australian economy after it had been left in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition in his role as Treasurer from 1977 until 1983. No Treasurer in the history of this country has ever inflicted such devastating damage upon the economy, and we really had to direct our attention to bringing about a significant change in the direction of the Australian economy. To the great good fortune of the people of Australia, we succeeded, and succeeded massively, in changing the direction from one in which we had contemporaneous double digit inflation and unemployment to one now where we have brought unemployment down significantly, created over 600,000 jobs, reduced inflation, and brought about a rate of growth which in our period of office has been roughly double the rate of growth when the Leader of the Opposition had control of the economy. I conclude by saying that we will adhere to the terms of the trilogy, which are well known to the Leader of the Opposition. He would better serve the interests of his Party if, instead of making these absurd allegations which year after year he is shown to be out of touch on, he tried to do what he has not been able to do in the period that he has had his tenuous hold on the office of Leader of the Opposition-that is, to develop some constructive and relevant economic policies. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 7 March 1986 in which the Queensland Premier cites the $44.6m being spent this year on the Bruce Highway as evidence that his Government is not neglecting far north Queensland? Can the Minister confirm the Premier's claim? If not, why not? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen the article. It shows what little substance there is in anything the Queensland Premier says these days. The Premier, at a Cabinet meeting in the far north, said that $44.6m is being spent on the Bruce Highway this year. Everybody knows that the Bruce Highway is part of the national highway system in Queensland. Everybody knows that the full cost of building and maintaining the national highway is met by this Government. The only contribution that the Queensland Government makes is to conduct a campaign of deceit and deception in seeking false credit for the works that are carried out by this Government. In that exercise he is expert. This year, in fact, we will be spending almost $70m on the Bruce Highway, that section of the national highway in Queensland. By 1988 we will have spent $355m. That will give that link between Cairns and Brisbane a virtual flood-free highway, safer and cheaper road transport, and safer and cheaper coach travel and private car travel. It will mean that more money will be able to go into the far north of Queensland. In relation to the far north of Queensland, we should remember that in places such as Townsville, where the honourable member comes from, 80 per cent of the people who visit travel by road. Eighty-five per cent of the people who visit Mackay, for instance, go by road. So roads are vital arteries to the economy of the far north of Queensland. Maybe the Premier of Queensland-I am completely unaware of this-does have $44.6m available in that kitty. I am sure that the cane growers would like to know about it if he has it. But if he has $44.6m available to spend on the national highway to Cairns, I would be happy to accept it, and we could put it to good use. The fact is that no money is being provided by the Queensland Government for the national highway between Cairns and Brisbane. It is the result of the efforts of this Government and, particularly, the result of the efforts of the members of this Government who represent that area of Queensland. Mr BEALE —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Is it a fact that, firstly, building approvals for new dwellings have fallen by 7 per cent since October; secondly, new home loans by the major lenders have fallen in each of the previous five months and are currently at their lowest level in more than two years; thirdly, the Government's own advisory body on the housing industry-the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry-met last Friday and revised downwards its forecast level of dwelling commencements for 1986-87 to 120,000 starts, the lowest level since 1982-83; and, fourthly, the deposit growth of savings banks, the major source of cheap housing loans, is presently at its lowest level in almost 40 years? What does the Minister propose to do to solve the growing housing crisis? Mr WEST —At last, out of the chaos, confusion and disorganisation of the Opposition front bench at Question Time, we have a relevant question on housing. Mr Hawke —For the first time in three years. Mr WEST —It is the first time in three years and certainly the first time this session as far as the present Opposition spokesman on housing is concerned. It is perfectly obvious that this Government is going to protect existing borrowers. That situation will continue. As the honourable member for Deakin says, there has been some decline in savings bank deposits and, consequently, in lending, particularly from savings banks, and commencements in the last part of this financial year, as will be pointed out soon by the Indicative Planning Council. The Government is currently considering any measures that might be appropriate to assist in the areas of availability of finance for home ownership, the private rental market and public housing. We can consider any or all of these measures in the Budget context or, if we wish, we can haul forward any of the measures we are currently considering. The Government is considering its options and will be in a position to announce any necessary action it considers in due course. I make the point that the banks are pressing the Government for deregulation; but this was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition late last year, and we all know what happened to him when, against the wishes of the South Australian Leader of the Opposition, he pressed the matter before the South Australian election. After being defeated on the issue of deregulation, on the issue of protecting existing borrowers from a 3 or 4 per cent interest rate hike, he changed his tune and suggested that the Government should go for deregulation of new loans only. Even the banks rejected that proposition as being totally unworkable. The fact is that the reason why we have not had a question on housing so far this year is that the Opposition has no housing policy whatsoever. There is marked disagreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Deakin on this issue. The latter wants to deregulate and the former wants to but is not now game to say so. I conclude by saying that, if we were to deregulate in the present climate, obviously we would see a further impost on existing borrowers of up to 3 per cent. We are not prepared to do that. However, we will be considering a number of options which we can take, if we wish, to ameliorate the situation in the housing sector. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Trade whether he can report further on the status of the United States farm legislation following his recent visit to the United States. Mr DAWKINS —On 20 February, I reported to the House the results of my visit to the United States and Europe. I now have the opportunity of updating the House in relation to those matters. I indicated that I was confident that the United States Administration would move to review its farm legislation in order to minimise the damage which would otherwise be caused to the world wheat market and particularly Australia's interests in it. I am now pleased to say that as a result of the Administration's endeavours Congress has halved the level of mandatory support available for wheat sales from the United States. On the assessment of the Australian Wheat Board that means that the damage which otherwise would have been done to the wheat market, and particularly to Australia's interests, has been reduced by half. This does not entirely eliminate the problems that confront us but it demonstrates that the Administration has delivered on what it undertook to me to do, that is, have that particular aspect of the legislation reviewed. I would also like to inform the House that the other issue on which the Administration provided an undertaking was in relation to a reduction in sugar quotas and the application of that reduction. The Administration did as it said it would do at the time following my representations and applied those reductions in a totally non-discriminatory way which whilst not the best result we could have wanted, given the circumstances inflicted on the Administration by the Congress, again demonstrates that the Administration is conscious of and sympathetic to Australia's interests in these matters. One other aspect of the legislation which requires our further attention is the consequences of the dairy herd buy-out program and the disposition of the surplus beef that will arise from that program. We will continue our efforts to pursue that matter with the Administration to limit the damage which would otherwise be visited upon international beef markets. Mr HUNT —Did the Minister for Primary Industry fail to provide Commonwealth meat inspection services during a dispute at the Biloela meat works for two days during February? Was this failure due to the presence of a meat employees union picket line outside the works? Did failure to provide export inspections place at risk meat valued at more than $100,000? In spite of the recent verdicts and actions of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia, is the Minister still bowing to the standover tactics of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and failing to exercise his lawful duties? Mr KERIN —There is no way that I am being stood over by the AMIEU in any of these matters. Although the situation at Gunnedah was recently brought to my attention, the situation at Biloela has not been brought to my attention by the Export Inspection Service. I will check the points made by the honourable member and get back to him. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. What action could the Government take to prevent financial hardship to pensioners if members of the Australian Medical Association abandon the free pensioner medical scheme? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the question from the honourable member for Lowe I first want to say that I, together with most pensioner organisations throughout this country and, I hope, the members of the Federal Opposition, join in condemning this threat by the Australian Medical Association not to accept the Medicare rebate as full payment. If this occurred, of course, many of the most disadvantaged in the community would have serious problems with securing adequate medical care. They would either have to deny themselves that care or seek services as outpatients at public hospitals. I also reject completely the quite spurious arguments advanced by the AMA for issuing such a threat. First of all, it is not true that doctors' fees have not increased in relation to the consumer price index. Since 1 July 1970 medical benefit levels have risen by 314.3 per cent as compared with a CPI rate rise of 298.6 per cent. Secondly, while it is difficult to get average figures for general practitioners-there are quite a number of part time GPs such as my colleague the honourable member for Prospect-if one takes from the Medicare list all those GPs who are full time GPs, the average gross earnings of GPs from Medicare in this country last year was $90,000 a year. That does not include earnings they may have received from compensation responses. It does not include third party payments and it does not include payments they may have received from public hospitals for services given. So the argument in relation to GPs has to be looked at in terms of their incomes. The AMA argued in relation to these income figures that they are based on its survey. The survey it presented to the fees inquiry is extremely unsatisfactory and the Australian Statistician has strongly criticised aspects of its survey. In fact, in 1984 at the last fees inquiry, the survey had a usable response rate of 23.3 per cent. This is one of the reasons why this Government has decided to attempt a proper survey of medical incomes so that there will be objective data before the fees inquiry as regards medical incomes. Of course, that may be one of the explanations why the AMA has seen fit to withdraw from the inquiry. Finally, the AMA is clearly and perfectly well entitled, if it wishes, to appear before the inquiry or before the Government and argue that a higher proportion should be paid to GPs; that is, a higher proportion of the total medical bill. It is the total medical bill which my friend the honourable member for Barker is always complaining about. If the AMA had the courage to appear and say that there should be some redistribution within that total package, this Government would respond very sympathetically because I think an argument can be made that there may well be a case for some redistribution from the very well paid specialists to the less well paid GPs. It is certainly open to the AMA to appear before the inquiry and make such an argument or to come before the Government with such an argument. As regards what action the Government can take, I point out that, despite the fact that the AMA has argued against bulk billing for many years, there has been an increasing acceptance of bulk billing by the medical profession and there has been a gradual increase in the use of that service. I am glad to say that nearly all doctors in this country do not charge their pensioner or disadvantaged patients beyond the Medicare rebate. Mr N.A. Brown —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the categorical assurance given by the Treasurer on the Sunday television program on 2 March that unemployment will not rise this year. Will the Minister give the same assurance to this House? Mr WILLIS —I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raised the matter of employment and unemployment because this is an area in which the Government can point to resounding success, unlike the Opposition when in government. I remind the House that in the 2 3/4 years to January of this year we have increased employment by 80 per cent more than did the previous Government in 7 1/4 years, which is an indication of the comparative performance in this crucially important area. As far as the future goes, we are entering a period in which there will be a slower rate of growth than we have had hitherto. In 1985 we had a spectacular rate of growth in employment of 3.8 per cent and in the 12 months to January this year we had growth in employment of 4.5 per cent. Those extraordinarily high rates of employment growth were not accompanied by a great reduction in the level of recorded unemployment because of a big increase in the participation rate. I remind the House that in the 12 months to January this year we had growth in employment of 290,000 people-an extraordinary increase-but a reduction in unemployment of only 30,000, due to the fact that the participation rate increased by 1.1 per cent, adding about 130,000 people to the work force on top of the increase in the work force that comes naturally each year through population increase. So despite the highest rates of employment growth that we have had for many years, if not for all time, we have made only a slight dint in the actual number of recorded unemployed. Of course, there has been a very considerable reduction in the number of hidden unemployed, which is the flip side of the increase in the participation rate. As far as 1986 is concerned, as the Treasurer has said and the Government has indicated elsewhere, we will be looking at a slower rate of growth of the economy, consolidation following the downturn in the exchange rate and the fall in the balance of payments situation and the problems created in that regard by the reduction in the terms of trade. Concerning employment, this year we will see continuing employment growth. It should be sufficient to enable us to avoid any increase in unemployment this year. Whether that occurs will depend on the participation rate, which may continue to increase. If it does, it will make it more difficult to keep recorded unemployment down than if there were some stability in the participation rate. Also, we have seen in the past, somewhat contradictorily, that in periods of high employment growth there have often been high rates of growth in participation. Then when the employment growth has slowed, the participation rate has declined. That could well be the case in the present circumstances, which would mean that unemployment may continue to reduce. Mr DUNCAN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who returned recently from the Adelaide Festival of Arts. Is he aware that an exhibition of photo collages by David Hockney, an artist who has been described by Bernard Levin in the London Times as the greatest living English artist, has been classified by Customs as photographs and not art and therefore has attracted 25 per cent duty and 20 per cent sales tax? Is the Minister aware that the application of 1953 and 1932 Customs regulations in this case has caused acute embarrassment to the organisers of the Adelaide Festival and the Tynte Gallery, which is staging the exhibition? Will the Minister review the regulations urgently to correct this ridiculous anomaly? Mr BARRY JONES —David Hockney is undoubtedly a very eminent British artist-I am not sure whether Henry Moore would accept the view that he is necessarily the most eminent. Hockney's photo collages, which were recently the subject of a television program by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, represent real difficulty for Customs assessment. The photo collages are produced in multiples-generally about 30. As Hockney said in his book Camera- works, when the multiples are produced as a photographic process, he has a collection of `slaves' whose job it is to place them on a card and the work is then framed. They are absolutely magnificent works but they do undoubtedly represent a very serious problem for Customs for classification because they do not fit clearly into any of the recognised categories. If we look at the possible classifications, item 99.02 covers original engravings, prints and lithographs and the customs duty is zero. Item 49.11 relates to other printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs, and the rate is 2 per cent. Item 49.11.900 for commercial material such as catalogues, posters, calendars, scripture cards, et cetera, has a rate of 25 per cent. In item 99.01.000, the duty is zero on items regarded as original works of art without any mechanical or photo-mechanical process involved. The decision was made by the Collector of Customs in Adelaide. It is not the practice of governments or Ministers-this has been the rule right back from the year dot-to intervene in individual assessments. But, because there is the possibility for anomaly in this, I will ask the Comptroller-General of Customs to examine it. However, if it is any consolation-this is prospective and not retrospective-in the harmonisation which has been introduced by and which is another triumph of the Hawke Government, it will mean that, once the harmonised tariff is adopted, provision will be made for photo collages to be specified in the item currently covered by tariff item 99.01. On that basis, it will mean that they will be treated in exactly the same way as original paintings, drawings and pastels. So, if they are introduced for a future Adelaide Festival, there will be absolutely no difficulty. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Minister give a commitment that the Commonwealth Government will in no way involve itself in the disputes between conservationists and forest workers at present occurring at Farmhouse Creek and the Lemon-Thyme valley in Tasmania? Will the Minister also assure the House and the Tasmanian Government that he will not threaten to withdraw export woodchip licences in order to influence the management of forests and the uses of timber destined for domestic saw-mill production? Mr KERIN —I will not say that there will be no steps that I will take in terms of involvement. What Premier Gray has proved is that the politics of confrontation practised over this issue do not work and have been exposed. What the Commonwealth has been trying to do in this whole matter, where people on both sides hold very strong views, is to get a compromise arrangement whereby both environmental values and jobs can be taken into account. To do that, what we have been trying to get-and what I thought we had-is an agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments to set in place a process whereby those environmental values and jobs can be assessed in an ongoing fashion. What this most deplorable situation at Farmhouse Creek has shown is that, at the end of the day, rational people have to take decisions on the basis of compromise so that both points of view can be taken into account. Ms McHUGH —My question is to the Minister for Health. He referred earlier to the refusal of the Australian Medical Association to participate in the 1986 fees inquiry. I ask him to inform the House what the effects of that refusal will be. Dr BLEWETT —In response to the question from the honourable member for Phillip, first of all let me say that I regret the decision of the Australian Medical Association not to participate in the fees inquiry. I do not believe that there is very much weight in any of the arguments it has ostensibly advanced for not participating. First, it advanced the issue of delay. Of course, there has been some delay in settling the terms of reference. But this is not unusual. In fact, if we look back at the record of these inquiries, we find that the previous Government held no inquiry in 1976 and no inquiry in 1978. Of course, in 1983, we accepted the wage freeze decision in relation to that inquiry. We find that over the course of the last 10 years these inquiries have taken place at many different times during the year. So first of all, while there has been some delay in negotiating a satisfactory agreement on the terms of reference with the AMA, that is not unusual in the history of these disputes. Moreover, when this delay occurred on the previous occasion with this Government, in 1984, the AMA approached the Government and asked for a quick interim award while the full inquiry was taking place and this Government responded positively. No such approach was made this time. There was no effort at all to see whether we could work through this particular timing problem-if timing problem there has been. I again point out that doctors' fees have been increased annually, the last occasion being on 1 July 1985. I believe that we can get an adjustment by 1 July 1986. Secondly, the medical profession has no reason whatsoever to be dissatisfied with the workings of that inquiry under this Government because in the three- Mr Porter —Ha, ha! Dr BLEWETT —I said no reasonable reason. In the three years of this Government the inquiry has granted a total increase in fees of 16.5 per cent, which is certainly more than most other workers in this country have been granted in that three-year period. Finally, there is a dispute about a particular term of reference. The Government has said that it will accept in advance whatever the inquiry recommends except in one field, that being the area of pathology. We made that reservation because I believe that as a government it would have been irresponsible not to have done so as a major committee of this Parliament has made serious recommendations about the need for reform in the pathology area. My Department is working on a response to that report and it would have been irresponsible and inappropriate to give an open guarantee on fees in relation to pathology. Mr SLIPPER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware of a news report in the Courier-Mail today which states that it has been decided to raise Australia's aid to the Philippines by more than 50 per cent to a sum of $25m and to implement certain other measures to benefit the Aquino Government to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer? In view of the hundreds of thousands of Australian home owners and home buyers, including many in the Federal electorate of Fisher, in severe financial difficulty as a result of the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy, is increased aid to the Philippines justified while the Government callously ignores the plight of our own citizens in need, and does the provision of such increased aid to the Philippines mean that the Labor Government has abandoned any attempt to reduce the record Federal Budget deficit? Mr Hawke —Does this represent the Opposition's policy? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would be very surprised if this question does represent Opposition policy. Mr Hawke —I think it is embarrassed by it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is really embarrassing for Australia to think that a nation that at last has made some serious effort to obtain democracy is now to be maligned by a question of this nature. For many years governments of both shades of opinion in this House have given aid to the Philippines on the basis that it might enable the people of the Philippines to attain democracy and certainly improve their standard of living. They have gone through a very difficult time in recent weeks and I am pleased to announce that at present the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in the Philippines, not to denigrate the new Administration there but to congratulate it on the basis that we can recognise it as a new government; a government that we hope has the support of the people of the Philippines. We hope that that Government will have the support of the people of the Philippines, that it will be able to talk about democratic rights and human rights in the Philippines and that it will be able to indicate that the people of the Philippines can change governments as and when they want to and not have regimes or military dictatorships administering that country. The Prime Minister sent a message of congratulations to President Aquino on 26 February expressing the hope that he could meet her at the earliest opportunity, and I have no doubt that he will do that. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is there at present, will certainly also extend an invitation to President Aquino to visit Australia. I hope that that will have the greatest support of the Australian people. I think it will, despite the thrust of the question from the Opposition. Australia's bilateral aid to the Philippines will be increased to $25m. Officials will visit the Philippines in the near future to discuss a program of aid. We have expressed a willingness to help in establishing appropriate arrangements to co-ordinate international aid and economic assistance. A revolving trade credit of $50m, which is due to expire on 15 March, will be continued following negotiations with the Philippine Government. Australia will give sympathetic consideration to any request by the Philippine Government for assistance in securing the return of assets and investments. I understand that the matter has been raised with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and he will make a statement about all these matters when he returns later this week. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to reports that the Vatican is holding a collection of Aboriginal artefacts? In view of the Pope's impending visit to Australia, have any approaches been made to have these returned? Has the Pope expressed an interest in meeting Aboriginal people? If so, what arrangements are being made to facilitate this? Mr HOLDING —I am not sure whether to thank the honourable member for his question because I am not certain of my relationship with the Holy Father, but I have raised the matter with Monsignor Walsh, who is co-ordinating the tour on behalf of the Vatican. He has pointed out that, while it is not a sizable collection, the difficulty that faces Vatican officials in charge of the collection is that Vatican treasures are far more extensive than the Aboriginal collection. The problem of returning the collection to Australia is not in terms of its value or its relevance; it is one of creating a precedent for the Vatican. Discussions are continuing. I am hoping to see the papal nuncio when he returns from Rome. I think there are other areas of significance where, on the occasion of this very important visit, some statements could be made by the Pope which would be of immense relevance, not merely to Aboriginal people in Australia, but indeed to all Australians in terms of the relationship that ought to exist in Australia between a dominant white community and its indigenous people. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Considering that a long and hard strike of the type threatened by the coal unions would add $500m or 50 per cent to the monthly current account deficit for every month it continues, what is the Minister's view of the mining unions' 32 per cent productivity claim and their recent strike action which has so far cost Australia $140m in lost exports? Mr DAWKINS —The matter of industrial action on the part of the coal mining unions has been of great concern to the Government and has been constantly monitored by us, particularly by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and indeed the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have been involved in some discussions with both the unions and the mine owners. In circumstances where negotiations are proceeding and where the matter is before the Coal Industry Tribunal today, it is probably not advisable to go into the merits of the case. It is important, however, that this dispute, as with any dispute involving important export industries in this country, is resolved quickly and without the kind of disruption which years ago contributed to a poor reputation being developed in this country in terms of its ability to be a reliable supplier. I am pleased to say, however, that in recent years, particularly the last three years, the reputation of Australia as a reliable supplier of important minerals and energy commodities has been very greatly enhanced. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —There are those opposite who wish constantly to disparage Australia and its ability to be an important and efficient supplier of coal and other resources to the rest of the world. Fortunately their view is not shared by our major customers. In circumstances where we have something like a 17-year low in terms of industrial disputation in this country, all as a result of the policies which have been pursued by this Government, our major customer countries recognise that the situation has been vastly improved and they are prepared to continue to have confidence in Australia as a reliable and efficient supplier. I hope Opposition members will not revert to their old tactics of making mischief about these matters in a way which can only do Australia damage. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the proposed construction of car park lighting within the parliamentary zone. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, I present the annual report of the National Companies and Securities Commission for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee for 1984-85. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honour- able members, I present the report of the Australian Electoral Commission on informal voting in 1984 for the Senate. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister for State) —Pursuant to section 17 (4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present report 9 of the Advisory Council on resource development and inter-government relations. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Thirty-ninth Session of the 1984 United Nations General Assembly. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9B of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present the 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. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary of resolutions and recommendations of the twenty-second meeting of the Australian Forestry Council. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 63 (1) of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Australian Wheat Board for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 3A of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation for 1984-85. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present three statements on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, one for November 1985, the second for December 1985 and the third for January 1986. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Canberra Retail Markets Ordinance 1971, I present the annual report of the Canberra Retail Markets Trust for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories) —Pursuant to section 63M (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the infor- mation of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the Third meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Committee at ministerial level together, with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 52 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for 1984-85. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr UREN —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr UREN —An article appeared in the Bulletin of 11 March 1986 under the authorship of Richard Farmer and Dean Banks and relating to a grant of $141,352 under the community employment program to the Women's Centre Incorporated in Canberra. The article was entitled `Tom Uren linked with coffee shop jobs fund scandal' and was accompanied by an equally offensive cartoon. The article stated: Pauline Cardini received a grant under the program to finance Tilley Devine's in the Canberra suburb of Lyneham. She was supported by left wing minister Tom Uren. The only honest thing about that was that Tom Uren is left wing. The remainder is false. Pauline Cardini, or Pauline Higgisson, is not known to me. I had not heard either name until I read the Bulletin article. The article also stated: Officially the CEP grant was made not to Cardini but the Women's Centre Incorporated. That is true. The article further stated: Uren frequently insisted some things be done quickly that they- public servants- did not believe should be done at all. In the context of the total article, the inference is that I intervened in such a way as to inhibit proper process in relation to the CEP grant to the Women's Centre. I did not. The Bulletin article gave as an example of what it alleged as `mistrust' between departmental officers and me: . . . another government spending program run by Uren's department that involved payments to a group including former Whitlam minister Dr Jim Cairns and Junie Morosi for a community housing venture. That is false. While I was Minister for Terri- tories and Local Government, there was no application from Cairns, Morosi or anyone else in relation to the Wyuna Co-operative Housing Project. I did not authorise payment of any funds for that purpose whilst I was Minister, nor did I have any part in consideration of any such application at any time. With regard to the consideration of the Women's Centre proposal, I acted strictly according to the advice given to me by the Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee, which included public servants from the Department of Territories and Local Government and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I received no advice from public servants or anyone else contrary to the advice of the Employment Advisory Committee. That Committee wrote to me on 23 November 1983 recommending my approval for funding of nine CEP projects, including the Women's Centre project. On 29 November I approved the Committee's recommendations subject to the concurrence of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Shortly after that I was advised that the recommended figure for the Women's Centre was incorrect. I approved the revised recommendation on 8 December. At no time was I given any advice to the effect that the original sponsors or purposes for the grant had changed. Nor did anyone at any time suggest any impropriety in relation to the grant. The Bulletin article stated that there had been considerable discussion within the Employment Advisory Committee and dialogue between the Committee and my office concerning the Women's Centre and other grants. That is true. It was normal practice for the Committee to debate the relative merits of proposals submitted for funding. That was the Committee's job. So far as dialogue with my office was concerned and with respect to the Women's Centre project, discussion was confined to the question whether the project might contravene the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. I also understood the persistence of male chauvinist attitudes in parts of the community. For my part I was sympathetic to the stated objectives of the project, namely: To offer licensed hospitality during long hours of opening with regular live entertainment and exhibitions of women's art supporting the ideals of equal opportunities for women in all areas and providing an atmosphere to encourage integration without discrimination for women in all walks of life. To create and strengthen bonds between women, raising general consciousness of the extent of women's art. I have sent the Bulletin article to my legal advisers for the appropriate advice. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEALE —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEALE —In answer to a question I asked the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) today, he said, and in this he was supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): `This is the first question the shadow Minister has asked for three years'. I draw the attention of the House to four questions I have asked the Minister for Housing and Construction in the last six months. Of particular relevance is his reply to the question I asked him on 16 September 1985. I say, with the greatest respect to my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), that in response to my question the Minister said: At the outset let me say that I am very pleased that I did not have to wait nine months for a question from the new shadow Minister. . . Both the Prime Minister and the Minister have grossly misled the House. In doing so, they have misrepresented me. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister in believing that he was not deliberately misleading the House; but I say that, if his memory is as widely astray of the mark as was his answer to the question I asked today, it is no wonder that under his stewardship the housing industry is in such a mess. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of average weekly earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cohen,Mr Dubois,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Lee,Mr Allan Morris and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Staples. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of three Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectively show us: That the amendments to Child Care Act (1972) directly contravene the ALP Party Policy of 1982, which stated that the government would guarantee quality care and would allow services to be provided at a cost that could be met by a majority of the users. The amendments to the Child Care Act: (a) directly attack the quality of care that Centre's are able to provide. (b) increase the cost and accessibility of care to parents. (c) threaten the employment of staff in Centres. (d) lower working conditions in the industry. Your petitioners then humbly pray that your Honourable House: restore full funding to children's services and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen. 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows; That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. by Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Jull. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of:- (1) Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. (2) Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West African Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. (3) Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. (4) Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. 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. 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 is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breed- ing programs. (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices. (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Shack and Dr Watson. 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. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both the country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. 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. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. 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 the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance Allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a cosignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. 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: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. This humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectively request that the: a. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be amended immediately to outlaw incitement to racial hatred and make group defamation a criminal offence. b. UN Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination be immediately ratified to include the reserve clauses concerning group defamation. c. Race Discrimination Commissioner proposed under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill (at present before the Parliament) be empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of group defamation. d. Human Rights Commission be given adequate resources to pursue effectively all complaints lodged with the Commission. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Attorney General the Honourable Lionel Bowen take action accordingly to have the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 amended as suggested above. by Mr Lindsay. 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 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 McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Australia, the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria. And we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Mr Mildren. The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600. 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, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners, as is 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 citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. 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 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan TV stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial TV operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards:- inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Australian Government-(a) Take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon States-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon States to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. (2) All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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 Moore 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: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth, to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth, to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 ill considered 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. 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 Farrer electorate respectfully shows: That the Hawke Government should pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. Petition 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: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practise many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia, respectfully sheweth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. 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 citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as `Capital Gains tax after death' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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: 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: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of 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 inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for a major change in the direction of economic policy to avoid further damage being done to the Australian economy. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.41) —Over the past two weeks the Australian public has been treated to the spectacle of the Australian Labor Party at play. Over the past two weeks the Labor Party has treated the Australian public to the spectacle of factional fighting which is spilling into the open with bitter public disputes between Ministers and different sections of the Australian Labor Party. At long last the lie that has been lived by this Government about the state of the Australian economy has started to be unveiled. It has taken some Judases around the Cabinet table to demonstrate to the Australian public what we on this side of the House have been saying for months, and that is that from a medium and long term point of view it is imperative that the Government change its economy strategy. Over the past four months the Government has been warned repeatedly that if it continues to use a high interest rate strategy as a method of supporting the Australian dollar it will drive the economy into the floor. Despite the pretences, despite the fantasyland of figures in which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been living and the economic camelot that they have paraded before the Australian public over the past few months, last week all the evidence came out with rather brutal clarity. It was revealed in the leaked document. I wonder who leaked that document. The fascinating theory is that only a draft was leaked. Of course the only people who get drafts are the Ministers who sponsor them because they get them for the purpose of settling matters. Sometimes they run to the corner office and chat about the draft with somebody else. The mind does not need a great deal of imagination to think out who leaked the document. In a sense the question of who leaked the document is of far less importance than the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition. Over the past couple of weeks we have had demonstrated very clearly the way in which this Government's grip over the economy is slipping and the way in which the major indicators are inexorably demonstrating to the Australian public that the economy is sinking into a far more recessed state than it has been in for a long time. An increasing number of the major economic indicators suggest that economic activity has eased and that a further major slowdown is in prospect for the coming year. That was vividly illustrated at Question Time today when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) whether he would confirm the promise made by the Treasurer only a couple of weeks ago that unemployment would not rise during 1986. We were treated to five minutes of waffle, the net effect of which was that the Minister was simply unwilling to answer the question. So we finally have it: The allegedly great jewel in the crown of the Government, the one thing that it thought it could lord over everybody was unemployment and employment figures. The Government has even gone to the trouble of making a special commercial, which has the theme of The Thieving Magpie, about the unemployment figures. We on this side of the House are indebted to the National Secretary of the ALP, Mr McMullen. When he launched this advertisement with great fanfare not only did he overlook the significance of the theme music, but also he made an absolutely memorable comment. When somebody said that he did not know that this campaign was coming Mr McMullen replied that the only reason no one knew it was coming was that the details of it were not given to the Federal Ministry. We are greatly indebted to the National Secretary of the Labor Party for that little sidelight into the attitude of the Labor Party organisation. I turn now to the check list of the major economic indicators. Nobody on this side of the House needs to be reminded that we are now experiencing the highest interest rates since 1928. They are destroying the livelihoods of thousands of farmers in Australia and the profitability of thousands of small businesses in Australia. Yet, despite this, this Government and the Treasurer will tell those same small businessmen and farmers that they have to pay a 3 per cent productivity rise into some safety net superannuation fund. Therefore, it is no wonder that if one goes around the non-metropolitan areas of Australia one is told that there are no circumstances under which many farmers and small business people will be forced to pay that 3 per cent productivity rise. That is a very understandable reaction by many of those people. We have the highest real interest rates and the highest nominal interest rates for 50 years and, in reality, they are the highest real interest rates in the Western industrialised world at present. That is not a bad achievement from the people who parade their economic brilliance, from the Treasurer who pretends to the Australian public about his economic brilliance! He has managed to give us the unenviable record of the highest interest rates in the Western world. That is a record about which we can be really proud; that is something in which he can really wallow. He can go back to Sussex Street and tell people about his great performance on interest rates. Of course we also have inflation. A year ago we were regaled about inflation. We were told how brilliant the Government had been in getting down the rate of inflation. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) nods his head about how brilliant the Government has been in bringing down the rate of inflation. Our inflation rate now is 8.2 per cent on an annual basis. That is double the inflation rate of our major trading partners; it is more than treble the inflation rate of our best customer-Japan-and it is occurring at a time when the inflation rates of Japan and Germany, according to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast, are heading for zero. We have taken a decision not to pass on the full benefit of the fall in the price of oil, which will make our competitive position even worse. So the Treasurer's record on interest rates is almost equal to his record on inflation. Yet this man still parades the achievements of his Government over the past three years. I come to the absolute pinnacle of achievement by the Treasurer, and that is the current account deficit. One really scales the mountain and gets to the top of the hill dealing with the Treasurer when it comes to the current account deficit. We all remember the predictions. The trouble is that the records are full of predictions and irrational statements about the economy that will come back to haunt the Treasurer, none more than his predictions about the current account deficit. This is what he had to say to the Canberra Times on 14 June 1985, which is not even a year ago; As we move through 1985-86 we can expect to see the trade balance getting better and the current account deficit also coming down. I repeat that on 14 June 1985 the Treasurer said that the trade balance was getting better and that the current account deficit was coming down. The reality is that we are headed towards a current account deficit at an annual rate of $14.5 billion. The Treasurer who promised us a current account deficit of about $10 billion when he brought down the Budget is now heading towards a current account deficit of about $14.5 billion. On the current account deficit front this Treasurer's performance is well and truly matched. Not content with giving us the highest interest rates, the worst current account deficit and an inflation rate that is more than double that of our trading partners, the Treasurer is now having a go at the national debt. When it comes to the national debt this Treasurer is not too bad either. He has given us a national debt which is worth $4,500 for every man, woman and child in Australia. The national debt has soared to $70 billion over the three years that he has been Treasurer of this country. In the time that he has been Treasurer, the progressive depreciation of the Australian dollar has added enormously to the level of the national debt. It is really very important that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is here as he has a great interest in the Australian manufacturing industry. Last week the manufacturing production index for the December quarter fell by 0.7 per cent. It is the first fall in that index recorded for about six or nine months. On the employment front-the great jewel in the crown of the Labor Party, the great thing to which it was always going to be able to turn-the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has said, in effect, that unemployment is going to go up in 1986. On every conceivable indicator the Australian economy is performing far less well than the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said it is performing and would perform. Both men deserve to be criticised and indicted by this Parliament and by the Australian public. There are things that can be done. For a number of months the Opposition has been saying that the Government does need to make a switch-it needs to switch from excessive reliance on interest rates; it needs a May mini-Budget; it needs to make expenditure cuts of a type that it has never made before; and it needs to change its wages policy. For openers, the Government ought now to be going to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and arguing for an abandonment of the productivity case. It ought to be saying to the Arbitration Commission that in the present circumstances of the Australian economy there is no way on earth that Australia can afford that productivity case. The Government ought to be saying to the struggling small businesses of Australia that it is going to take the burden of the prospect of that productivity case off their shoulders. However, do honourable members think there is any hope that this Treasurer or this Prime Minister is going to do that? Of course they are not going to do that. The Opposition has been saying for months that there ought to be a change. Ever since we went into opposition we have been arguing against a wage fixation policy that argues for automatic full indexation of wages. Even some people who are normally supportive of the Government's economic policies are now conceding that a switch from the excessive reliance on interest rate policy towards a more sensible wages policy and towards a more sensible Budget policy is absolutely necessary. For good measure, the Government ought to throw in an abandonment of the anti-investment elements of the tax package. We now have the ridiculous situation of the Prime Minister saying that he is going to Washington to plead for Australia's farmers. Everybody on this side of the House will wish him well and everybody will want him to do well on behalf of Australia's farmers. However, he does not go there in a very strong bargaining position. He is going to ask the American Administration to go easy on Australian farmers, yet he is about to dump on the Australian farming community new and punitive taxation in the form of a capital gains tax and all manner of other anti-rural taxation measures. The Prime Minister would go to President Reagan with a lot more conviction, a lot more credibility and a lot more persuasion if before he left Australia he dumped the anti-rural element of the taxation package. If the Prime Minister really wants to go to the United States with a bit of wind in his sails on that subject, if he does not want to go there in a glass cage, I think he would do very well to take that piece of advice. These changes to economic management, along with a very significant change in foreign investment policy so that we could shift the reliance from borrowing and towards direct investment, are changes that the Opposition has been arguing for months that this Government ought to undertake. For months the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have gone around Australia saying: `Everything is terrific. Everything is okay. Our sails are set for growth. We are breaking all records. We are the greatest economic managers this country has ever seen'. The reality, as revealed by a mole in their own ranks, is that the Australian economy is far from well. We have the highest interest rates in 50 years. We have an unacceptable level of inflation. We have a soaring national debt. We have an enormously difficult balance of trade situation. We have a J curve that simply is not arriving. Even the great jewel in the crown of the Labor Party, so it is claimed-the employment figures-are starting to go bad. We have the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations admitting that in 1986 unemployment is going to rise. We need a change of course economically. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.56) —I was amused to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) speaking in this debate about the current account deficit. He lectured us about the current account deficit and how we said it would come in at 4.6 per cent of gross domestic product whereas it is now likely to be higher. It is likely to be higher. It will probably be in the order of 5 per cent. He forgot to mention-I am quoting from the Budget Papers of this year-that in 1981-82 when he was Treasurer he had a current account deficit of 6 per cent of GDP. That is well ahead of the prevailing level of the current account deficit. That 6 per cent of GDP is actually the core of the problem the Government is currently dealing with. The problem we are dealing with is the legacy of the former Government-the legacy of the Fraser-Howard years. The current account deficit imbalance which was evident in those days and which only declined in 1982-83 because the economy was in recession is the core problem that the Government is now facing; that is, the Government is in fact moderating demand in the economy to make the domestic economy accommodate our external position, to accommodate the balance of payments constraint. Why is there a balance of payments constraint upon Australia? It is because our manufacturing structure was destroyed in John Howard's period as Treasurer of the former Government. It was destroyed because of a wage explosion in 1981-82 under policies that he still advocates. It was destroyed because of the erratic application of monetary policy. It was destroyed because there was no consistency of fiscal policy. It was destroyed because the previous Government thought it would take the easy option of relying upon some international resources boom which would ease them of their problem without trying to do something about rebalancing the Australian economy and without trying to find a happy balance between the manufacturing, secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy and the primary export sector. But, no, it was a case of the previous Government not worrying about international competitiveness, not floating the exchange rate, keeping the dollar overvalued because it did not have an anti-inflation policy, making manufacturers uncompetitive and letting imports flood in wrecking Australian jobs and industry as someone would come along with another coal truck to lift another ton of coal and we would be okay. That was the problem and that is the legacy which was left to this Government. The fact is that this Government is now grappling with the last massive imbalance left to it-that is, in the current account deficit, in the external trading policies of this country. We have grappled with the massive levels of unemployment. We have grappled with the massive Budget deficits of the Commonwealth. We are now grappling with the last remaining major imbalance-the current account deficit. But the root cause of the problem goes back to the 30 years of coalition policy, to the fact that those opposite could not operate a tart shop, much less try to manage a sophisticated industrial economy. They were prepared to turn the Australian economy into a common agrarian economy, a third world economy, selling nothing but food products and unprocessed minerals. That is what they were happy to do. They were not worried about the domestic structure of our manufacturing base, our employment base or our service sector. Those opposite kept the financial structure and the exchange rate regulated because they were operating totally in a policy vacuum. We have had a dramatic decline in the terms of trade since last August's Budget which will affect the current account deficit to at least about $750m this year. Of course, that amount will be added to the current account in excess of that predicted by the Government at the time of the Budget's formulation. The fact is that there is no help for this Government and this country from the rest of the world. When the former Treasurer was running around in 1982 saying `the world has left us behind' it had not left Australia anything like as far behind as it has left us now with prices of all major commodities flagging-oil prices, coal, cereal prices and a lot of non-ferrous metal prices. This Government is wearing not only the policies of adjustment of the economy over the last 20 years, but also this massive decline in the terms of trade. Not only do we bear the burden of the Fraser-Howard inheritance on the current account deficit, but also in terms of the trade decline. It is very interesting that the criticism is that the Government should be relaxing monetary policy to keep all guns blazing in the domestic economy when we are trying to deal with the problem that was created by the coalition. The coalition now advises us to relax monetary policy prematurely so as not to worry about the imbalance on the external account-an imbalance which it left to us. Talk about gratuitous advice; having left us the problem it is trying to tell us how to create another problem. The fact is that the policy mix at the moment is entirely and appropriately balanced, that is, in 1985-86 we have had a dramatic decline in the Budget deficit from 3.3 per cent of gross domestic product last year to 2.1 per cent in prospect for this year. In terms of wages, we had an average weekly earnings outcome for the year to September of 4 per cent. Over this financial year it will be just under 6 per cent, which is comparable with that of most industrial countries. So in fiscal and wages policy we have an appropriate balance. There was also an appropriate balance in monetary policy. As we have had a terms of trade deterioration which has brought pressure on to the exchange rate, along with the strength of domestic demand which is running ahead of the Budget forecast, the Government tightened monetary policy towards the end of last year. The market has already brought down the bill rate by about 3 percentage points in the last three or four weeks. The Government validated those falls in the market under official policy. The point remains that there has rarely been a better balance in policy by a government dealing with the requirements of growth and, at the same time, with the external imbalance, as we see now in the current fiscal, monetary and wage policy outcomes. This is in very marked contrast to what we would expect from the other side of the House. In respect of budgetary policy, the coalition at the moment has no policy whatsoever. Considering the Opposition's current budgetary policy we find that the former Treasurer wants tax cuts but no new tax raising measures, at a cost of $800m in the next financial year and $1,500m in the year after. The former Treasurer demands that the Government pass on the full petrol price cut of $1,200m which is to be carried on the Budget. He supports the abolition of the assets test, lump sum superannuation tax and sales tax on wine, totalling another $280m. That makes no allowance for his income-splitting proposals which would add $2,980m to the Budget. To hold a line on the Budget deficit, which he urges on us, he too would have to save $1,400m. So that is $1,400m on top of the $2,980m which is about $4.4 billion without income-splitting. That is the fiscal policy of those opposite that they will not pay for tax cuts. They will put $1,500m on the deficit. They want to give $1,200m in oil price money back to the people and on top of that they say: `We want a deficit outcome lower than yours'. So we must implicitly accept the $1,400m task that the Government is taking on board. At this moment, those opposite are about $4.4 billion above what they should be to run a decent fiscal policy. When the Leader of the Opposition, as Deputy Leader, spoke at the Press Club last year two weeks before he was elected leader, he said: Expenditure restraint is a task for the politically courageous. There are few easy options. Nevertheless, it is important that this operation be undertaken at all levels of government, Federal, State and Local. He went on: I believe that there is an obligation on the coalition not only to talk of the general desirability of expenditure reduction, but also to specify some of the decisions that will need to be taken. He continued: If you are going to be honest about it and you want to bring about major tax cuts in on-going recurrent expenditure, you have to look at politically sensitive areas. I mean there is a limit to how much you can save by sacking bureaucrats, making everything work better and more efficiently. These are remarks made in late 1985 at the Press Club by the Leader of the Opposition. He is now saying that it would be an atrocity. On the Sunday program he said: It would be crazy to be drawn from a political point of view into a specification of things in the middle of this issue and divert attention from the Government's dilemma. If that is a straight political answer, I plead guilty. That is coalition fiscal policy. This brave, courageous character was going to rip into our outlays and tell us where they were to be cut. Instead we have a $4.4 billion credibility gap on fiscal policy between the coalition and the Government. Those opposite are saying that they will provide no Budget specificity whatsoever in terms of expenditure cuts. Yet they tell us that we should change policy. Running the Commonwealth is about running economic policy. It is about a decent anti-inflation policy-a wages policy as part of that-and fiscal policy. Those opposite have no credibility on fiscal or wages policy. In the same Press Club speech we see a radical alternative. The leader said: . . . time has arrived . . . The most important economic battleground that Australia will enter over the next five to 10 years . . . We now find that that great deregulator, the nirvana of a free market system for wages, has gone back to one of a minimum wage and some change to work practices. There is no downward wage flexibility, it is all upward flexibility. That is why the coalition was shown the door at the Business Council of Australia meeting because the Business Council understands what upward wage flexibility means. It means that profits are ripped to bits. It has only taken them 15 years to get the profit share up, and for this Government to deliver it for them. Do those opposite think that the Council will take on board a group of individuals with an ill-defined policy about wages which has upward wage flexibility but no downward wage flexibility? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) is reported in the Bulletin this week to have said: The overwhelming bulk of wage fixing will continue to be done through the Arbitration Commission. The nirvana of free market for labour has been junked. The shadow Treasurer (Mr Carlton) said: Obviously, we will continue with the centralised wage fixation system as far as you can see into the future. Where do those opposite stand on anything? I will listen to them about wages, fiscal policy and monetary policy-all the things that matter. But they come here, after three years of record economic growth, 9 per cent employment growth, 608,000 jobs, the restoration of the profit share, the deregulation of all the financial markets and a pick-up in investment and say that we should change policy to their way. If we changed policy to their way, we would end up where they are-in opposition. The policy outcomes from this Government are in marked contrast to those we are likely to see from the Opposition. The Opposition has no credible fiscal policy. It has not a shred of credibility now on wages policy. Without credibility on those two issues, it cannot parade itself as an alternative and credible government. That is simply a fact of life. Everybody in the business community knows it. Whether they carry a Liberal Party ticket in their pocket or not, they will see their profits slashed by the Opposition. They will not have the Opposition back in government. That is why the Business Council of Australia showed the Opposition the door on 3 February. The fact is that we are not being deterred from our policy path. As the Prime Minister and my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations (Mr Willis) said today, this will be a year of moderation of growth, to accommodate the external imbalance, to accommodate the fact that the coalition left us with one of the biggest external imbalances in the Western world, that it decimated our manufacturing structure and that our import competing capacity was simply obliterated in the years to 1983. We are rebuilding and rebalancing the Australian economy and no cheap jibes from the Opposition will deter us from that course. Certainly no policy prescriptions at this stage coming from the Opposition would give us one moment of rethinking about the course of Government policy. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.12) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating), by his own admission-I will refer to that shortly-knows that Australia is in grave economic circumstances. He has taken exactly 15 minutes of this Parliament's time to give us a political solution, to try to convince Australians that everything is all right. Why does he say that things are all right? He says it because he thinks that someone else might have done a worse job or might do it differently. But that is not what we are on about. We are on about whether the Treasurer can run the country, and now. History shows that he cannot do that. It is amazing that today he says it is all someone else's fault. But, in the 1985-86 Budget Speech, the Treasurer said: In summary, tonight's Budget builds upon Labour's first two Budgets. It was all his fault then but, as the heat goes on and he discovers that things are not as they should be, he wants to blame someone else. That is no help whatsoever to Australia. Australia wants help; small business wants help; and they want it now. What are the sorts of things the Treasurer told us six months ago in his Budget Speech? He said: This Budget lays the foundation for another year of strong growth. ... ... ... We have fulfilled our historic trilogy of budgetary commitments. ... ... ... We have spelt out our determination to seek a modification of the current wage fixing arrangements . . . Of course, that one was thrown out literally days after the promise was made. He also said: We have introduced a major new policy package for youth. I think that is called Priority One. He also said: We have provided a significant support package for Australia's primary producers. They are still looking for it. He also said: Mr Speaker, this is a budget for growth. Then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he wrote a little note to the Ministry, soon to be the shadow Ministry. A newspaper article states: . . . Mr Keating issued a blunt warning to his Cabinet colleagues yesterday that the economy would run into serious problems . . . ... ... ... . . . tax receipts this financial year will break through the Government's trilogy ceiling. It calculated that the tax take in 1985-86 would total 59.7 billion-$1.1 billion above the Budget estimate and almost 14 per cent higher than last year. The Budget deficit on present projections will be $5.1 billion-$200 million above the target. That is with all that additional revenue. It continued: Mr Keating held out little hope of a further substantial fall in unemployment next financial year. ... ... ... He argued for a stronger emphasis on budget restraint because there were no other options left: Although there had been some fall in interest rates recently, there was a risk present levels would slow the economy too much and damage long term investment prospects. . . As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just told us, the task of substantially reducing Australia's external or current account deficit will be both difficult and protracted. That was not our problem a little while ago. Now that it has been pointed out to the Treasurer that, as part of his debt led recovery, we have major problems with our current account deficit, he wants to tell us that ours was worse. But of course the figures are meaningless. He has to look at what people were buying back in the days of the Fraser Government. People were buying equipment to open up great new coal mines. People were buying the sorts of things from which Australia could profit. Every business knows that it can go into debt provided that, in doing so, it is to produce new income. Our overseas balances then were not for video recorders and flash motor cars, as they are at present. That is the big difference. Australia was going into debt to grow. Now, Australia is going into debt for an overseas holiday. That will not work. It is not right and it is improper for the Treasurer to come in here and try to excuse the damage that he has done to the Australian economy in a political sense. The situation is serious and must be attended to straight away. I have looked at the different papers that he has presented; I have just read from two. What I find most significant is that the promise that is always kept is that relating to the size of the Federal deficit. He has not broken that promise once. In fact in 1983 he promised a record of $8.3 billion and brought it in at $8 billion. In 1984 he promised a deficit of $6.7 billion and, by George, he got it exactly right; it was $6.7 billion. In 1985 he promised $4.9 billion and brought it in at $5.1 billion with additional revenue. Of course what we are not told is that one of his great economic achievements in the 1984-85 Budget was to go to the Reserve Bank of Australia and borrow $3.4 billion of his $6.7 billion deficit. What did that mean? That meant that he was printing money. When he printed money, the money supply ran away from him and that is why he had to come back with his tight monetary policy to try to suck it up. Let us look at what has happened to the interest charges of the Federal Government. I am sure the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will be interested to know that interest charges have gone from $3,378m in 1982-83 and being fifth place in the Budget to $6,724m and second place in the Budget. During that period, spending on education went from third place to fifth place. Expenditure on education, which roughly equalled interest charges when Malcolm Fraser left office, is now running nearly $2 billion behind. It is a great way to run the country when one spends more on interest than on such things as education! That is where this Government is at. It has increased the interest cost by over 100 per cent but has increased expenditure on education in dollar terms by only 33 per cent. Interest now represents 10 per cent of total Budget expenditures. Of course, the Treasurer was at pains to tell us that too. This economy is being sustained by arrogant assertion and massive debt. It is interesting that, when we had an inflation rate of 2 per cent more than or double or treble that of different countries of the world, the Treasurer said to us: `Oh, it is all right. I told you it would be that'. That is his justification for things. He goes around with his arrogance and tries to convince people that things are good for them when they are not. To me the simple fact is that two and two still equals four. But for this Treasurer it equals any amount up to ten that he wants to make it when he struts around the countryside with his arrogance and his particular line of economics. Let us look at the reality of our debt led recovery. Let us remember that this Government has had $20,000m of debt in the three years that it has been in office. Let us remember that in seven years Malcolm Fraser had $17.6 billion of deficits. This Government has had $20 billion in three years. In fact, if we add the figures for the Whitlam Government, it goes up to $26 billion. If we discount the wonderful growth for the Government borrowings of the last few years, we find we have a growth rate of minus 2.5 per cent; there has been no growth at all other than in the money that the Treasurer has been pumping into the economy with his deficits and in encouraging Australians to spend on the wrong sorts of items. Let me return for a minute to the legacies of the former Government. Was it not interesting to see the Treasurer a minute ago tell us that it was all our fault that wages blew out? That is one of his great statements. But I have done some reading recently and I find that Mr Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions now proudly says to us: `I engineered the $40 metal trades rise to bring down the Fraser Government'. That is his great claim, yet we get blamed for it. Why is that? The one time President of the Australian Labor Party, R. J. L. Hawke, and others cooked up a scheme. `Don't worry about the people, don't worry about the Australian economy; if we can win the election we can destroy them, just don't worry about it', they said. That is what they set out to do. Now we have the 3 per cent productivity case, and there is a lesson in this for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If the new President allows the forces that the Government imposed on the old President to go ahead, I confidently predict that it will be the end of the Arbitration Commission. Honourable members opposite talk about our policy. At least our policy will save the Commission because we will co-operate with small businesses. We will give them the opportunities they want and which they now demand. If the Government does not do that and it forces the new President into making the type of deals that the Government has made with Kelty and others, people will just walk away from the Commission. Statements have been made in the media today; I have them here in considerable numbers. Mr Hay, who attended a meeting of 2,000 small businessmen, said: In the case of the superannuation issue we'll simply take a leaf out of the unions book and defy the Commission . . . We have always worked within the legal system but when a law is very bad the public won't stand for it. We don't intend to let an Arbitration Commission destroy this country. It is not the Arbitration Commission; it is a Government, a Treasurer and the ACTU getting together and trying to subvert the proper role of the Commission. If the Government is not prepared to stop that it will destroy the Commission, and it must be on the Commission's head if it lets the Government do that. It knows the rule; section 40 refers to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.22) —In March of 1983, the Australian people, in a very wise decision, brought to an end seven years of economic devastation in Australia. Those years of economic devastation were responsible for bringing about the greatest mauling that the Australian economy had ever experienced at the hands of any Treasurer, at the hands of any Government. The previous Government was responsible for devastating the Australian economy and laying vast tracts of the Australian economy to waste. Who was the architect of those circumstances? None other than the honourable member for Bennelong, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who has presented for discussion as a matter of public importance today: The urgent need for a major change in the direction of economic policy to avoid further damage being done to the Australian economy. It is most amusing that the Leader of the Opposition, the architect of those devastating economic policies, should suggest that he has anything to offer this Government as far as economic thinking and economic policy are concerned. In March of 1983 we inherited a situation in Australia in which unemployment had reached double figures; it had reached 10.4 per cent of the total work force. In one year alone, the last year of the previous Government, unemployment increased by a quarter of a million people-750 people every day, day after day for 12 months. The architect of those policies is the present Leader of the Opposition, who now comes into this chamber and suggests that he has something to offer to this Government following its magnificent success in bringing about an economic reversal, in bringing about economic revival and in its first three years increasing employment by 608,000 jobs. We all remember the response of our conservative opponents when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that commitment to the Australian people before the elections of March 1983. They laughed. They laughed because they did not believe that any government could achieve such magnificent successes. We said we would create half a million new jobs in three years. Not only did we create half a million new jobs in three years but also we did it with five months to spare. Despite the guffaws of our opponents in March 1983, when they said it could not be done, when the three years were up we exceeded that number by another 108,000 jobs. There are people in the Australian community today who owe the very existence of their jobs and their security and dignity to the magnificent successes of this Government's economic management. We inherited 11.5 per cent inflation, and a situation in which the previous Government had relegated to below the poverty line three million Australian citizens, including 800,000 children. Over 5,000 bankruptcies, quite apart from business liquidations, were taking place every year. Economic growth had become negative and interest rates were the highest on record. As well, the Fraser-Howard Government can take credit for the fact that during its term it was estimated that $7,000m every year was being ripped off the Australian Treasury, ripped off the Australian Government, by tax evaders and avoiders. Members of that Government now have the hide, the audacity, the arrogance and the impertinence to come into this chamber and suggest that they can offer some form of significant and useful advice to this Government on economic management. I want to make special reference to the claim being peddled at present by our opponents about the level of interest rates. When the Leader of the Opposition led for the Opposition in this matter of public importance he said that interest rates in Australia are the highest since 1928. He said that they are the highest now for 50 years. That simply is not correct. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not correct and I will now prove that it is not correct in order to lay to rest once and for all this lie being peddled around the nation about the level of interest rates in Australia. Let us take a couple of indicative, or representative, interest rates and see what the position is. To a large extent the claims of the Opposition hang together on this claim about the level of interest rates; so, if it is wrong on that claim, it is wrong on the rest. Let us take interest rates on 10-year government bonds and on 90-day bank bills. I do not think anyone would deny that they are representative interest rates. Mr Braithwaite —What about real interest rates? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will come back to the honourable member in a minute. In June of 1979 the interest rate on 10-year bonds was 10 per cent. One year later, in June 1980, still during the term of the previous Government, the interest rate on 10-year bonds was 11.76 per cent. Twelve months later it was 13.15 per cent and in June of 1982, the end of the last full financial year of that Government, the interest rate on 10-year bonds was 16.4 per cent. What is the rate today? It is 13.4 per cent. Since June of 1982 the interest rate on 10-year bonds has fallen from 16.4 per cent to 13.4 per cent. What happened to the interest rate on 90-day bank bills? In June 1979, under those brilliant economic managers in government before us, the interest rate on 90-day bank bills was 10.35 per cent. In June of 1980 it was 13.85 per cent; in June of 1981, 16 per cent; and in June of 1982-again the end of the previous Government's last full financial year-the interest rate was 18.75 per cent. What is the interest rate on 90-day bank bills this day? It is 16.6 per cent. So for 10-year bonds the interest rate has fallen by three percentage points and it has dropped by two percentage points for 90-day bank bills. What has happened with housing loan interest rates? Mr Goodluck —They went up with you. Mr ROBERT BROWN —We will see whether they did. The honourable member for Franklin claims that mortgage interest rates went up under us. Let us look at that and see whether it is correct. That is the sort of claim honourable members opposite are peddling. If I can disprove that claim, perhaps the honourable member for Franklin will not make it again. In June 1979, under the previous Government, the interest rate was 9.5 per cent for home buyers in Australia. One year later, in June 1980, it was 10.5 per cent. In June 1981 it was 11.5 per cent and in June 1982 it was 13.5 per cent, yet the honourable member for Franklin says that interest rates have gone up under us. They are still 13.5 per cent. Every time housing interest rates went up by one per cent as a result of the previous Government's policies that had the effect of transferring on average every year $300m from the pockets and pay envelopes of Australian families which were buying homes to the large financial institutions in Australia. From June 1979 until June 1982, under the management of the previous Government, those interest rates went up by 4 per cent. What does that represent? It represents for every year an additional transfer of $1.2 billion in interest out of the pockets, pay envelopes and weekly budgets of Australian families buying their homes and into the large financial institutions in Australia. Who were the magnificent architects of that sort of situation? It was the people who have been relegated to the Opposition side as a result of the outstandingly intelligent and enlightened decisions that the Australian people have now made on two occasions. Honourable members opposite have lost their credibility, if they ever had any credibility. We have again devastated those arguments that they have used and those spurious claims that they have made about the achievements of this Government. Let me say again that 608,000 people in the Australian community have jobs at present because of this Government. People in the Australian community are now able to look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm, a great deal of optimism and a great deal of faith in the capacity of this nation to provide for them, their children, their families and their friends and their communities the sort of progress and security that all Australians are entitled to have. This Government accepts that responsibility. This Government has delivered the goods and will continue to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The time for the debate has expired. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.33) —This debate is about an amendment to the Community Employment Act to extend the operation of the Act for a further three years from the middle of this year. When the debate was adjourned on the last sitting day I was saying that the community employment program is a supportive element of the Government's national economic strategy. The CEP has been an emergency response to a crisis situation. The 10 per cent level of unemployment which faced the Government when it won office demanded swift action. Unemployment does more than anything else to cause poverty, to destroy self-respect, to prevent people from making a contribution to the community in which they live and to cause social disruption of many kinds. Therefore, emergency action was required. The CEP is the largest and most ambitious short term job creation initiative ever undertaken by an Australian government. The principal goal of the program is to create additional employment opportunities to provide work experience for unemployed people. Providing employment opportunities for the long term unemployed redistributes some of the burden of unemployment. The program has aimed to increase the employability of those people who have experienced long periods of unemployment and who therefore find it hard to get back into the employed work force. The second goal of the program has been to provide financial support for projects of real community benefit. The need for the program continues because even though unemployment has fallen from over 10 per cent to less than 8 per cent under this Government, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) so eloquently showed, there are still over 180,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year and the median duration of unemployment is still 26 weeks. There is a tendency for people with jobs, for those who are not looking for work, to forget that unemployment is still very high by Australian historical standards. In January 620,000 people were estimated to be unemployed. That means that 620,000 people are actively looking for work for that figure does not include those who have been so discouraged by a failure to get a job that they have stopped looking. Therefore, the need for the community employment program continues to be strong, and that is why the Government is extending the program for another three years in the Community Employment Amendment Bill. The results of the CEP are impressive. Since the program began in August 1983, 16,800 projects have been approved at a total cost of $970m. That outlay has provided jobs for 93,000 people. Over 250 of these projects have been within my electorate of Fraser and they have offered employment to over 1,200 people. In the electorate of Fraser, 52 per cent of the jobs have been for females, 11 per cent for disabled people and 16 per cent for migrants. Nearly 60 per cent of the jobs have been for the long-term unemployed. An impressive array of employing groups have sponsored the CEP projects. Both government and community groups have been among the sponsors. In Fraser, projects have included landscape construction, planting of a fuel wood forest, fire hazard reduction, an occupational health and safety experience program, training in computer skills, and activity in the arts and in community services. It is interesting to review the success of the CEP. The CEP has achieved significant success in increasing the employment opportunities of the long-term unemployed. Some projects funded under CEP have had more success than others. Evidence so far available suggests that job creation schemes are more successful when a number of conditions are met. For example, jobs for longer periods are likely to improve employment prospects for more than shorter jobs. CEP participants who work with unsubsidised employees are likely to learn more than those who work with other CEP employees. These results come from a survey done by the Bureau of Labour Market Research. It is important to look at these results so that in future the effectiveness of the CEP can be even further increased. Other conditions have contributed to the success of the CEP. The greater the degree of training offered the better the prospects of going on to permanent employment after participation in a CEP scheme. One of the best outcomes of CEP projects has been when participants are engaged permanently by the sponsoring organisation after the project ends, and that has happened quite commonly. In summary, preliminary evidence from research so far suggests that people who have participated in a CEP project have a considerably better chance of obtaining further employment than those who have not had that opportunity. Another of the useful outcomes of the CEP has been to identify areas of need for which permanent funding should be provided. Many community groups have planned innovative and experimental programs which have been successful and which now should be permanently supported. The CEP is a program aimed at coping with a crisis. It is not a permanent approach to employment creation. So as unemployment continues to fall it is essential that both the public and private sectors look at ways of increasing permanent employment opportunities. In this context it is worth noting that Australia has one of the smallest public sectors in the Western world and that many services provided in other Western countries are not yet adequately provided in Australia. So there is a high level of need for many kinds of community services, including improvements in health, education, child care, support for the aged, the arts and recreation. For example, Australia provides a relatively low level of support for the arts. This could be increased with benefit to both the cultural enrichment of the community and to employment opportunities. Most of the growth in employment during the last decade has been in services and it is likely that we will have to continue to look at the provision of human services as the area where the majority of people entering the work force will be employed. Before I conclude, I make one broad point about global employment creation which is centrally important and which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. That proposal is starting to be accepted by Western countries and by Australia as well. It envisages that Western countries as a group should co-operate in co-ordinated reflation of their economies. All countries are interdependent. When unemployment is high in one country, it also tends to be high in others. When many countries are simultaneously depressed, that reinforces depression everywhere; but when countries simultaneously stimulate their economies, that is mutually reinforcing and economic growth occurs more naturally and in a more sustained way. This is a lesson of the fifties and sixties when there was implicit commitment to the goal of full employment in all Western countries. In the seventies the mutually reinforcing full employment strategies of the earlier decades gave way throughout the Western world to beggar-my-neighbour deflation. One country's attempts to restrain demand so as to reduce inflation reduced growth of its imports, causing falls in demand for exports from other countries. Mutually reinforcing deflation became entrenched. One effect of unco-ordinated attempts by single countries such as France, the United States of America and Australia-Australia is notable for the success of its attempt so far-to break out of slow growth using expansionary fiscal policy has been to cause them deficits in their current account balances. At present there are well over 30 million unemployed people in Western countries. Co-ordinated expansionary policies would increase the rate of economic growth in all co-operating countries without such a threat of balance of payments problems. In particular, a fiscal stimulus is needed in Japan and Western Europe, and if this occurred in conjunction with a relaxation of monetary policy in the United States, economic growth throughout the Western world would rise. Co-ordinated action of this type is not pie in the sky; it has started to occur. The five major Western governments met in New York last October and decided to intervene in each other's exchange markets, with the goal of reducing the value of the United States dollar. They succeeded in that goal. Similarly, on Thursday and Friday of last week four of those five governments agreed to reduce interest rates on prime official borrowing by 0.5 per cent, and again they succeeded in doing that. This growth of co-ordinated economic policy by Western governments offers the best hope of pulling the global economy out of the current recession. Such action would assist Australia by increasing the volume, and perhaps the price, of our exports and a similar affect would be felt by all other countries. The result would be a gradual reduction of unemployment in all those countries. The principal requirement for this approach to be adopted is a recognition of the desperate seriousness of the appalling level of unemployment in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and the will to use policies which will ease the problem. The Hawke Labor Government has shown that it has had that will. Australia is setting an attractive example to other countries. This Bill to extend the community employment program for another three years is an integral part of the Government's national employment strategy. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.44) —A large number of honourable members have already spoken on the Community Employment Amendment Bill and I would like to add a few words on this legislation. Many honourable members have dealt with projects which have been initiated within their own electorates. A few honourable members have condemned the program and others have praised it. Everybody has voiced concern about the overall unemployment position throughout Australia, and particular attention has been drawn to the fact that there has been no great decrease in the number of people seeking to become members of the work force. The Bill will extend the community employment program for another three years, at a cost of a billion dollars. The program was initiated three years ago for the purpose of injecting funds into communities throughout the Commonwealth, particularly in areas where there was a great lack of work. All honourable members know the program and have been involved in giving support to many local projects which have been placed before the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for consideration. I believe that the main consideration on the part of taxpayers is that productive work is undertaken. Productive work can be summed up in many ways. Work can be productive in terms of bricks and mortar and in many other fields, including the arts; work can also be productive in regard to Aborigines. I agree with the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) that the main drive of the scheme should be a productive effort to benefit our nation. When people visit my office seeking aid or support of one kind and another, I sometimes feel like saying that we should go out on the street and stop somebody who is walking along the footpath. Perhaps that person should be asked whether it is fair that taxpayers' money should be paid to support a certain person or project within the area. This is an aspect that we in Australia have ceased to look at to a great degree as there is only a certain amount of money to go around. Although I support the legislation and believe in the need to create employment-a desperate need in many communities-I believe it is a useful scheme, but naturally the program can be criticised in many ways. It can be criticised on the grounds that many unproductive projects have been undertaken. Such projects will always be criticised by the public, and rightly so. The latest figures in my electorate point to an increase in the number of people seeking work. In the Taree district in the area covered by the Greater Taree City Council, one sees that at the end of the quarter to December 1984, 3,706 males were unemployed. Today that figure has risen to 4,013. In the period to December 1984 there were 1,522 females unemployed; in the 1985 quarter to December the figure is 1,669. It can be seen that in that year there has been an increase in unemployment affecting 454 people. The figures can be broken up into categories. In the category 15-19 years, there were 1,023 unemployed at the end of December 1984; 1,201 at the end of December 1985. That is an increase of approximately 180 young people in that age span. Admittedly that figure relates to the end of the school term, but it is interesting to note that in the 20 to 24 year age range there were 1,292 unemployed in 1984 compared to the same number at the end of 1985. In the 25 to 44 year group there were 2,064 unemployed at the end of 1984 compared with 2,278 at the end of 1985-a substantial increase. In the range of over 45 years of age there were some 849 unemployed persons compared with 911 at the end of 1985. It is interesting to examine the age groups concerned. I am concerned not only for the younger people, but I wish to draw attention to people within the 25 to 44 year age group and those over 45. Such people face great difficulties when finding themselves unemployed. It is damaging to their character and outlook on life that they are not able to go out into the work force and obtain work. Perhaps they have worked for the council, in an engineering firm, on the farm or somewhere else. They might not be skilled persons, but they are people who want to work and who want their families to be dependent upon them. They want to be the breadwinner of the family. It disturbs these people. I make a special plea for this type of person, those in their late thirties, in their forties or their fifties, and even those in their early sixties, who have made a contribution and who have raised and are raising a family and want to get into the work force but are unable to obtain a job. I wonder whether we, as governments or oppositions, are doing our utmost, in a sensible way, to try to give incentives to encourage and help these people to enter the work force. Many young people aged from 15 to 19 years are not going on to technical education or to university and expect to go into the work force, to work in shops, to become apprenticed, or to work in timber mills or in coal mines. This situation is certainly disappointing for them. But this is the important thing: Surely there is more that we can do to help to train these young people to become skilled tradesmen of some kind. Some present policies are actual deterrents to this. One factor that has been spoken about consistently in this Parliament is the fact that an employer will not employ a person in that age group if he must pay them the award wage to which they are entitled, as compared with the employment of a skilled person to carry out almost the same job. So it is that for ever and ever-I hope that it will always be the case-we should pay a wage that will be an incentive for people to work well and to be productive. Any employer, if he wants to see results in a business, will employ a person that he knows can carry out the work. It is unfortunate that young people in the 15 to 19 years group who are endeavouring earnestly to get work are unable to get it principally because the wages that the employer must pay them are far too great. I talk with a little group of International Year of Youth unemployed people once a month in my electorate office. They are very divided. They say: `Right, yes, as long as we can get a job'. Some people say: `The unemployment relief is far too high; it does not encourage people to get job'. That is true in many respects. We must look at that and be aware of it. Australia is a very generous country. For how long we can continue to afford to be generous, I would not know. But the economy will be a measuring stick with this, and we see that it is under way with the present lapse in the economy. However, we must tackle the problem of unemployment, and I believe that we can do so. Whilst I support the CEP, let me say that the answer to the problem is a revived economy. That is the only way in which our people can receive permanent employment. We must make commerce, industry and farming more prosperous in order that businesses can afford to employ people. The Government says: `We have got unemployment back to 8.1 per cent or 8.2 per cent'. That may be correct, but the Government has bolstered the employment figures by 50,000 or 60,000 people who are employed under the CEP. It should take out those figures and then see what the unemployment percentage is. From a realistic point of view, it is more likely to be about 10 per cent or 11 per cent. There is no improvement, basically, in long term job prospects for those seeking work. I reiterate that the only way in which we shall get that is to create an atmosphere in the economy in which industry, commerce and employers are able to employ people and train them. As every day goes by, young Australians are looking more and more to us, the people who represent them, to respond to their call. I come back to my own area to say that it is in country areas that the real effect of the falling economy is being felt. It is felt there more so than in the capital cities. It is felt in the provincial cities around our countryside, in smaller country towns and in seaside resorts. This is the important thing. I do not believe that our States, with the Commonwealth, are doing as much as they could do to encourage the decentralisation of industry. I served in the New South Wales Parliament for years, like my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). During that time we were able, with State government support, in the years 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972 and 1973, to encourage hundreds of industries out of metropolitan areas into favoured country towns where they could be supported. New industries were started up. People with initiative within a district who were willing to get in and employ people and to build a factory received the support of the local council and the State to do so. I can think of five or six. I refer to Brylite, an industry at Taree that started off manufacturing a connector plug to link cars and caravans. Now it is making parts for new Holden motor cars. It is employing over 200 people. Stan Bryant and his sons Ken and Ron and the family, joining together as a local enterprise, have shown just what can be done. They have also received support from the State. Speedo Knitting Mills moved to Taree. Today it employs about 130 or 140 unskilled ladies. They are working away in the factory and producing. It has created employment for unskilled people. Stebercraft Pty Ltd, the builder of boats, was also assisted to come to Taree. It was employing only 13 to 14 people and manufacturing a small boat, but then it turned towards manufacturing one of the better boats of the world today, a boat that is sought by countries in Asia and elsewhere, including New Zealand. It is building these 40 ft to 50 ft boats and employing 33 or 34 people. Landsdown Industries is employing about 150 people. Hot Tuna is another firm, a manufacturer of clothes. All of these businesses have been assisted to come into a community to create work. I do not believe that we are doing sufficient, through the Commonwealth or the States, to encourage this decentralisation and encourage initiative and help people to get down to doing things for the support of others so far as work is concerned. Coming back to the CEP, the Taree Scout Group got a CEP grant of about $60,000 to which it added $12,000 of its own. There are six of these groups in the Forster-Taree area. They built 60 canoes. They still have a few to sell. I went out on the river and had a ride in them, and so did the President of the Great Lakes Shire Council, Mr Parsons. We were there, as was the State member for the Gloucester electorate, and we all went for a ride. These are beautiful canoes. That is a practical scheme. That is what CEP can do for young people and scouting within the community. They built the canoes themselves. They had a committee. They had seven people employed. Today they are able to adapt themselves to the skills of canoeing. Canoeing is very important. We saw the work that was done during the last war in the islands of Borneo and the area with canoes. The building or renovation of country halls is a very good thing. Many of our little halls in the country are falling apart because there are no local funds to assist with maintenance. Today they can be the subject of an application under the CEP. If the requirements can be met, people can go ahead with repairs and so on. We have a new tourism office in Taree, sponsored to a great degree by the Commonwealth under the CEP. It is a very fine building indeed. It exists because money has been put into the community through the CEP. I am pleased with the way in which the departmental officers are able to adapt the CEP to the local conditions. I emphasise that the program must be very flexible. CEP projects must fit into the local requirements. I know that it is required that so many unskilled persons and so many females be employed. That is being done. It is working reasonably satisfactorily, from what we can see in the community. Approximately 50 per cent of those employed are female. Along with other members, I pay respect to people such as Mr Mark Raper, who is employed at the Lismore CEP office, and Mr Gavin Farley, who is employed at the Newcastle office. They are people one can talk to. They know the local conditions and try to fit the requirements of the CEP into them. Let me conclude by saying that the CEP is only a piecemeal measure. It is good because it employs people. It is keeping them active within the community. However, it is not solving this country's problem, the economic problem we talk about day after day in the Parliament. It is time we gave more attention to the program, knowing that $1 billion is to be spent, so that it will show something in return. It is time we looked at the situation in a more sincere way and tackled the real problem. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), talked of the possibility of selling more products to Asia and other parts of the world. I will tell honourable members and the people of Australia something. This country will not be able to continue to sell what we are presently selling whilst we have our present conditions of employment, rising costs, interest rates, balance of payments and national debt. We are competing with other countries which are selling their goods. We are importing into Australia too many goods-goods that can be made here because we are rich in natural resources. The trouble is that Australia needs a bit of fire in the belly. The countries with which we compete have a bit of fire in the belly. We have to realise that and be prepared to compete with them. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(5.03) —I am so pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on one of the most effective and practical pieces of legislation this Government has put into place. The Community Employment Amendment Bill 1985 will extend for another three years the community employment program which has given so many unemployed young people and middle-aged people the opportunity to get work skills and, most importantly, the opportunity to be taken from a depressing environment of hanging around the house or, in the case of young people, the local milk bar, disco or tavern and then turning up at the Commonwealth Employment Service and returning home, month after month, without being able to secure that elusive job. I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) join Government and Opposition members in praising, as he did, the program and the way in which it has been used beneficially within his electorate. As the honourable member says, the Government knows that long term jobs rest on the economic health of Australia. The entire leaning of the policies which this Government has put forward over the past three years has been in that direction, with the result that 608,000 extra jobs have been created. When we were last debating the Community Employment Amendment Bill in this place, I was concerned to hear the destructive comments of some Opposition members. I believe that those comments should be addressed. Opposition members should consider what they are doing when they trivialise a program which gives hope and status to people who in the past have had neither. Those honourable members who keep attacking the community employment program because, they say, it does not provide long term jobs and after a certain amount of work people are out looking for jobs again, either do not understand or are being deliberately mischievous in trivialising the importance of the program. In doing so, they are letting down our young people who need the hope that this program gives. The CEP is an alternative to the dole, to the unemployment benefit. It was not put forward as a project to lift the entire game of Australia, the entire economic front. Many other policies were brought forward to address that problem. The CEP exists to give experience to young people who are caught in a very bad situation. They come out of school at 17 to 18 years of age. They do not get a job. They keep turning up at the CES. When, at the age of 19 or 20 years, they apply for a position, as has been happening in the past, they are asked: `What experience do you have?'. They have not had the opportunity to have any experience, so they end up as part of that lost generation of 20-year-olds who were infamously called dole bludgers during the Fraser regime. The community employment program is giving those people the opportunity, for up to 12 months, to evaluate themselves, particularly young people who have never been given the opportunity, that we, the older generation, took for granted, of being able to go out into the work place and evaluate our own capabilities. Young people who have been denied that opportunity are having so much torn from them psychologically. The CEP has picked up these people, particularly the chronically unemployed, taken them out of the depressing scenario of trying to fill in time during the day and put them into a work place where they can productively occupy their time and assess their own capabilities. An extra advantage is that when they reach the end of the program they are then able to say, the next time they apply for a job: `Here is what I have done'. They can list their experience, give a reference from their employer and be given a foot forward in getting the long term job which they so much want. Above all, they are being given a feeling of self-worth. I think that alone justifies the community employment program. It is most important for people who are working amongst unemployed young people to explain, when the young people get into a CEP project, what the project offers, that is, experience for only a certain amount of time, so that they do not have hopes that the project will immediately lead into long term employment. That is 100 per cent better than giving people the unemployment benefit and then turning our backs on them, or than governments doing as the Fraser Government did in refusing to face up to the fact that there was an unemployment problem. The honourable member for Lyne also brought forward another related concern, that is, his concern about young people who want some type of training in the retail area, particularly young people of 16 or 17 years of age who are just out of school. I refer the honourable member to the Priority One: Young Australia youth traineeship program and suggest that, if he has not already done so, it would do him well to look beyond the destructive comments of Opposition members which have been running in newspapers and which paint Priority One as window dressing. The Priority One youth traineeship program has excellent potential, but it will not work unless adults in this society get behind it and make it work. The Government is offering a vocational traineeship program, which was a major recommendation of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs and which has been adopted after consultation between Federal, State and Territory governments, trade unions and youth organisations. Models for traineeships have been established in tourism and hospitality, the retail trade, banking and finance. Initially the scheme will be targeted at the 16 to 17 year-old age group. In 1985-86 the Federal Government is allocating $15.7m to the scheme but it will work only if concerned people in private enterprise will pull together and take advantage of what the Government is offering. The Government is offering an on-the-job training fee of $1,000 per trainee or $2,000 for disadvantaged trainees which is paid to employers for the 12-month period during which they take on a 16- or 17-year-old to train. Also, an off-the-job training fee of $1,700 per trainee is being offered to technical and further education colleges and $2,000 to other training institutions for that 12-month period. The successful implementation of youth traineeships will depend upon the joint involvement of the private sector and the Government. One of the crucial aspects of the traineeship program is the consultation and co-operation between all sections of the community. The success of the program depends on the extent to which the private and public sectors can combine to meet their intended obligations. Small businesses as a group are the largest single employer of Australians. It has been my experience that local business people are most concerned about unemployment but may not have been able to afford to appoint a trainee. Therefore, I invite any potential employer who is interested in helping a young person under the Priority One youth traineeship program to contact his local Federal member for further information. The extent to which Opposition members pick up the youth traineeship program, try to give information and get people to support it within their electorate will reflect just how concerned they really are about the gloomy prospects of young people who do not have a secure job. I would like to make just a couple of comments regarding marvellous projects which are under way in the electorate of Lilley. The most important thing about CEP is that it offers an alternative to unemployment benefit and hanging around filling in time for our young people. The other side of the coin is that the program also provides many excellent facilities for the community, remembering that the prime objective is to get young people into work, not to provide facilities. I have been privileged to be associated with a number of CEP projects undertaken in the electorate of Lilley. They have provided sporting, recreational, transport educational, cultural and environmental facilities to my constituents. Some 20 CEP projects have been approved in the electorate of Lilley since the introduction of the program in 1983, involving funding of $5,775,000 and creating 377 approved positions. Within this considerable employment generation there are clear trends which reflect and reinforce the success of the program at a national level. Of all CEP projects in the electorate of Lilley, 194 participants were women, which amounts to 35.7 per cent of the total number of placements, thereby approximately reflecting the national impact of the program on equal opportunity in employment. I was delighted to visit the Brisbane bicentenary sports entertainment centre, which is providing excellent facilities for the northern suburbs of Brisbane. We are delighted with the part the Federal Government has played in providing these facilities. It really was a delight to see young girls who had never been in positions of any description doing landscaping with a hoe, learning to lay pavements and doing a number of different jobs which they entirely enjoyed. Later they applied for positions and got long term employment with the Brisbane City Council. Other young people, girls who have been in office jobs in the past, have now found the delight of working out in the open and are able to vary the type of work which they are doing. It is well known from statistics that young girls and young women are affected the most in times of unemployment. The well known feminisation of poverty means that some of the poorest people in Australia are women and girls who are out of work. I was particularly pleased to see the part CEP played in getting young girls first of all into short term employment and later into long term employment. Also 89 positions were provided in the electorate of Lilley to disabled people. I am pleased to say that that figure is 5.3 per cent higher than the national figure. That is purely a parochial comment. I would be delighted to see a large number of disabled people in all electorates across Australia able to get jobs in the same way. Also evident is the proportion of long term unemployed. In the electorate of Lilley 65 per cent of placements were long term unemployed people. I am thinking, in particular, of the Brothers Rugby Union Club, which is providing sporting facilities to the electorate of Lilley. A middle-aged man who had been out of work for many years did the administrative management at the CEP project and he was very pleased to get out of the four walls of his home environment and be active again. Various types of structures and programs are being built. I am particularly pleased about the arrangements for the Bracken Ridge Family and Youth Support Group, whereby 100 per cent of the funding is spent on wages-100 per cent on manpower-to provide social workers who can go to low income families in need in the Bracken Ridge area. This shows the way in which the CEP can also blend in with the welfare and support commitments of this Government. The Brighton Bowling Club, Sandgate Australian Football Club, Sandgate State High School, Windsor senior citizens and a number of other different organisations are all benefiting from CEP in the electorate of Lilley. This reflects the way in which the CEP has been changing the face of Australia. Quite often the most effective programs are those that do not get the largest fanfare; they are not getting the headlines. Programs such as this are quietly offering hope to thousands of people who, before the programs were introduced, felt that they did not have hope. Not everyone can be the person with the bright smile and the winning ways who fronts up for a job and gets it. It is not fair when time after time some people are knocked back when they apply for a job. A few decades ago they would have been snapped up but now there is a pool of people who are called the chronically unemployed, or unemployable. No one is unemployable. It is up to a decent, humane society to make sure that there are opportunities for all people who wish to work. I know that we are looking at a number of different areas to ensure that work becomes self-generating in Australia. We are looking at the problems facing many nations in the 1980s. One of the most satisfying aspects of the business of government is in seeing policy actually having a visible effect at the grass roots level. The community employment program provides such a policy. It produces tangible results in both the employment of local constituents and the construction of projects for the benefit and use of the community. The word `community' in the title of the community employment program is indeed apt as it is at the community level that the considerable benefits of the program are fully felt. The community employment program allows for a constructive partnership between the community and Government which recognises shared goals and the means to achieve them. When this is happening at the community level, even if it does not get front page headlines, it is indicative of a healthy nation in every meaning of the word. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.20) —The Community Employment Amendment Bill before the House is, as speakers have said, a very important piece of legislation, both as the basis for an employment program which has offered full time but short-term work to tens of thous- ands of unemployed persons, but more import- antly for its potential to become a truly worthwhile program to give long term benefits to people who are currently unemployed. Previous speakers referred at some length to the numbers of jobs and placements which have been created by the existing program. They have referred to program costs and to survey data which suggest that the program has been significantly successful in achieving its specified objectives. My own examination of this subject and of the departmental survey data lead me to question that conclusion and, indeed, to suggest that in fact the program has not met its primary objective. Certainly, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has said, the program has created temporary jobs. Certainly it has placed many unemployed persons in those jobs but the program aimed for, and has so far failed to achieve, something far more worthwhile and something far more permanent. That aim was to provide training or work experience which gave the participants skills-I underline the word skills-of sufficient standard so as to assist them in their placement in permanent post-program employment. I would like to take the house back to the stated objectives of the program when it was introduced in this House in 1983. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech said that the objective was to directly assist the unemployed by creating jobs to provide the unemployed with the training-again I underline that word `training'-needed to fill the jobs which would be created through a sustained economic recovery. In that speech, the Minister stated: Projects will need to involve activities leading to productive output and permanent jobs, or provide services of permanent public and community value; projects will have to provide worthwhile work experience and/or training opportunities to enable participants to enter the normal work force. Priority was to be given in job placement to those who had been unemployed for at least nine months or who had never worked, with particular attention to disadvantaged groups. There can be no doubt at all that the Minister identified and in fact stressed that a fundamental objective was the need for the program to provide that training which would permit the participants to use those acquired skills in both obtaining and retaining permanent employment beyond the program, once they had been through the program. My personal experience of the community employment programs in my electorate suggest that this fundamental objective has not and is not being achieved to an extent that permits the Government to label the whole program significantly successful. While the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has conducted two post-program monitoring surveys, neither survey has addressed its analysis to the achievement of the objective so clearly highlighted by the Minister in introducing this legislation into the Parliament. Rather, the analyses addressed whether the program had been successful in meeting the much less ambitious objective of merely giving priority to placing long term unemployed persons in program employment. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley, who is now in the chair, in her contribution to this debate stressed that it was a good thing to have people outside working as gardeners and these sorts of things because it gave young women the chance to work in the open air, et cetera. I go along with that as far as it goes but I suggest that this is not really the main objective of the program as outlined to this House by the Minister at the time and should not be the main objective of a program which aims to train people and give them extra skills to enable them to obtain permanent work in the work force. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations report of November 1985 provides results of its 1984-85 post-program monitoring survey and is a lengthy and informative document. If we look at those sections which analyse program performance, and evaluation and monitoring, it shows that no attention has been given to a consideration of the training or work experience content of the program. The report has not analysed whether there has been the acquisition of worthwhile skills. It has not analysed whether those skills have assisted the participants in finding and retaining post-program employment. I do not think it is good enough simply to say that these people have had these opportunities and therefore they will have the opportunity of going into full term employment without conducting a real follow-up program to find out whether in fact skills have been acquired and whether those skills, if they have been acquired, have been useful in obtaining post-program employment. I have not seen any real evidence of that and I must say the evidence of programs in my own electorate suggests that the main objective really has not been achieved. I am very glad that the Government keeps members of parliament informed of approved community employment programs in their electorates. I find that very useful. I am glad that the Government does it and I hope that it continues to do it but looking through those advices for the last 12 months I find that a disturbingly high proportion of programs have been for work which at best involved only elementary skills and, in far too many cases, merely unskilled labouring tasks. I will give five examples. The first one involved four labourers for 26 weeks to clean undergrowth and remove noxious and nuisance weed infestations. The second one involved five labourers for 19 weeks to break out and remove concrete paving and kerbing. The third one involved four handypersons for 26 weeks to maintain gardens at community support centres. The fourth one involved 19 labourers for 26 weeks on the improvement of reserves to improve recreational opportunities. The fifth one involved one person for 39 weeks. That person was trained in caretaking and kitchenhand type work. Superficially one might consider this type of project to be productive and worthwhile, but I would suggest it is self-evident in these circumstances that the employment of handypersons and labourers to maintain gardens or to clear vacant land of bad weed infestation is not the most productive utilisation of those resources. While the projects last they undoubtedly show results-gardens are maintained and weeds are removed. However, what happens at the end of the project? What happens when the project ceases? Do the gardens and the vacant lands return to their pristine condition? Unfortunately and regrettably they probably do. I ask members of this House whether work which offers such elementary skills and flimsy goals can truly be regarded as productive and worthwhile. I have an instinctive perception that such menial tasks can almost certainly be completed in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost by the use of professionally trained people employing appropriate equipment. In other words, this Government in this area, as in so many other areas, is not making the most economic use of valuable revenue dollars. A cost benefit economist would have a field day amongst these projects and would almost certainly come to the conclusion that national resources are being used in a quite unproductive manner. Apart from that I believe that this type of superficial job creation is an insult to the integrity of unemployed persons. This Government is offering these people jobs which the participants quickly recognise are little more than an excuse for the Government to take their names off the unemployment list for several months. What of the fundamental objective of giving these people acquired training skills and work experience which creates opportunities for permanent post-program employment? The unemployment lists comprise largely young, unskilled or semi-skilled persons who are finding it difficult to obtain permanent long term employment because of the lack of those skills and related work experience. Their need is-I underline it again-for skills, training and experience which fits them out for the thousands of job vacancies advertised each week. The community employment program is simply not meeting these needs. The Government should realise that these young people do not need or want a community employment program which offers several weeks of temporary work requiring minimal skills, because the vast majority of them are willing and conscientious young Australians who would welcome the opportunity to achieve truly worthwhile skills in work which requires genuine application. A lot of them might enjoy a couple of weeks in the sun being paid to learn to chip concrete away or to dig up weeds but that really will not fit them for work or train them in any worthwhile way which will give them a strong belief that they have acquired skills, training or work experience which will make them attractive to people offering permanent employment. What is needed is not really a community employment program but a community retraining program which will provide this nation with a flow of technical and skilled persons to take Australia into the very exciting technology of the twentieth century. That is the real potential of the community employment program. That is what the unemployed should, in my view quite correctly, expect from such a program. That is certainly not what they are getting. I believe that this Government has failed to meet one of the most important objectives of the community employment program. It would seem that post-program monitoring has conveniently ignored this important objective in the program assessment studies. I appeal to the Government in future post-program monitoring surveys at the very least to check what I regard as this most significant aspect of the objectives of the program; that is, what has happened to the skill training and how much of that skill training has allowed people to move into permanent employment as a result of their experience in the CEP? The Government acknowledged in 1983 that it realised the importance of improving the employable skills of the long term unemployed. By failing to address that objective it is left with a scheme which unfortunately is insignificant in terms of meeting the real ambitions of almost 600,000 unemployed persons and, at the same time, the needs of this nation to have available to it a more highly trained and skilled work force. We are not simply looking at getting names off the unemployment lists or making it appear better for the Government. We are not simply looking at making political points. We are dealing with a great number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. They have been unemployed for long periods in the main because they have a definite lack of skills and little work experience. Does the program remedy those situations? On the face of it, it does not on a very great number of occasions. Therefore it is falling down in what should be-and according to the Minister, was-one of its most significant objectives. We are dealing with the future lives of a great number of Australians. They deserve more from this Government and from those who are framing the projects. They deserve the opportunity to improve their skills and to gain significant work experience because only by doing so will they have the opportunity to move forward into what is the objective of all of us-permanent long term employment. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.34) —Madam Deputy Speaker, you were the last speaker for the Government in this lengthy debate on the community employment program. I would agree with many of the very humane and compassionate points in favour of the community employment program that you and other speakers have made. Because it is the Government's chosen way of tackling the problem of long term unemployment, the Opposition does not oppose the Community Employment Amendment Bill which will renew the program for a further three years. Nevertheless, the Opposition presses the criticisms which speakers on this side of the House have consistently made. It is perhaps appropriate in the closing stage of the debate to summarise them. First, there is the very substantial cost of the scheme-more than $1 billion over the three years. That is an enormous investment for projects which increasingly are in many cases of very dubious worth-and for a total of about 87,000 short term jobs. I will not elaborate at this point but that order of spending has had its impact on the Government's deficit and in turn in restricting in some measure the development of sound private sector jobs. That is not a visible but an indirect effect. Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this to you directly because you stressed the importance of the visible practical effects of the scheme while this is an invisible but very real effect against the scheme. The second criticism is the limited success of the scheme in one of its primary stated objectives which my colleague, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), has just stressed-the objective of leading to permanent employment after the end of a person's time in the community employment program. The latest survey of the effects of the scheme, carried out in July last, shows that only 46 per cent of the participants in the program were in employment six months after leaving it. Moreover, for the long term unemployed, those which the program aims particularly to help, the position has deteriorated over the full period of the present Government. The second report of the community employment program points out: The number of persons unemployed for nine months or more rose by 5.2 per cent (10,800) in the two years to June 1985 . . . those unemployed two years or more increased by 48.8 per cent (37,300). In July 1983 the average duration of unemployment was 39.9 weeks. This increased to 47.8 weeks in 1984 and to 52 weeks in July 1985. The third major criticism is about the nature of the projects that have been financed under the scheme. There can be no doubt that the Government in a significant way has used the scheme increasingly to finance its favourite causes-frequently left wing causes-and to reward its friends, rather than to benefit the Australian community as a whole. I refer persons interested in this debate to comments by my colleagues the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) when this matter was previously debated on, I think, 20 February last. I trust that it would not be too selective if by way of contrast with some of the instances cited by government speakers, I mention some of those to which my colleagues referred. For instance, the Victorian Trades Hall Council received $81,640 to employ four people to catalogue industrial information. If that were not enough, it received a further $157,839 for 12 people to work for eight months on `a trade union art and working life program'! The People for Nuclear Disarmament group received $78,482 to employ five people on a peace bus project. On top of that it was given $15,392 to employ one person on disarmament education. The organisation's magazine Challenge states: The bus is equipped with all sorts of propaganda aids. That is the truth about that bus from the mouths of the recipients. Or again, the Gay Publications Co-operative and one of its affiliates have between them received $123,280 to do things such as produce their homosexual magazines Outrage and Gay Community News, to which one can only comment that that is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money. Over many months, and most recently and emphatically by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) only a short while ago, there has been a great deal of hype and fanfare about the Hawke Government's having increased the number of jobs in Australia by about 600,000. We are all grateful for that-there can be no doubt that that clearly is where one looks for real gains in the employment-unemployment area. That relates to hundreds of thousands of jobs whereas with the community employment program we are talking about 87,000 jobs over three years at such a very high cost in terms of taxpayers' money. I will briefly make a couple of points about that. One is that we have had all this hype about 600,000 jobs but, in the perspective of history, that increase in employment is no more than what one might call `par for the course' in a period of upswing in the resilient Australian economy. The fact is that over the period of the Fraser Government, from its inception to the cyclical peak of September 1981, about 530,000 jobs were generated, which is indeed an increase of the same order as the recent experience. I stress that that is the sort of thing that the resilient Australian economy in a period of upswing delivers. The second point I make is that, good as the recent improvement may seem, it has not been good enough to reduce unemployment significantly-and with every passing day the prospect worsens as the cyclical peak for activity in the economy under this Government approaches. The fact is that, at that period of peak in the economy in September 1981, the rate of unemployment was about 5.8 per cent. Indeed, in all but four months of the seven years of the Fraser Government, under the influence of its programs and its economic policy, the unemployment level was significantly less than the current figure of just under 8 per cent. I stress the point that the increase of about 600,000 jobs is less as a proportion of the current work force than was the 530,000 jobs of the then work force up to the cyclical peak of the Fraser Government. The increase that I referred to under the previous Government was soundly based in resource development investment as its motive force. The growth in recent years benefited from the bounce back from the 1982 recession following the breaking of the drought, and was assisted by the 1983 wage freeze and the upswing of the world business cycle. But, from that time, what we have had is largely what might be referred to as `growth on tick', stemming substantially from the profligate borrowing of this Government and showing up in this country's living vastly beyond its means, as evidenced by the prospective $13 billion deficit on our balance of payments, that is, the excess of what we have to pay for imports over what we earn for exports. The Government is unwilling, or perhaps in the light of its relationship with the Australian Council of Trade Unions unable, to take the policy initiatives-to undertake the change in policy direction, to quote our matter of public importance raised this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-necessary to rectify the situation. In that sense this economy is surely on course for a serious downturn. Unhappily, in that event, the increase in employment about which there has been so much hype will turn out in the perspective of history to have been about the same as, and indeed in its context less effective than, that under the previous Government. Unhappily, more than things such as the community employment program that we are discussing today will be needed to counter the rise in the level of unemployment that will occur. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.47) —In the course of this very long debate on the Community Employment Amendment Bill, we have been discussing the proposals of the Government to extend the initiative of the community employment program. During that discussion there was a great deal of comment about the nature of the scheme. I want to make it very clear that, while ever there remains a significant level of unemployment in our community, it is incumbent upon a government to adopt programs that will endeavour to the greatest extent possible to ameliorate the hardship that some people suffer as a consequence of unemployment. I make no apology for supporting the continuation of this legislation but I do not do so altogether uncritically. The fact that some members on this side of the House have been critical of aspects of the program has been used by many of those on the other side of the House, when commenting on that fact, as a basis for criticising members of the Opposition. But it needs to be understood that any member of parliament who has unemployed people in his electorate is interested to try to minimise to the greatest extent possible the hardship that individuals suffer. I am no different in relation to my electorate in that regard from most of my colleagues. I was interested in the way in which some members opposite were able to reel off from computer sheets what was happening in various electorates. They cited how many millions of dollars were allocated in certain electorates and asked whether members did not want those moneys allocated to their constituents. Lest it be thought that I did not get that information for my own electorate, I made it my business to make sure that I had the sort of information that members opposite might have used to comment on my speech. As I look at the detail of all the programs in refreshing my memory, I am familiar with most of the organisations funded. Most of them are very worthwhile and responsible projects put together by organisations with which I am familiar and which I would seek to involve in any work of this sort. Some of them are organisations that I specifically suggested might apply for funding, one of them being the Brush Farm Park Preservation Group. They include organisations with which I have been associated. The Ryde Regional Radio Co-operative and the Christian Community Aid Service were organisations that obtained funding and put in place very useful programs. But, as I have said, that does not mean to say that there are not proper bases for being critical of the way in which the program is administered. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and his officials have a responsibility under the program to administer the funds available with the utmost care and responsibility. I asked a question on notice on 25 November concerning numbers of organisations which had permitted their name to be used in an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation. Of the large number of organisations involved, a number of them were funded under the community employment program. These organisations, which included some 29 groups, used funds available to them, either from their own resources or possibly from public sources, to defend the activities of the Builders Labourers Federation and particularly its activities here in Canberra. I find it extraordinary that, at a time when the Government is arguing that it is tightening the noose on the BLF and the Victorian and Federal governments are putting enormous pressure upon builders, forcing them to cave in in relation to activities involving the BLF, there are organisations funded significantly from public funds available under the community employment program that are able to siphon those moneys off and use them in quasi-political activities of this sort in defence of a renegade organisation such as the Builders Labourers Federation. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in answer to a question asked by me on 25 November concerning the organisations funded from within his area of responsibility, indicated that the organisations included the Interchange community youth support scheme group, which received $92,000 under the scheme; Jobless Action, which was in receipt of $42,077 under the community employment program as well as CYSS funding of $92,000; and the Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, which was in receipt of community employment funds to the extent of $47,166. The further questions that I asked the Minister included whether the organisations were giving accounts which enabled proper use of their funds to be assessed as against the purposes for which they were made available, and in relation to that the Minister told me that the grants were conditional upon audited accounts and balance sheets being submitted and a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. In answer to a further question relating to whether the grant permitted the use of funds contributed for political advertisements and, if not, what checks have been or will be made to ensure that the advertisements were not paid for from such grant funds, he said that the Territory Director of his Department in the Australian Capital Territory had contacted each of the groups concerned and received written advice from each of them that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations grant funds were not used to pay any contribution towards the advertisements. He then indicated to me that they did have the capacity to raise some funds from their own resources, and presumably had I asked further questions he may have told me that the Territory Director had been informed that funds were being used in this way. The point I want to make, and make very strongly, in relation to this matter and the answers to my questions is that I think it is beholden upon the Government, which is so concerned about the BLF, to jawbone not only employers and builders in relation to this organisation but also these other sorts of organisations that are receiving funds from the Government for other purposes and ensure that they are not involving themselves in these sorts of political activities and indirectly benefiting from the use of the public moneys available. I want to make two other brief points in the time left to me concerning the administration of this program. Firstly, I am disappointed that continually, and it happened as recently as this week, I receive information about programs being funded in my electorate after State members of parliament have received the same information. It may be a mere coincidence that I happen to be in the Opposition in the Federal Parliament and the State members are in the Labor Government of New South Wales. It may be a mere matter of coincidence, but it happens time and again. Either our systems are failing enormously and the State Government has set up systems that are intrinsically better or somebody is being quite devious about the way in which this information is handled. I would hope, having raised this matter in the Parliament, that it will be addressed, and addressed properly, to ensure that in future Federal members of parliament are advised at exactly the same time as State members of parliament. I am not asking for any advantage but I object to being continually disadvantaged in relation to the way in which the information is provided. If it is a matter of scoring cheap political points, let me say in relation to my electorate that one of the things that fascinates me is that there is often a lot of criticism of me as a Liberal and my alleged lack of concern about unemployment and lack of interest in these matters-I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is no lack of interest-yet others hold themselves out to be pure. Three independent councils operate in my electorate and one council is controlled by the Australian Labor Party. The councils able to use all of their funds properly, able to commit them, happen to be the three independent councils, and the Parramatta City Council is the one that is likely to see funds that would otherwise be available to it under the community employment program hived off for other purposes. I do not think that that is good enough and I intend to tell the Parramatta City Council. It is important to know that there can be quite severe shortcomings on the part of those who evidence by the way in which they speak about these matters a concern about the unemployed. Often those who are thought to be hard and difficult-usually in the Opposition-can be just as much concerned about those who happen to be unemployed as anybody else. Certainly for my own part, I will continue to maintain an interest in the community employment program in my electorate to ensure that the funds made available are properly used. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.57) —in reply-In concluding this long and important debate I say firstly that I appreciate the contributions made by all participants. I appreciate some contributions much more than others but I think that on both sides there has been a fair degree of support for the community employment program. I note that the Opposition is not opposing the extension of CEP for another three years. Nevertheless, in the course of this debate there has been much criticism levied by the Opposition in particular at this program and various aspects of it, and I would like to address a number of those issues that have been raised. Before doing so I acknowledge that there have been a number of constructive comments made, more so from my side of the House than the other side, though there have been some from the other side, and I assure all honourable members who have made constructive comments that those comments will be taken into account in the revamping and regeneration of the program which will occur later this year with the change in the guidelines. The criticisms made by the Opposition fall into three categories. One category concerns the alleged failure of the Government's employment policies overall, and the debate on the Community Employment Amendment Bill has been used as an umbrella debate to criticise the Government for failing to achieve its objectives in respect of employment and unemployment. We totally and thoroughly repudiate any such suggestion. It has been an incredible performance by the Opposition to maintain that this Government, of all governments in the Western world, has failed to be successful on the employment front. In the past year this Government has been generating jobs at a faster rate of growth than any other country in the Western industrialised world. That is an extraordinary performance. Over the last 12 months there has been an employment growth of 4 1/2 per cent; 290,000 additional jobs have been created in that period. This country has not seen anything like that in its history. This Government has created 608,000 jobs in its term in office-a growth in employment of 9.7 per cent. That is a tremendous increase in employment. One has to put that against the situation that existed when we came into office. When we came into office, as all honourable members know, we faced an economy going through the floor. In the 12 months prior to our coming into office there was a decline in the actual level of employment in this country of 190,000 and a growth of unemployment of a quarter of a million. That was the situation which we inherited and we have obviously turned that situation around quite dramatically, so much so, that we are now creating jobs in this country faster than any other country in the Western industrialised world. As far as unemployment goes, that has reduced considerably during our period of office but not as much as one would have thought might be the case with such tremendous employment growth. As I mentioned at Question Time that is because what we have been doing in effect is not only reducing the recorded level of unemployment by 2 1/2 per cent, down from 10.2 per cent to 7.8 per cent, but also massively reducing the level of hidden unemployment because there has been a very substantial increase in the participation rate-that is, the proportion of the population of work force age which has come back into the labour market when jobs are available and so are recorded as unemployed if they have not got a job-so making it more difficult to get the recorded unemployment rates down. That performance by the Labor Government in the last two and three-quarter years does not justify the kind of criticism which has come from honourable members on the other side of the House about this Government allegedly having failed to achieve its objectives in respect of employment and unemployment. We have been told that we have been a gross failure in respect of youth employment and unemployment. Of course, the youth unemployment rate has come down from 28 per cent, when we came into office, to 21 per cent now and there has been a reversal of the very long term trend of declining employment for young people. That has begun to increase considerably. So we see in all these areas of employment and unemployment considerable progress and much to be proud of. The one thing which the Opposition could come up with, which it thought was a substantive area of criticism, was that the average duration of unemployment had increased. I do not deny that there has been some increase but I suggest that the figures that have been thrown around have somewhat exaggerated what has been going on. I strongly refute the suggestion that an increase in the average duration of unemployment is a demonstration of some gross failure by this Government in respect of the unemployment problem. I also totally reject the allegation that has been made that it shows what a failure the CEP has been. Let me elaborate on that point because it is an important point-probably the most substantive point that came out of all of the contributions made by members of the Opposition-and it deserves a reply. The fact is that the average duration of unemployment has increased. It increased when the previous Government was in office from 14 weeks, being the average duration of unemployment when it came into office, to 33 weeks when it went out of office. If we look at the average duration of unemployment we can say that there was a very large increase when the previous Government was in office as well as there being an enormous increase in the actual number of people unemployed. If we look at what has happened in the last couple of years under this Government we see that, in the two years from December 1983 to December 1985, the average duration of unemployment increased from 40.5 weeks to 44.5 weeks. So there is some increase in that two-year period, but not an enormous increase. I want to make the point that this is not a good measure of the severity of unemployment, although it is important to the people whom it is affecting. What happens when there is a strong improvement in the labour market is that the people who tend to get the jobs are those who have not been unemployed for very long. As those people who have been unemployed for a relatively short duration get the jobs and other people who have been out of work for a long time continue to remain unemployed, the average duration of unemployment continues to increase. Of course, as I mentioned previously, we came into office at a time when a tremendous number of people had lost their jobs-they had not just come into the labour market from school; they had actually lost their jobs-and many of those people are still unemployed. That is because they are people who, in the main, are probably in the older age brackets and they will find it very difficult to get a job again unless something special is done to assist them. The reason we have a community employment program is that we see a tremendous need to provide some form of direct assistance to the long term unemployed. If we did not have the CEP and if we did not have other labour market programs which are focusing particularly on long term unemployed-but the CEP is the main one-the average duration of unemployment would be much higher because the long term unemployed would have even less chance of breaking out of unemployment than they have with the application of these programs which are targeted to them. The dimensions of the problem are so enormous that we cannot hope to offer every long term unemployed person a job through the CEP; not unless we increase the amount of funding enormously and we do not think we can justify doing that in competition with all the other elements of expenditure which face the Government in the demands for funds. But we have seen it as a major priority and we have set aside a substantial amount of money to address the problem of the long term unemployed. As has been said in this debate we are looking, in the course of three years, at about $1 billion-a thousand million dollars-being spent on this problem through the community employment program. That is money which we believe is well spent in the sense that it is being directed at a group which is in tremendous need and which will not benefit just from the strong growth of the economy because employers will say `If you have been out of work for a long time you cannot be all that terrific', and they will tend to take someone who has been out of work for much less time. The confidence of those persons who have been out of work for a long time is destroyed. Their ability to march up to an employer and get a job is greatly diminished by long term unemployment. I do not have to elaborate that point very much because honourable members would be generally aware of the tremendously adverse psychological effects that long term unemployment has on people. If we do not do anything particularly to target these people they will have very little chance of ever breaking out of the unemployment syndrome. So the CEP is very important for that purpose. If we did not have it there is no doubt that the average duration of unemployment figures would be much higher. My Department estimates that in the year 1984-85 about a quarter of the long term unemployed who actually got jobs got them through the CEP, so it was of very substantial assistance to them. But still we have a large cohort, a group of people, who have been out of work for a long time. Over 90,000 people have been out of work for two years or more and those people, of course, are pushing up the average duration of unemployment figures very considerably. I do not want to get too technical but I think I should perhaps mention one thing. When we say average we normally talk about the mean. If we look at the median, which is the mid-point rather than the arithmetical average duration of unemployment, we see that that has changed very considerably. The average-when we talk about the average we talk about the mean-has gone from 38.2 per cent to 41.3 per cent in January 1984. But the median, the mid-point, of duration of unemployment for all unemployed went from 18.1 per cent down to 12.0 per cent. So we can see that it is the very long term unemployed who are moving out into longer and longer periods of unemployment who are dragging up this whole average duration of unemployment figure. That is something that is very serious. We have to do what we can to address the problems of those people. The CEP is the best way that we have to do it along with other programs, such as job start, which is a revamped wage subsidy program focused on long term unemployed people. If we did not have programs such as this we would have a much bigger problem in the community in terms of the long term unemployed and a much higher average duration of unemployment. That is an important point. I think it is important to make the point that the Opposition's line that the increase in the average duration of unemployment represents some gross failure by the Government on the employment front is a nonsense. It stems from the fact that we have been so successful in creating jobs that we have created jobs largely for those people who have been unemployed for relatively short periods and who are most likely to get jobs and we have this large group of people who are the long term unemployed and for whom the CEP is imperative if many of them are to break out of that situation. Another category of criticism that was raised by the Opposition was that job creation schemes are inappropriate and that they are a waste of money. Some Opposition members said that it was better to cut taxes than to spend money in this way. Let me say a few things about that. First, this apparently was not the view of the Fraser Government because it introduced the wage pause program. That was a hastily conceived job creation program with poor administrative guidelines and procedures compared with those that operate under the CEP, nevertheless, it was a job creation program of the same kind as CEP. The Fraser Government embraced that, faced as it was with skyrocketing unemployment. If Opposition members now say that such job creation schemes are inappropriate, presumably they are saying that what the previous Government did was wrong. Also I note that the Thatcher Government in the United Kingdom has strongly embraced job creation programs of this kind. The United Kingdom has a community program, which is being considerably expanded by the Thatcher Government. Indeed, in 1986-87 it is looking at 230,000 places. In the whole period of CEP up to this time in Australia we have not got up to 100,000-we have got almost to 100,000 but not quite in the course of three years. But the United Kingdom Government is looking at a job creation program under a Prime Minister and government which is ultra-conservative, ultra-dry, full of talk of privatisation and so on. That Government says it wants to embrace the private sector, expand it and promote it, but it has a community program of the CEP kind which is massive compared to CEP. The United Kingdom Government also has a much bigger unemployment problem. That says something about the success that Government has had in addressing unemployment compared to this Government. It is not a scheme which other conservative governments have regarded as an affront to their ideology-far from it. Furthermore, to say that job creation programs are inappropriate neglects the fact that we need programs of this kind which are targeted at the long term unemployed. If that is not accepted, the Opposition is saying: `To hell with the long term unemployed, let them stay out there and rot, we do not care about them'. The fact is that, unless there is a particular program for those people, many will not get jobs at all. They will not get out of a situation of unemployment; they will have no chance of showing that they can get a job again and get used to working and move into a psychological situation where they can force up to normal employment. They need to show an employer that they have a recent record of employment and have a chance of getting a job. If taxes are to be cut, which was one suggested alternative, it would do nothing for the long term unemployed. That point must be understood. One needs a program like this if one is concerned about the long term unemployed. But the Opposition is not concerned about these matters; its attitude is that one should forget them. Another point which was raised is that we should be looking to create jobs in the private sector, not in the public sector. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) addressed us on this subject as did several others. What they neglect to understand is that since the present Government has been in office we have been most successful not only in creating jobs overall but in the private sector. The growth under this Government is not led by public sector job creation. It has been private sector jobs. If one takes the 12 months up to September 1985 the wage and salary earners survey of employment shows an increase of 199,000-that was wage salary earners only, not other areas of employment. Some 162,000 or 82 per cent were in the private sector. Yet Opposition members talk about this being a public sector led employment growth. It is absurd, it is a nonsense, a figure of their imagination. If one looks at the labour force survey, one sees that, in the year to November 1985, 88 per cent of all jobs created-wage and salary earner jobs and other jobs-came from industries dominated by the private sector. It is a nonsense to argue that this is public sector job creation led. It is simply not true. It is absurd to say that one should not be having a community employment program or job creation program because one needs to create jobs in the private sector. Of course, one needs to create jobs in the private sector-and that is what the Government is doing. Opposition members must realise this and stop living in their fantasyland of ideology. They should face the facts, which are stark and undeniable. It has been suggested that the CEP has failed in various respects. I shall come to those details quickly as I realise that time is on the wing. One argument used for the supposed failure of CEP is that the average duration has increased. I have addressed that point, and I will not go back to it. It has been said that the extension of CEP itself is evidence of failure of CEP. I think the member for Moreton said that. Mr Donald Cameron —No, I didn't. Mr WILLIS —Well, somebody said it, but I thought it was the member for Moreton, who says most of the silly things. It is absurd to suggest that the extension of the program is evidence of the failure of CEP. What it is evidence of is the fact that this Government inherited a most difficult employment situation-a problem involving many long term unemployed people. Despite the great growth in employment under the present Government, there is still a problem of long term unemployed people. Without CEP, that problem would be much worse. If we do not have CEP in the next three years, the chance of addressing the problems of those people would be far less. Therefore, it is absurd to say that is evidence of failure. The extension of CEP is evidence of our concern for the long term unemployed and our recognition of the fact that we need a program to assist them. It was said that the post-program outcomes were not evidence of success. I said in my second reading speech that the Department had done two surveys in 1985 of post-program outcomes. The Department monitored what had happened to the unemployed after they had left the CEP program in March and again in July. It found that in March, six months after those concerned had participated in a CEP exercise, 41 per cent of participants were in employment and 58 per cent had had a job in that six months. In July it found that 46 per cent had a job; six months later the figure was 61 per cent. Various Opposition speakers said that shows tremendous failures because a lot of people obviously have not got a job after six months and have not had a job even during that six months. In saying that Opposition members grossly underestimate the difficulty of providing and ensuring jobs for all these people. We are not just providing jobs for the unemployed with CEP. It is being targeted to the people who will find the obtaining of employment most difficult. I refer to the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups such as disabled persons, or Aborigines with an unemployment rate of 60 per cent, or non-English speaking migrants. All those categories contain groups which suffer very high levels of unemployment. If we did not target CEP to those particular disadvantaged groups but just took the view that it existed for the unemployed generally, we could get better results in the post program outcome and there would be much more chance of these people obtaining employment. But if one is targeting at people who are in the most disadvantaged sectors of the work force, one cannot expect them all to be in employment after the CEP job, despite the fact that they will be advantaged by the CEP project. It is absurd to argue that there is some failure here. Indeed, if compared with the UK community program, those post program outcomes are very good. They are much better than what has been achieved by the British community program, which is also aimed at the long term unemployed. The honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) said that these surveys were inadequate because there was no control group. I do not want to get into detailed technicalities, but I say to the honourable member that I am aware there were no control groups on those two surveys, which were in a sense monitoring what was happening to participants in CEP after they left the program rather than an evaluation. The distinction is that in an evaluation one is comparing what one gets from being in the program with what is obtained if one is not in the program. One needs a control group in that respect. Such as study is not being undertaken by the Bureau of Labour Market Research in my Department which does evaluations of all the labour market programs. It is undertaking such a study on the CEP, which involves a control group. That should be out later this year. I think the criticisms raised by the honourable member for Forde are addressed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.20) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has tried to explain away the growth in the number of weeks for which people are unemployed. I do not have my notes with me and the previous debate took place two or three weeks ago, but my recollection is that in the period of the Fraser Government unemployment across the country totalled 29 million weeks, collectively. Now, at this great time when the Minister claims that the Government has done so much, it is up to 31 million weeks. The Minister tries to explain that away by saying that there is a small core of almost unemployable people and the fact that they have been out of employment for so long is having the effect of pushing up the number of collective weeks. That is just clutching at straws on the part of the Minister. At least the Minister smiles; he has a good sense of humour. If I had not risen to speak this evening, he would have got away with it. But the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are staying unemployed longer than they did previously, because otherwise we would not arrive at this increase. The Minister keeps talking about the number of jobs that have been created, but he and his colleagues never refer to the number of jobs that have disappeared. He has been very selective. He talks about some 600,000 new jobs. Some of them are part time jobs and some are full time jobs; some are public sector jobs and some are in the private sector. I do not dispute that, even though I would put a question mark over the Minister's right to claim the job, in the 600,000, for the lady who might do two hours a week sweeping in someone's back yard. However, the Minister keeps conveniently disregarding all those jobs that have been lost across the community. Even though I have 13 minutes left, I shall conclude with a quick segment, because I know that the Minister is hoping that the dining room staff will not be on strike tonight. Mr Connolly —They are. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Oh, they are on strike again. That is another area in which the Government has failed. This Government supposedly has this country in its hands with the accord and peaceful industrial relations and one cannot even get a feed in Parliament House in Canberra. That just underlines how unsuccessful the Government has been. I think that people are starting to wake up to the fact that all the words that members of the Government have been uttering in the last couple of years, under the pretence of building up confidence, are really hollow and meaningless, because of the way that interest rates have taken off and all the other things. Unemployment is still very high, at about 600,000. The Government has not achieved what it has claimed to have achieved. The only reason that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to the people in 1984 was that he knew that things were not as good as the people had been told, and he knew that the people would wake up. The reason that the Labor Party did reasonably well in 1984-although it lost many more seats than it thought it would lose-was that the people of Australia were saying: `We will give them another go'. But I reckon that all the little chickens are coming home to roost and that all the falsities to which we have been subjected during the last couple of years are beginning to be understood by the population. Any government that has performed as badly as the present Government has performed deserves to be put out of office next time. I just hope that the Prime Minister calls another early election, because I reckon that Labor is gone if he does so. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.24) —I want only to pick up a point made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his reply-his stressing that over the period of the Labor Government the number of jobs has increased by about 10 per cent, and this is a high figure. Indeed, it is high. But a point I made in my remarks was that over the period of the preceding Government, the Fraser Government, up to the cyclical peak of September 1981, the increase in jobs was about 11 per cent. That showed up in the fact that the level of unemployment at that time was about 5.8 per cent. Indeed, as I said, over the whole period of the Fraser Government, seven years, in only four months was the level of unemployment higher than the current level of unemployment-just short of 8 per cent. I conclude by saying that 12 months or so from now, when the economy on this occasion will have attained and fallen away from its cyclical peak, it will be interesting to see just what the increase in employment will finally turn out to be. I have no doubt that the Minister has begun to attempt to condition the electorate for this outcome: That the level of unemployment, because of the Government's refusal or inability significantly to change the direction of its economic policy, will be on the climb again later this year, as, I believe, in some inspired leaks, the Minister has already intimated he believes is likely to be the case. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I wish to inform the House that it has been agreed that the dinner suspension this evening will be from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 8.30 p.m. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Before the debate on the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill 1986 is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(8.34) —I must say at the outset that I am absolutely flabbergasted by the audacity of the Opposition in calling a quorum. One could count the number of Opposition members present tonight for the debate on this very important legislation on one hand and have fingers left. It is absolutely disgraceful. Mr Wright —Where is the National Party? Mr SIMMONS —There are no National Party members present, of course. National Party members always claim to be representing people in rural Australia. We can see their interest in rural Australia by their presence tonight for this important debate on the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. When debate on this legislation initially took place on 19 February, I was referring, amongst other things, to a devastating hail storm that took place in Orange in my electorate. The hail storm occurred on 22 January and was responsible for a tremendous amount of damage not only to this year's apple and cherry crops but also to subsequent crops. I pointed out to the House the very speedy action taken by the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Mr Jack Hallam, to try to alleviate the plight of the growers in the area. Once again I pay tribute to the work of Mr Hallam in rapidly coming to the assistance of those growers who were in a difficult financial position. Mr Hallam secured an increase in the amount of natural disaster money available to the New South Wales Government, from $20,000 to $40,000, in a matter of a few days. That is a great tribute to Mr Hallam and to the New South Wales Government. On 19 February I was referring to the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill. I conclude my speech tonight with some comments about the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill. This Bill amends the export powers of the Apple and Pear Corporation and improves its operation by requiring it to adopt a corporate planning approach. I might say that this is in line with the general strategy that has been pursued by this Government under the very capable leadership of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to try to get many of the statutory marketing authorities on a more corporate basis so that the market signals are clearly reflected back to the growers. Currently, exporters are required to hold licences that are issued by the Minister following the Corporation's consideration of their applications and to adhere to the Corporation's export conditions. Last year the Industries Assistance Commission suggested the removal of the Corporation's export powers. However, in recent years the industry and the Corporation have been considering changes to marketing arrangements as a way of improving declining export performance. This has led to the Corporation adopting a restrictive export licensing policy as an adjunct to getting greater co-ordination of exporter activity and to the industry proposing that the Corporation have power to grant licences itself. Under the recently announced policy on primary industry statutory marketing authorities, it is intended that all the authorities be subject to the beneficial discipline of corporate planning. As I said a few moments ago, I think the approach that has been adopted by the Minister for Primary Industry is certainly a step in the right direction. For far too long many of these organisations have not operated on a corporate line. Any attempt by this Government to shift them to a more market-oriented approach adopting the management procedures of any sort of corporate organisation, I believe, is welcome. Certainly, these amendments are welcomed generally by the industry. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.38) —It is always very pleasing to speak on Bills such as the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986. The purpose of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 is to amend the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. The Bill will come into effect on the day it receives royal assent. Many people do not realise what the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation does. One could be a bit critical of the fact that, over the years, the Corporation has not promoted apples to the degree to which it should have. Mr Simmons —Oh! Rubbish! Mr GOODLUCK —I will explain that point in a moment. It is good to see present in the chamber tonight the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who represented the Huon Valley before he was elected to represent the electorate of Denison. His brother, Peter, followed. Mr Robert Brown —And his father. Mr GOODLUCK —And his father, of course. And his mother. Go on! In mythical times the apple always represented purity; it always represented something good. We go back to the time of Adam and Eve and we think of the apple. I come from the Apple Isle; so it is understandable that I feel so fervently, so passionately, about the apple. Mr Smith —What about the beautiful Tamar apples? Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member mentions the beautiful Tamar apples. My good friend the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) made a snide remark. He did not mean it nastily because he is not a nasty man. He was trying to tell me that Tasmania is not the leading apple producer in Australia. Mr Hodgman —We are. Mr GOODLUCK —No, we are the third. I will come to the statistics in a moment, but we are only the third biggest producer. We must admit defeat. The fact is that it is not the size but the quality of the apple that counts. What counts is not the size of the man in the fight, but the fight in the man. All honourable members will know what I mean by that remark. Tasmania has always been the apple isle and it produces the best apples in Australia. That is the reason why we place our apples on the Australian market; we do not export to the extent we have previously. The people of Australia realise that apples from Tasmania are the best in the world. Mr John Brown —They have grubs in them. Mr GOODLUCK —There are no grubs. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) may have thought that I was a grub but once he got to know me he realised that I was not. Apples have been a very important part of the life and history of Tasmania; so, of course, I am always very proud to speak on this subject. It is necessary to set up corporations in bureaucracies so that we can leave the producing and marketing of apples to other people. Tasmanian apple producers have proved that they are the best in the world. Some of the apples produced in the Geeveston area are the best in the world. Farmhouse Creek, where there is a lot of controversy at the moment, is the centre. Incidentally, I got 85 per cent of the vote there; so the people know my worth. The apples produced there are the best in the world. The people are decent and hardworking and have made Tasmania the place that it is. Farmhouse Creek is causing controversy all over Australia. When one analyses matters, one sees that the workers of Tasmania are the people who have made it breathe. Some of the misfits who have gone there to try to stop the timber-based industries, because of their selfish needs, really need analysing. A few politicians may have the word `doctor' in front of their name but that means nothing to me. I am not referring to the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth); he is quite a decent fellow. Some people who have the word `doctor' before their names seem to think that they know everything about what makes Tasmania tick. Regrettably, they are finding that that is not true. Some beautiful apples are produced in Geeveston, in the Huon Valley. They have been placed on the markets of the world and been accepted by people as some of the best apples ever produced. Mr Hodgman —Geeveston Fanny. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member said-I do not mind repeating it-`Geeveston Fanny'. It is a variety of apple produced in Geeveston and is one of the best apples one could wish to eat. The objectives of the Corporation are, firstly, to monitor current and foreseeable trends within the apple and pear industry; secondly, to develop a program of work encompassing the domestic market, exports, processing and industry research in order to assist growers to achieve the best returns at minimum costs; thirdly, to assist with technical support in relation to all facets of production, storage and marketing; and fourthly, to provide an information service for growers, the government and industry generally on matters falling within the terms of reference of the Corporation. The Opposition supports the legislation because the people in the industry want it to improve their situation. They want to improve their ability to market apples not only in Australia but also overseas. When one travels overseas one notes that apples are probably the second most consumed fruit throughout the world. Therefore, it is a precious commodity; it is a vital industry and we need to do everything we can to make it more viable for the growers. We need to make absolutely certain that the growers, who are the best in the world-they have proved that they are able to produce apples at low cost-get the best results from their apples. Mr Hodgman —The leader eats one every day. Mr GOODLUCK —That is good. The honourable member for Denison would be interested to hear this: For years I have been trying to get a particular organisation in Tasmania not only to look at the production of apples but also to move into other areas which could prove beneficial to Tasmania. That organisation will produce an apple pie which will be placed on the Australian market and markets throughout the world and it will have the simple identity of being a Tasmanian product. For too long the producers of Tasmania have exported their pulp to other States only to find that the pulp comes back to produce apple pies. These are the sorts of things with which we need to get involved. If Tasmanians are going to produce they need to make absolutely certain that they get the best results. Mr Hodgman —Granny Wilson. Mr GOODLUCK —That is the name of the person who will produce the apples. I mentioned the matter to the honourable member. In fact I was a little jealous because I thought that he would launch the product and that is the reason I mentioned the matter tonight. I am too late. The functions of the Corporation are, firstly, to promote the export from Australia of apples and pears; secondly, to control the export from Australia of apples and pears; and thirdly, to promote trade and commerce in apples and pears among the States, between States and Territories and within the Territories. A lot of people seem to think that the same speeches about apples are made year after year. A lot of decent, hard-working people are involved with the apple industry. They love it and it is part of the heritage of Tasmania. One regrets, very sincerely, that the image of Tasmania has been taken away. It was always called the apple isle. Some marketing experts have decided to call it the jewel, the treasure isle and other names. Mr Rocher —It could be called the ABC isle. Mr GOODLUCK —It will not be the ABC isle. That will stay in my memory and one day I will be able to give the ABC the serve that it deserves, and it will not be apple pie, I can assure honourable members. It is very important to the Tasmanian people that they keep the image of the apple isle. One can always remember the early pioneers of Tasmania who developed the beautiful places down the Huon and Tamar Valley and made it part and parcel of our heritage. If they are going to produce under great difficulty they should be given every opportunity. At the moment they have high fuel costs, as we all know. Regrettably, they have high freight costs when their cases are exported from Tasmania and sometimes this is to the detriment of the industry. Governments have introduced stabilisation plans to enable them to put their products on Australian markets in a competitive way. However, one must make absolutely certain that they get all the support that we, as a government and as an Opposition, can humanly muster because they certainly deserve it. They know how to work; they know how to toil; they know how to live; and they know how to identify with the free enterprise system of getting up in the morning, working dashed hard all day, making certain that they produce something against all the elements, making certain that they can put something on the market that will be beneficial not only to the economy of each State, particularly Tasmania, but to the Australian situation. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bills. I only hope and pray that the apple industry will always be viable in Tasmania because it is part of its heritage. It represents the people with whom I hope I can identify. They are decent hard-working people who want to get up in the morning, make a buck, and support their families. They want to make certain that each day they will be a contributor to this wonderful nation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.49) —In making a contribution to the debate on the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill this evening I want to take up where the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) left off. I remind the House that the people to whom he referred-the apple growers who are currently involved in any one of the States of Australia including Tasmania-are at this moment concerned with the harvesting of apples. The sentiments that the honourable member for Franklin has expressed are those that are troubling the growers. The uncertainty they face in the marketing area is an uncertainty that plagues them as of this month because this is the month for harvesting apples, as is April and, for some varieties, as late as May. The apple industry is an important part of Australia's horticultural industry. Not everyone appreciates the fact that the horticultural industries in Australia make a contribution to the total primary industry of our nation, a contribution which three years ago exceeded $1 billion. Within that $1 billion framework the apple and pear industry, while it has had a falling production graph, in fact contributed $61m last year to the national economy. That is no mean achievement-$61m from an industry which has been plagued with a number of problems and a number of marketing initiatives that have been lost because of the rising cost of Australian production. In Australia in an average year the apple industry produces something like 20,000 tonnes. As the honourable member for Franklin said, it is an industry somewhat bathed in mysticism in that tradition has it that in the legendary story of the Garden of Eden it was an apple that Eve used to tempt Adam. In fact, according to the Old Testament account, there is no record that the fruit which was used was an apple. I make that point because what is fundamental is that whatever is true or false about the legendary garden of Eden story, there is nothing legendary about the current dilemma that faces the apple industry. The competitive base that the apple industry in Australia enjoyed under the old arrangements we had with the United Kingdom has been lost as a result of the movement of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. The competitive situation that the apple industry once enjoyed has been lost most dramatically, I fear to say, under two periods of Labor administration in this country. I cite the 44.7 per cent fall-off in volume of apple exports that occurred between 1972 and 1975. Since the Bills before the House also concern the pear industry, I point out that the pear industry experienced a fall of exports of 24.2 per cent-a fall in exports available to earn the valuable export dollar so much needed. At the same time as this fall in export earnings occurred, the index of prices paid by apple growers makes very sobering reading indeed. In the same time that the exports fell, the price of fertiliser rose by 206 per cent, the price of wages rose by 87 per cent and rates and taxes rose by 62.7 per cent. I think it is most significant to point out that the ratio between the prices received by apple growers and the prices paid by apple growers fell by 39.6 per cent. If those figures are not sobering enough, we have the sad reality that between 1981 and 1984 there has been a fall of 70 per cent in the volume of apples exported from these shores. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) commented that the apple industry is no longer based in Tasmania, as has been the popular belief. It is worth placing on the record the fact that currently New South Wales produces 24.9 per cent of the apple crop, Victoria 23.8 per cent, Queensland 9.9 per cent, South Australia 6.6 per cent, Western Australia 14.9 per cent and Tasmania 19.9 per cent. The Bills currently before the House are largely the result of an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. The two pieces of legislation that we are considering cover the underwriting scheme that currently provides some sort of security for the apple industry and amendments to the Apple and Pear Corporation. I point out that the underwriting scheme in the apple and pear industry is in place in order to level out the peaks and troughs, particularly the troughs, that besiege this industry and to ensure that should there be an unexpected fall in the value of apples being sold overseas, there is a mechanism in place to ensure that growers are not immediately forced out of business. Under the old underwriting scheme which is in place until this legislation receives assent, 95 per cent of the average export returns for the preceding four export seasons were regarded as a base for the underwriting. Under the scheme proposed by this legislation, 85 per cent of the best three of the preceding four seasons will become the basis for the underwriting scheme. One may well ask how the House justifies taking what is in fact taxpayers' money and channelling it towards the apple industry. Frankly, there has only been one occasion-that was in 1981-when the underwriting scheme was necessary. On that occasion the underwriting scheme cost the Federal Government $4.8m. What is unique about the apple industry and about most horticultural industries is the long lead time necessary for a grower to get an orchard into production. The underwriting scheme is designed to ensure that a grower can plant with some security knowing that there will be a certain level of production and of return to enable him to remain in business even if he does not receive a satisfactory return on the investment he has in an apple orchard. It is the long lead time-the reality that a tree has to be planted one year but will not be harvested for seven years-that makes it necessary for there to be an underwriting scheme in place that will ensure that growers do not choose, when trees are 10 years old and have only been productive for three years, to pull them out of the ground. If growers then choose to replant, trees could be productive for only three years out of 17 years. The second part of the legislation before the House concerns changes to the Apple and Pear Corporation. The amendments that we are considering tonight-amendments which have the support of the Opposition-grant to the Cor- poration the power to enable it to be the body that offers export licences and the charges and administration fees for the maintenance of these licences without the historical referral to the Minister that has been necessary in the past. This will also enable the Apple and Pear Corporation to review the export performance of those licensees who are exporting apples overseas. The Opposition, as I have said, supports both of these Bills. There will be those who will reasonably ask how the Opposition justifies supporting some form of restrictive licences in the apple industry. I reassure the House that the export licence is not like some form of taxi plate. It does not become of enormous value on its own. In fact, I know of no export licences in the apple industry that are extraordinarily valuable in their own right. In addition, it is not a case of only those with licences being able to export. If a grower does not have a licence to export, nothing prevents that grower from going to a licensed exporter and getting that exporter to pack his fruit and make it available to overseas markets. That is a point that deserves some emphasis. This does not offer the exporter exclusive access to the markets. It enables the grower to take his fruit to any exporter he may choose and have that exporter export on his behalf. The licence allows the Corporation to take steps so that exporters maintain overseas the sort of quality product that we would want carrying the Australian brand. One of the dilemmas the apple industry faces is that, while the apples will all be harvested between now and say May, they will be exported over a period that will run into November. Many of them will be maintained in crisp condition as a result of the modern storage practice known as CA or controlled atmosphere storage. What we are calling for and what requires licensing is something to ensure that apples which are taken out of storage and which look good in Australia are still in good condition when they arrive at an overseas market. There can often be some time lapse between apples coming out of storage and arriving at a market; only people who are prepared to treat apples like eggs in fact can be offered this form of export licence. The apple industry has been a part of our history. As we draw closer to 1988 it is worth remembering that in 1788 the first apple trees arrived in Australia. They came to us under Governor Phillip's instruction from Rio de Janeiro and the Cape of Good Hope. By 1833 the Van Diemen's Land Almanac recorded that growth in the apple trees was `so astonishing that it needs to be seen to be credited'. Understandably, this sort of dramatic development in the apple industry has not been maintained. The industry has had some major hiccups. In fact, it has been subject to tree-pull and a reconstruction scheme. The Bills before the House are a result of one of those reconstruction scheme inquiries and an Industries Assistance Commission report. I refer for a moment to the recommendations in the IAC report that prompted this legislation. It suggested: (1) underwriting for apple and pear exports continue for the next three seasons and then be terminated. In fact, the Government has chosen to make that a five-season underwriting scheme in the Bills which are receiving the Opposition's support. The report continued: (2) during the next three seasons the current underwriting arrangements be modified to incorporate the following features: (a) apples and pears continue to be underwritten separately- Yes, the Government has followed that recommendation- (b) underwriting be restricted to `at risk' export sales- In fact, the Government has chosen to deal with at risk sales as a separate part of the underwriting provisions- (c) the trigger price be calculated on the basis of 80 per cent of the volume-weighted average `at risk' for price for the highest three of the previous four years- The Government has chosen to make this figure 85 per cent- (d) an annual limit apply on payouts of $2.5 million for apples and $1.5 million for pears. That matter has not been taken up by the Government. The third point that the IAC recommended in the report that prompted this legislation was that plant variety rights be introduced for apples and pears. It is a matter of some concern to the Opposition that this third recommendation from the IAC report has not been taken up by the Government. The absence of some form of plant variety rights legislation in these Bills that arose out of this report is a significant omission by this Government. The IAC makes it perfectly clear that plant variety rights would be a major step in the right direction for the apple industry. As usual, this Government has chosen to go in the left direction. In an effort to encourage plant variety rights in Australia, encouragement endorsed by the IAC in its report, Senator Hill in the other place introduced a private member's Bill that failed to progress because of the combined forces of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. Following the 1984 election Senator Hill again introduced a plant variety rights Bill. The Democrats refused to accede to Senator Hill's demands and suggested that PVR ought to be limited to ornamental flowers. If you will pardon me, Madam Speaker, I think we can be excused for suggesting that the Democrats might be known as the pansies party. The Bills assist with export licensing of the Australian apple crop and offer apple growers some market security through the underwriting scheme. But real advances in the apple industry and real productivity gains will be possible only when the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is prepared to release the Lazenby report on plant variety rights and take positive action to put them into being in Australia. Without this action the apple industry and all horticultural industries are at a significant disadvantage. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today, the Leader of the National Party of Australia drew attention to a report in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial of 22 February and raised as a matter of privilege reported actions of the Treasurer in respect of the Chairman of Committees. Intimidation of any member is a most serious matter, and intimidation of the Speaker, or any occupant of the Chair, is particularly unacceptable, striking as it does at the free and independent adjudication necessary for the conduct of the business of the House. The Leader of the National Party cited the relevant authorities. In order to accord precedence to a motion in respect of a matter of privilege, I must be satisfied that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity and that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. As the report is dated 22 February and as the House had not met until today, the first criterion is satisfied. In relation to the second criterion, the Chairman of Committees informed the House that the report was quite incorrect and the activities outlined in it never occurred. I therefore find myself in the position of having, on the one hand, a newspaper report of certain events, and, on the other, an explicit denial from the person allegedly intimidated. In the circumstances the statement of the Chairman of Committees must conclude the matter and I must find that there is no prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege or contempt such as would cause me to accord precedence to a motion in respect of the matter. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, obviously the statement by the Chairman of Committees adds to the knowledge that the Parliament has of the matter. However, it seems to me that two other aspects need to be considered. Perhaps we could pursue those in Question Time and see whether another cause might arise. There is a concern that a report in a newspaper suggests that that interference has taken place; that is, there is a suggestion that a member of the House in some way has interfered with the independence of your Deputy, Madam Speaker. That must be looked at with some seriousness. While I, of course, accept totally the views that you have just expressed, I would hope that all members of the House would agree that if there is a comment in the media which suggests that something has taken place, which on evidence now before us would appear not to have taken place, it should be suggested that those in the media should not impugn the conduct or behaviour of people in this place to be other than that which it apparently is. In other words, I am saying that, if the media suggests that, in fact, there has been some interference in the independence of the Chairman of Committees, perhaps it would be appropriate in the advice that you have given the House for you to comment that the members of the media should not reach conclusions unless they are based entirely on facts within their knowledge. It is most unfortunate that members of the media should impute to members actions that it would seem have not taken place. While I accept entirely the judgment you have placed on the facts now before you, and if there has been no incident, members of the media surely should not be allowed to comment in the way that they have. Debate resumed. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.09) —I notice that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is leaving the chamber. In opening my remarks, I would like to thank him for attending my electorate last weekend and visiting the Jondaryan woolshed as well as Stanthorpe, where all the apples and pears are grown in my electorate. He had the pleasure of opening the apple and grape festival. I hope that he enjoyed his stay at Stanthorpe. I was very privileged to have him and his Press Secretary in Maranoa. I am sure that the people of Stanthorpe also appreciated his visit as the Minister for Tourism in Australia because those people look upon tourism as one of the great growth industries in the area. I just hope that he is able to come forward with some dollars. Of course, these trips are not all for fun; there is always a bit of work involved. We hit him hard for a few dollars for the Jondaryan woolshed. The community wishes to move an old bank building out of Oakey to the wonderful complex that has been established. I just hope that the Minister sees his way clear to find some funds out of his allocation to give them a hand. Apart from that, he and I were fortunate enough to be able to observe the making of some new wheels for the Treasurer's tax cart. I am sure that we were both entertained by the fact that they are still making old wheels in that part of the world. On behalf of the people of the Stanthorpe area, I thank the Minister for coming to Maranoa and opening the festival of apples and pears. Of course, the famous granny smith apple comes from that area. Stanthorpe is rather famous throughout Australia for producing top quality cider and best quality apples and pears. This Bill is most important to a number of people involved in the growing of these fruits in the eastern end of the Maranoa electorate, on the edge of the Great Dividing Range. The climate there is good for these fruits. It is also good for retired people and at this time of the year they certainly enjoy themselves at the festival. Over 1,000 people attended the ball that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, had the privilege of opening. Everbody had a good time. The Committee involved certainly deserves full praise for the wonderful effort it put into the apple and grape festival in that part of the world. I recommend to any members on the Government side of the House-I include the Whip, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), who is a good Queenslander-if they are in that part of the world to make sure that they visit Stanthorpe and attend the festival. I assure them that they will more than enjoy themselves. I do not claim to be an experienced apple and pear grower but the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who spoke before me on this Bill certainly is. He has been very much involved in this type of industry for a long time and there is not a great deal I can add to what he has already said. Of course, the Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill amends the 1973 Apple and Pear Corporation Act. It allows the Apple and Pear Corporation to issue licences. The industry itself is not all that happy about the underwriting provisions with the guaranteed minimum price being dropped from 95 per cent to 85 per cent. However, the averaging provisions have been altered and, whereas the current average is calculated over four seasons, the average will be determined over the best three of the preceding four years; this is an improvement. Under the existing provisions the Minister issues licences. The industry is to be incorporated along similar lines to the principles establishing the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I add that I attended a meeting of the Meat and Livestock Corporation in Brisbane the other day. It is rather sad how the Government has socialised these corporations. There is no flexibility left in the decision-making process. Motions have to be put in writing months before the meeting and amendments cannot be moved at the meeting. No free thought can be expressed at these meetings. Although the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) may think that he is going down the right track in incorporating these bodies, I assure the House that he is putting them in a straitjacket. There is no free thought at these meetings. There is no mechanism at the meetings to enable people to bring forward suggestions and so improve the industry. It is very much straight up and down with any motions that have to be put forward. I ask the Minister to try in future to make it easier. I guess there are some departmental officials here and I suggest that they have a close look at some of the wording in the legislation which incorporates the apple and pear industry as well as that relating to the Meat and Livestock Corporation. There is a range of such corporations. If the officials attend some of the meetings, they will see from the motions put forward and the form of debate that the whole system is completely hamstrung from go to whoa. If growers are to be expected to travel from all parts of Australia to attend these meetings, the meetings should be like normal meetings, allowing amendments and free discussion. I am sure that that would result in much better meetings and improvements in the industries concerned. The new arrangements will not be at any cost to the Government, although I guess they could be if it has to come in on the underwriting arrangements if for one or two years the price really slumps. But, as the situation stands now, the Government hopes that this will not be at too much cost to it. The Bill guarantees a minimum return to growers. It will now apply separately to forward sales. It will involve a cost to government only if there is a sharp downturn, as I mentioned. For example, in 1981, the export return to the apple industry for the year was $4.8m. The Corporation has agreed with the industry to a policy of restricting the number of licences. That will probably help to streamline the industry. The underwriting scheme will be reviewed by the Industries Assistance Commission prior to the end of the next five-year period. The apple and pear industry contributes 1 to 2 per cent of gross rural production so one can see that, although it is not a large gross earner, it does contribute something and surely this is most important these days with our adverse balance of payments and the disastrous position that the socialists have got us into in Australia where we are running deficits of $12 billion to $15 billion on our export-import balance. Any export that can contribute to bring down that figure must be regarded as important. As I mentioned, this industry is of great importance in the Stanthorpe area of my electorate which is called the granite belt. The climate and soil types are very suitable to the growing of fruit trees, grapes, pear trees and a whole range of stone fruits. The apples are used mainly as fresh fruit for the domestic market. Ten to 15 per cent of production is exported. About 50 per cent of pear production is processed locally and 50 per cent exported. Australia produces 300 kilotonnes of apples. The 1985 crop of 322 kilotonnes is the largest since 1979. There has been quite a downturn in the industry. Prior to 1979, the number of apple and pear growers fell by 60 per cent. This probably applies to most primary industries. There has been a tremendous downturn in production and many farmers have had to get out of these industries because of falling demand throughout the world. Much of the problem is caused by increased technology and the fact that so much more product is able to be produced for man hours employed in the production. That is really what it amounts to throughout the world. We are more than adequately able to feed the world in apples, pears, wheat, flour and beef. We are capable of producing much more than is needed, certainly in the countries to which we are able to sell. It always amazes me that people are still starving but of course they are not able to pay the sorts of prices for the sort of wage structure that this Labor Government foists upon us. Our wage structure is way above that of most countries of the world, certainly those of Asia and the Pacific Islands where we are expecting to find new markets and to compete. We have Buckley's chance of selling most of our products. We are now getting to the stage where the only people to whom we can sell are ourselves. Export markets around the world are practically not available to us because of the enormous cost of producing our products. Obviously, wages have to give. It is amazing how the oil price, the wheat price, the pear price and the apple price can drop but the only thing that keeps going up is wages. But that holiday is over. We must move into a freer system of wages and let the market dictate the price of wages. Wages will have to fall. The same thing happened in the last Great Depression in the 1930s. We did not climb out of that trough until the people on wages were prepared to take a bit less. The same thing will happen this time around, whether the Government likes it or not. It was amazing how the Arabs tried to hold up the price of oil over the last 10 or 15 years. But, eventually, the free market dictates the price and, wallop, down it came from $25, $30 or $40 a barrel to $10 or $12 a barrel at which it is selling today, and it will drop even lower. Of course primary producers are pleased that 10.6c a litre for diesel fuel is now going back to the farming industry. We have to be grateful for that in one sense but, in another sense, it is our due take anyway. The Government should have passed that fuel cost fall back to all industries. How can we compete world wide if governments are not prepared to give us a go and let us pay the true price for fuel. I am amazed at how the Government is quite happy to up the price to the world free market level when it is touching $40 a barrel but when it happens to crash down the Government is not prepared to reduce the price fully. So we live in the world of never never and of funny funny. One might think that we can survive under such economic regimes but we just cannot. We cannot produce a product at a price which can compete with that of, for example, the Americans and the Japanese as they are buying their crude oil at the world spot price. They pay nothing like the taxes that this Labor Government has passed on to us. Of course now the price of fuel is indexed and, as a result of the roll-forward effect, within five years it will recoup all this money anyway. The farmers, producers and consumers will be back-paying the same amount of tax in five years as they would have yesterday when the price of oil was $40 a barrel because now we have an increased excise rather than a well-head tax. The excise has gone from 6c to 16c a litre since this Government has been in office, which is a disgrace. Not only that, but also it is now indexed to inflation. Inflation is 8 per cent and one does not have to be an Einstein to work out quickly how soon it will take the Treasury to recoup the so-called loss it has incurred. Unless we are prepared to cut back on some government expenditure and meet the market we will collapse in a heap. That is the track we are heading down. The apple and pear producers are no different from any other sections of rural production. From 1979-80 to 1983-84 average farm cash operating surpluses fell 40 per cent, to $13,775. It is absurd that tonight and on and off over the last couple of months the caterers in this place have been on strike, and that is the sort of wage against which they have been striking. They have been earning $13,000 a year and they reckon it is not enough so they are out on strike. That, and less, is what farmers are getting in most cases yet they can do nothing about it because they have to compete on the world market. Prices for 1985 are about 25 per cent lower than for 1984. Export markets declined because of competition from southern hemisphere suppliers, increased quantities of northern hemisphere production rolled over through improved storage technology and Australian's high cost of production and freight. I refer to the Australian National Line, which is the most disastrous business afloat in the world. It is the most over-unionised, over-priced shipping group there is. We are compelled to export a lot of our products on the Australian National Line and that presents us with a tremendous disadvantage. As Australia is an island we have to ship most of our products long distances across the sea, and that makes it difficult for us to compete. The service is unreliable because unions are continually on strike. Export opportunities for apples in Asian markets will be affected in the future by restricted access to improved overseas varieties due to our lack of plant variety rights. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), mentioned that. It is high time that we allowed these patents to be introduced into Australia so we can keep up with the rest of the world. Until we have plant variety rights seed producers throughout the world will not be prepared to sell their products. We have to be prepared to patent these seed products so that they can at least get some return for the work that they put in. The apple juice market has expanded rapidly and there is a lot of cider on sale. The use of pear juice has also increased. In 1984-85 50 per cent of the apple juice consumed was imported, 38 per cent from New Zealand. Of course growers are concerned about dumping by New Zealand. Some of the Third World countries are exporting juice to New Zealand where it is being mixed with New Zealand's own juice and then New Zealand is turning around and dumping it here in Australia. Our growers are not very happy about the effect that it is having on the industry. One of the people I am continually in touch with is Mr Glen Best, chairman of the deciduous section of the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing in Queensland. He is an apple grower in the Stanthorpe area who is very active in looking after the interests of growers. I have been talking to him today about some of the things he hopes we may be able to do for them. They have had problems with hail, at both Stanthorpe and Orange in New South Wales. Hail has always been a tremendous problem for fruit growers because it quickly damages ripe fruit on the tree. They have a disaster scheme, underwritten by C. E. Heath and Co, but they would like the scheme extended. Of course they would like some sort of assistance from government to help them establish the scheme on a national basis. I have always supported some sort of insurance scheme. It is amazing how the unions can get superannuation at the drop of a hat by some sort of hocus-pocus productivity argument. That is a lot of garbage. Our productivity has gone down dramatically yet the unions seem to think that they deserve some sort of productivity flow on. It is not justified. The growers also would like to be able to insure against some of their problems. Primary industry is continually confronted with some form of disaster or another and it is important that we look at these problems to see whether we can help those involved. Another problem for farmers in these hard times is that it is nearly impossible for them to get social security payments but I believe that they should be eligible if they have no cash flow and need to support their families. If it is good enough for 600,000 Australians to be on the dole, at a current cost of $3 billion, I do not see why some of our farming community cannot be included. It is difficult for them as they have to leave the farm if they want another job. They cannot really do that because particularly in an orchard or on properties carrying stock, someone has to supervise. It does not matter how little income there is from the farm, someone has to be there to look after, for example, the watering of trees or stock. It is important that we try to broaden the guidelines for payment so that farmers can be included. The COD is not that keen about the 3 per cent productivity claim that I have mentioned. It is also worried about the tax package-I guess that that is another debate in itself-and the quarantining of farm losses. This Government discriminates in favour of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co Limited and big companies but discriminates heartlessly against farmers. Then it wonders why it has 40,000 farmers in front of Parliament House demonstrating against it. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(9.29) —In joining in the debate on the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill I must say that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) have very cogently put a case for the industry and for the Opposition, so my remarks will be fairly short. A number of the changes to the Apple and Pear Corporation proposed in this legislation will need further consideration by the Government. I will deal with this in a short while. In this period of crisis for rural Australia it seems curious that this Parliament's time should be taken up by legislation of this type. If this legislation were not passed it would not cause distress in the industry, yet crucial questions facing our apple and pear industry languish on the back-burner. We should be discussing issues such as the prompt introduction of plant variety rights legislation and the continued contraction of our export markets while our competitors have increased theirs. For example, our pear exports to Britain and Europe have decreased from 851,000 boxes in 1975 to an estimated 304,000 boxes in 1984. In comparison, South Africa's exports have doubled, New Zealand's have increased fourteen-fold, Argentina's have increased three-fold and Chile has come from nowhere to export 855,000 boxes. Our growers are disadvantaged by costs of $1 to $2 per carton for freight to Europe, compared with growers in Argentina and New Zealand, and these relate to Australia's high loading and discharge costs. There are sales tax anomalies on what constitutes pure fruit juice. Claims were also made at the Industries Assistance Commission hearing last year, as mentioned by the honourable member for Maranoa, that inexpensive fruit juices from Europe were being imported into New Zealand to meet that country's domestic requirements. Meanwhile, juice produced in New Zealand was exported to Australia where it enters duty free under our closer economic relations policy with that country. Turning more directly to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill, I am concerned, and there is a view held by many growers in my electorate, that they should be able to pack their own fruit, to have it inspected and then be able to arrange transport-that may be by air-to the markets in Asia. We deny our growers many markets around the world through excessive regulation, whether it be through transport, the Corporation or export licensing fees. In view of what is occurring in the industry this legislation may be heading in the wrong direction. Firstly, it hands over to the Apple and Pear Corporation the role of selecting and licensing those businesses which may export apples and pears. I believe that it has been the Apple and Pear Corporation's long term intention to reduce the number of export licences. To emphasise that, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) stated in his second reading speech that there will be: . . . a policy of restricting the number of licence holders as a means of improving exporter co-ordination and co-operation. That is a pretty deep wound to any free marketeer. No one could call the IAC right wing, but this is what it said on that policy: If the number of export firms were reduced, this could narrow growers' choice of outlet and thereby threaten growers' returns. Viewing the present situation, growers might understandably be concerned not only that the numbers of exporters may be reduced but also that existing licensing criteria which, though not used currently to limit the number of exporters, imply they might have imposed upon them someone else's judgment of the suitability of firms wishing to handle, or buy, their fruit. Maintaining competition among exporters would ensure that incentives exist which may lead to lower marketing costs, the encouragement of reputable behaviour and the development of new markets. It should also ensure that the less efficient or less reputable exporters are filtered from the industry. Thus, even if it is not applied stringently today, the wisdom of retaining legislation in place which lists criteria for allocating export licences can be questioned. The variety of products and services required and the constant changes in costs, prices and destination all point to the need for a similar variety of distribution arrangements and the desirability of flexibility and adaptability. These latter characteristics tend to accompany freedom of contract, not licensing and other restraints on the independence of exporters. So how will the Corporation reduce licences? Under this legislation the Corporation will be empowered to charge a licence administration fee. It could be just enough to sort out most of the smaller exporters. Is there a better guess as to how the Corporation will reduce the number of existing licences? Along with this is the diminishing liaison between the Corporation and the grower organisations. I am still old fashioned enough to maintain that the growers should remain in control of their industry. Clause 9 in this legislation allows the Corporation to meet with the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association `as it thinks fit'. Previously it had an obligation to meet with the APGA and that would be by far the best policy. After all, it is funding the Corporation and at least they should have an annual get together. There is no specific need for them to have an annual get together. As I have said, this will be as the Corporation thinks fit. Clause 5 is standard to the uniform legislation the Labor Government is bringing in to all primary produce marketing authorities. It relates to five-year plans with yearly targets and reviews for the research program and these have been mentioned by other speakers. But it should be clearly spelt out that the research programs in the past have not been carried out in such a bumbling fashion as to warrant these administrative changes. In fact research is fairly basic in this area and has, for the most part, centred around the more effective control of insect pests. I have not heard any dissatisfaction expressed by growers on the way research is presently being carried out. Despite the Minister's assurance that these amendments should not involve any Commonwealth Government costs or significant savings I will be looking closely at the Corporation's 1986 annual report. I cannot see how these additional administrative responsibilities will not add to the cost of running the Corporation. All up, I can see a loss of grower influence in the Corporation's activities through parts of this legislation. However, it will depend on how the legislation is administered as to whether my fears are confirmed. As I mentioned earlier, it is a great shame that we are not discussing something important to the apple and pear industry, such as plant variety rights or deregulation of our transport. I believe that the Government has taken a very reasonable attitude towards the underwriting although it may be disappointing to growers that it has dropped from 95 per cent to 85 per cent. But it should be an advantage to them that forward sales will be included in the underwriting, as is at risk fruit at the moment. In conclusion, I will be looking with great interest in future at the revamped Corporation. I trust that it will work out a little better than I expect it to. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.37) —I would like to thank all those honourable members who took part in the debate. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) regrets that he is unable to be here tonight. I have been asked to make just a couple of comments in relation to two contributions during the debate. The first was made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), who led on behalf of the Opposition. He sought an assurance that the phasing in of the new provisions would not cause any sudden impact on those subject to the rationalisation of export licences. I respond to that by saying that the Apple and Pear Corporation, which is predominantly an industry organisation, will exercise prudence and commercial judgment in implementing its policy of encouraging the continued development of overseas markets. I can give an assurance that, as the Corporation is a statutory marketing authority, the implementation of the policy to rationalise the number of exporters will be gradual and it will not cause the adjustment problems to which the Deputy Leader of the National Party and shadow Minister for Primary Industry alluded. The Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry expects the Corporation to approach this whole matter responsibly and, indeed, that is what the Minister expects. I should also point out that provisions are in place to allow the Administrative Appeals Tribunal act to review any Corporation decision with regard to the issue of export licences. So that appeal mechanism is another safeguard. I said that there were two matters to which I wanted to respond. The other matter, which is a very minor one, relates to the contribution of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and his reference to plant variety rights. He put it in the context that plant variety rights should not be introduced for apples and pears. I respond by saying that the Government is awaiting the outcome of an independent inquiry into plant variety rights and their application in Australia-a report by Professor Lazenby, which is expected shortly. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and trust that the passage of the Bills will now be a speedy one. 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 Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.43) —The Opposition does not oppose the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill. The Opposition takes the view that, if the Government wants to pursue this sort of fetish, it is entitled to do so. The fetish I refer to on this occasion is the regular practice of having elections through a whole series of levels, if I may so call them, to produce employee representatives for various councils concerned with the Trade Union Training Authority. We take the view that if the Government wishes to pursue this matter it is entitled to do so, but it must be said that this Bill is entirely unnecessary. If the Government had had its wits about it in May last year, it would not be necessary for the time of the Parliament to be taken up in 1986. We are in effect doing tonight what the Government should have done properly last year. What happened, to explain the matter a little further, is that in May last year we debated the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1)-an omnibus Bill, in other words, which sought in one king hit to make amendments to a whole series of enactments. It is a practice adopted by government regularly to amend Acts of Parliament in that way. The accepted and normal practice is only to make technical amendments-administrative amendments which have come up in the course of administering the law. The opportunity is often taken by governments to correct technical errors by means of an omnibus Bill. It was indeed such an omnibus Bill that we debated in this place on 21 May last year. Two things happened on the occasion of that debate. The first was that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) was in one of his moods and, in effect, rammed through the piece of legislation in what was one of the dying hours of the session of the Parliament at that time. Very few honourable members on the Government side or the Opposition side of the House had ample opportunity to examine the Bill and to look at it in detail. There was a problem of haste, and with haste mistakes occur. The second thing that happened on that occasion, which is deserving of the strongest censure, is that the Government departed from the established practice of using an omnibus Bill only to make technical amendments and in fact made some very significant amendments to the law by means of that omnibus Bill. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will remember very well the provisions that dealt with an international treaty which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as a mere technicality. Then-and this is the significant point that I come to in regard to the present legislation-the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 dealt with this same body, the Trade Union Training Authority, under its 1975 Act. I spoke in the debate on that occasion, and drew attention first of all to the fact that it was being debated with unseemly haste, which was very unwise. Secondly, I drew attention to the fact that the omnibus Bill was being used not just for mere technical alterations, but for very substantive changes to the law. I made the point then, as I think other members have made from time to time, that an omnibus Bill should not be concerned with substantive changes to the law but only with comparatively small changes and technical amendments. It is interesting and ironic, I suppose, to look back on my speech. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will either recall the speech I made or would have read it since. On that occasion I drew attention particularly to that part of the omnibus Bill which dealt with the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. To refresh your memory, may I remind you of some of the things I said on that occasion because, in effect, the chickens have come home to roost. The problems to which I pointed, I say with all due modesty, have now materialised less than 12 months later. What I said on 21 May 1985, at page 2809 of Hansard, was: I would have thought that it was not appropriate by means of an omnibus Bill to make wholesale amendments to any piece of legislation, especially one which seeks to change the structure of a semi-government organisation. I was of course referring there, as Hansard makes clear, to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. I went on to say later on the same page: It is not appropriate for that sort of amendment to be contained in an omnibus Bill such as the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1). By `that sort of amendment' what I meant was changes to the law relating to the governing body of the Trade Union Training Authority. The omnibus Bill on that occasion, as I pointed out, was being used not just to make technical amendments but to change the structure of the governing body of the Trade Union Training Authority. The Government cannot say that it was not warned that that was not the way to go about things, and the Government cannot say that it was not warned that, if it wanted to change the governing body and its structure, it should do so by a substantive Bill so that we all knew what we were debating and all had time to read it and understand it. But no, the Government in its unseemly haste, forged ahead and now, less than 12 months later, has seen the error of its ways. What happened is that it has taken steps to have elections conducted for the regional bodies of this governing authority of the Trade Union Training Authority. But we have got in a euphemistic way in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) an explanation, first, as to how the structure for the election of people to the regional bodies will operate, and, secondly, this gem which I will read out: When the necessary election regulations were being prepared- that is, under the law passed under the omnibus Bill- . . . however, it became apparent that the intended exclusion of national and college staff could not be given effect to under the 1985 provisions. In other words, the Government had made a mistake. The Minister went on to say: Accordingly, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to remove that difficulty and to give full effect to the intention of the 1985 amendments. The intention which, presumably, the Minister meant was to enable representatives to be elected to these regional bodies if, and only if, they were employed in regional agencies of the Trade Union Training Authority. The Minister says that a difficulty has arisen. I do not know whether he is proposing to bring out some new dictionary of synonyms and antonyms, but perhaps `oversight' might be better than `difficulty'. Perhaps `ignorance' or `incompetence' might be even more appropriate words. But the simple fact of the matter is that the Government messed it up. It messed it up in May last year when it introduced the omnibus Bill. As a result of its unseemly haste and its not giving proper consideration to the matter, it made a mistake which we are now asked to rectify by means of legislation. We will rectify it by means of this Bill and will not oppose it. But this should serve, I hope, as a salutary lesson to the Government to reflect on what we in the Opposition said in 1985-namely, that if the Government is going to use this omnibus Bill method of legislating, it must do two things. The first is that the Government must not introduce substantive changes to the law by means of an omnibus Bill; and the second is that, at the very least, the Government must give honourable members an opportunity to study the Bill and to consider changes that are being made to the law by means of that Bill. So, with that reminder of the Government's transgressions and our plea that it does not make the same mistake again as we come to the end-as I presume we will sooner or later-of the present session, we repeat, as I have said, that the Opposition will not oppose this Bill. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(9.53) —It has been my experience that in politics some people have more hide than a herd of bulls. But surely we have not had a contribution as lengthy as that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown), who has finally, after being the shadow spokesman on employment and industrial relations and a former Minister in this area, found something to pick on the Government about in the employment and industrial relations field. And woe betide us! It is in respect of a sub-section to an amendment of an Act that has relatively broad support in this Parliament that we have left out some legal device. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent 10 minutes lecturing us on being ignorant and incompetent. I take the opportunity to remind the Parliament that this is the first time that he has been able to refer to anything that this Government has done wrong in the area of employment and industrial relations. I also take the opportunity to say that he was the Minister, when members of the Opposition were in government, who was best known for having such a high level of strikes, unemployment and no wages policy-a position on the part of Opposition members, of course, which still exists today. Notwithstanding all of that, it is true that a minor amendment is needed in this section to give effect to an intention that was in the original amendments last year. The provisions in the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 now before the House are little more, really, than a good housekeeping measure, but they will help keep TUTA growing and providing the valuable service that it does. Last year's Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) dealt with the structure and the administration of TUTA. It was provided that there be a new position of staff representative on each regional council and it was intended that the holder of the position would be elected by and from those officers and employees of TUTA who performed their duties in the State for which the council was established. The officers and the employees in TUTA establishments which are located in a State but which function at the national rather than the State level were to be precluded from participating in those elections because the regional councils are concerned with the work of TUTA only at the State level. It became apparent, of course, to the Government that the intended exclusion of national and college staff could not be given effect to under the 1985 provisions, and hence the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to remove that difficulty. Proposed paragraph 20 (1) (e), read in conjunction with the proposed sub-section 20 (5), will limit persons who may participate in the election of officers in the TUTA State offices. Of course, this Bill allows us time to reflect on the good work and value of TUTA. The Australian Trade Union Training Authority assists in the development of an efficient, progressive and well led trade union movement, by any measure in the Western world. This task that it performs is vital to the Australian economy. The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions is a national responsibility and should be seen as such. They need to develop and further improve existing skills and skills that they have acquired in their period in the union movement. The TUTA is 10 years old, and since the proclamation of its Act on 8 September 1975, TUTA has conducted 4,290 courses for more than 80,000 trade unionists throughout this country. In 1984-85, the final stage of the three stage growth was implemented with a small addition to the training resources at the Clyde Cameron College. Overall training performance, measured by student training days-that is, days of training multiplied by number of course participants-increased from 38,770 in 1983-84 to 44,839 in 1984-85, which is an increase of more than 15 per cent. The number of courses offered by TUTA has increased from 474 in 1982-83 to 697 in 1984-85, which is an increase of nearly 50 per cent-a terrific result. TUTA has continued to pay special attention to new developments in trade union activity, mainly arising from the implementation of the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government. These developments have been monitored to ensure that TUTA programs and courses are kept up to date and are relevant. A kit called `Unions in Accord' has been prepared and distributed to all full-time officials in all States. The kit has been well received and widely used to the benefit, of course, of this nation. The up to date work of the Authority will ensure that our future union leaders maintain the high standards of the present leaders. The present leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been responsible for most productive and valued contributions to the economic and taxation summits, which have led to great advances for the Australian economy. Of course, it was the current leadership of the ACTU which negotiated with the Government in the introduction for the accord-that unprecedented agreement which has assisted the strong economic growth in this country and has been responsible for the lowest level of industrial disputation in 17 years. In 1984-85, TUTA conducted seminars for unions related to the following industry councils: Basic metals; metal fabrication; machinery and engineering; electrical and electronic; forest products; printing and publishing; and aerospace. As well, industry seminars were held for the railway, aircraft and clothing industries. In 1984-85, courses were conducted in more than 65 non-metropolitan locations, showing how TUTA can and does take its programs to those centres where there is need for trade union training outside of the main cities. TUTA has continued to draw on a very large number of part time and visiting lecturers from a wide range of sources in the industrial and educational world. These include members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, State industrial tribunals, universities and colleges of advanced education, the Australian and State public services, the trade union movement broadly, and statutory authorities and private industry. At the end of the last financial year, TUTA employed 99 full-time staff and eight part-time staff. In 1984-85, TUTA's recurrent expenditure was $6,689,836, of which $6.3m was funded from parliamentary appropriations and the balance of $318,000 was funded from other sources. Funds for the purchase of furniture, fittings, equipment and so forth totalling some $177,000, together with funds for capital works and services totalling another $190,000 were also provided from parliamentary appropriations. The past financial year's results reflect most of the anticipated impact of the three-stage proposal to increase training activity resulting from the national survey of training needs undertaken in 1979-80. The Government agreed to the implementation of stage 1 from January 1983, stage 2 from January 1984 and stage 3 from January 1985. The full effects of the proposal will be seen in 1985-86. However, to date TUTA has received an additional 27 staff and $1.5m for the implementation of the proposal. This represents a 30 per cent increase in staffing and a 40 per cent increase in appropriations over 1981-82 levels. I mention all this to show what spectacular results have been and will continue to be achieved by TUTA. The role of TUTA in the trade union movement and, therefore, broadly in the economic health of this nation cannot be overstated. If there is any implication from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government is wasting the time of this Parliament by bringing in this administrative change tonight, I think that is a most shortsighted attitude on his part, although I am very pleased to hear that the Opposition does not intend to oppose this legislation. I say again, in conclusion, what I said at the outset: This is a housekeeping amendment that is necessary for the good administration of TUTA. I look forward to the unanimous support of it by the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.02) —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) has already pointed out, the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 is essentially a technical, machinery Bill designed to correct a drafting error that was made in the Bill that was passed by this House in May 1985. In that regard the Opposition certainly does not intend to oppose this Bill. However, we draw the attention of the House to the fact that a drafting error was made and, had the Government given closer attention to the drafting of the 1985 legislation, it would not be necessary for us to be here tonight debating and passing further amendments to the legislation. I am disappointed that, as the Government was required to pass further amendments to the legislation, it did not use the opportunity to look more closely at the role of the Trade Union Training Authority to see what essential improvements might be made to the role the Authority plays in industrial relations in Australia. I strongly suggest that the Government could have used this opportunity, as we are passing legislation, to establish an inquiry into the role and the function of the Trade Union Training Authority. It is unfortunate that the opportunity has been missed. As the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) has pointed out in his contribution, the Trade Union Training Authority has now been operating for 10 years. Essentially, its role and function has not been questioned or looked at very closely at all by the Parliament. I believe that with 10 years hindsight the opportunity exists to establish an inquiry into the role and function of the Trade Union Training Authority to assess whether it can play a more positive role in improving the state of industrial relations in Australia. I believe that the Government has missed its opportunity to do so while this legislation was before the House. I believe that, unfortunately, the Trade Union Training Authority has not helped to improve the state of industrial relations in Australia. It is unfortunate that industrial relations in this country-the relationship between employers and employees-is based on an adversarial role which means that the two major participants in industrial relations must necessarily adopt opposing views. In that regard the Trade Union Training Authority has not helped to narrow the divisions between employers and employees; rather it has widened them. It is true, as the honourable member for Barton has said, that over the 10 years of its operation the Authority has most certainly improved the negotiating and other skills of trade union people; but, in the course of improving those skills amongst trade unionists, it has also helped to widen the divisions and, therefore, heightened the adversarial positions of employers and employees. It is unfortunate that, as those adversarial positions become more inflamed, the industrial performance of Australia slowly declines. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House that the Trade Union Training Authority could be used to heal the divisions between employers and employees and to encourage harmony at the industrial level. I suggest that the Trade Union Training Authority could very easily have its role expanded to include joint training for employees and employers. I believe that, if we are to improve the industrial climate in this country, it is essential that the communication techniques between employers and employees be improved dramatically. In that regard I believe that, if we had joint training which brought employers and employees together at the Authority, where they could discuss their mutual problems and those matters in which they have a common interest, the participants in such courses could go back to their places of work with a much better understanding of the other party's position in industrial relations. In that way, the Trade Union Training Authority could be used as a mechanism to improve the personal and industrial relations between employers and employees. I am disappointed that the Government has not used the opportunity while this legislation is before the House to establish an inquiry to look into these matters. Clearly, if the Trade Union Training Authority were to adopt a broader role, as I have suggested, it would necessarily have to have its name changed. Obviously, it could not limit its role to just the training of trade union personnel if it were also to include employers. I suggest that we should look at expanding the role of the Authority-the title of the Authority could be changed to something like `the Industrial Relations Training Authority'-to improve the relationship between employers and employees. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, we do not intend to oppose this Bill because essentially it is a technical, machinery Bill. It is unfortunate that this amendment was not included in the 1985 Bill that was passed by this House. We urge the Government to look more closely at the technical detail of the Bills it brings before this chamber because we do not like to waste our time simply coming back into the chamber and correcting bad drafting by the Government. I also urge the Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to look more closely at the role of the Trade Union Training Authority and to make an assessment of how the country could use the Authority as a mechanism for improving the relationship between employers and employees. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.08) —I thank my colleague the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) for being good enough to give me some time to speak, as the House is due to move on to the adjournment debate in about five minutes. I thank him for being courteous enough to give me the opportunity to speak. Many people in the Australian community often think that this place is all about adversarial relationships. I think it would be valuable if they were to listen to this debate tonight on the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 and hear Government and Opposition members fundamentally agreeing about the legislation before the chamber. It is appropriate to note that that is the case on many occasions. Of course, the impression that people have out there is somewhat different. The honourable member for Lyons made a couple of points that I thought were worth taking up. He spoke about the value of employers and employees being trained together in an arrangement such as the Trade Union Training Authority. The arrangement at the Administrative Staff College at Mt Eliza has that very much in mind. The intention is that both employees and employers should work together. That has worked successfully. One of the reasons why an organisation such as the Trade Union Training Authority was established was that historically there had been an imbalance between the background-educationally and in terms of information-of the worker and the managers in the Australian industrial relations arena. Very often managers have had the opportunity of being exposed to higher levels of formal education and were better equipped to handle industrial relations bargaining. That does not mean that justice was not on the side of workers; it just means that very often information and education were not on their side. It was with that in mind that the Trade Union Training Authority was established. In many ways it has been very successful because, to an extent, that imbalance has been redressed. We now have the Administrative Staff College, and some management graduates have said that very often graduates from the Trade Union Training Authority are, if anything, better prepared for the hurley burley of the industrial relations arena. I think the Trade Union Training Authority has been very successful. I can speak personally because of my involvement in courses with the Trade Union Training Authority. I will speak directly to what the honourable member for Lyons said about the Australian industrial relations climate being very adversarial. That is quite true. Since the inception of arbitration and conciliation we have tended to arrange industrial relations in an adversarial way. However, what we needed to do was ensure that when the parties to a dispute were involved in negotiation they were both well prepared and were equally balanced in terms of their ability, information and education. The Trade Union Training Authority has done a lot towards that end. I find it interesting in the context of the national economic debate how often complaints come from people such as Messrs Crean and Kelty, who should have access to government. That is a reflection of the success of the Australian community in ensuring that representatives of the workers have a voice that is equally as effective as that of representatives of management. Historically that has not always been the case. We as a community have succeeded in redressing that imbalance. Clearly that is the case and it is something that is recognised in the community. I believe it is a very important change. My observations about Trade Union Training Authority courses are these: There is a substantial amount of content in them that is very well received by job delegates, stewards and rank and file members who attend them. It is important that we always talk in terms of the wider setting of industrial relations. I have been pleased to see the reception of the courses in which I and other colleagues in the community have participated. It has been possible to say to trade union members: `When you make decisions in relation to your place of work recognise that those decisions have a wider impact in the community'. I must say there has been great acceptance of that. When at the national level of government one starts talking about such things as an accord which embodies all kinds of social assumptions as well as industrial relations assumptions, one finds that members of trade unions and their leadership are well able to understand that wider implication. Whether one sits on the other side of the House or the Government side we, as a community, should feel very proud that over a period of years we have managed to achieve both in terms of the rank and file and the leadership of trade unions a substantial degree of understanding about the wider role that they play as unionists and the impact that the decisions they make as unionists have upon the community. We talk freely in this place about the Scandinavian model. This is that kind of responsible unionism that we have been able to reach in the context of the Trade Union Training Authority. Honourable members opposite would understand that. They may not say that in their rhetoric but I am sure they would understand it. I know that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) well understands that, and we understand his important contribution to debates on industrial relations. Certainly honourable members on this side understand that. What I am talking about is saying to members of trade unions, their leadership and the rank and file: `You are partners in the Australian community. We want to offer a training program that equips you to better fulfil your role in the Australian industrial relations scene, and the Trade Union Training Authority does that exceptionally well'. We all need to understand in the context of that debate that that is a goal that we, as a community, must jointly have. I am pleased to say that during the period the Opposition was in government it persisted with the Trade Union Training Authority, and we certainly intend to do the same. In the context of the Trade Union Training Authority Act and the amendment which we are debating, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I now propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.15) —The payment of unemployment benefits to overseas visitors has recently been brought to my attention. Coincidently two constituents communicated their concern to me about separate cases in the same week. In the first case reference was made to a visitor from the United Kingdom who was hitchhiking around Australia. The visitor explained to her benefactor driver and his companion that she was receiving unemployment benefits paid out of taxes contributed by Australian taxpayers. It seems certain that this lurk has already caught on because the second case arose out of a casual conversation between another constituent and a young United Kingdom citizen on a popular surfing beach in my electorate. This story was the same. He, a visitor to this country, was receiving the unemployment benefit. Both visitors were young, had working visas and were British. Both were and are receiving unemployment benefits and both were and are eligible to obtain sickness benefits. This prompted me to make inquiries and those inquiries with the Department of Social Security revealed that citizens from the United Kingdom visiting Australia on a working holiday visa, who have resided in the United Kingdom for 12 months prior to coming to Australia, can apply for, and receive, both unemployment and sickness benefits on arrival in Australia. The only other constraint on them is that they must arrive in Australia within 13 weeks of their departure from the United Kingdom. If they do not comply with that 13 week requirement they have to wait six months in Australia before being granted sickness or unemployment benefits. This arises out of a reciprocal agreement made with the Government of the United Kingdom many years ago, and it has not been revised, as I understand it, since 1949. On the other hand, Australian visitors arriving in the United Kingdom must reside there for six months before being able to apply for sickness or unemployment benefits. The Social Security Department advises that the Australian Government is apparently not happy with this arrangement and it says there are rumours that something will be done about it. However there is no indication when these changes will be made. I add that the situation is a little different with our arrangement with visitors from New Zealand. New Zealanders will get benefits only if it is their intention to reside in Australia permanently. They must provide the Social Security Department with reasonable proof that they intend to stay here. Also they can get only unemployment benefits, not sickness benefits, until they become eligible for Australian citizenship after two year's residence. However, it does not take much of an intellect to acknowledge that this system is open to abuse because how would one provide proof of intention to reside or how would the Department of Social Security dispute an assertion by a visitor from New Zealand? He or she could be here in Australia on long service leave, make an assertion, be entitled to unemployment benefits and other benefits and when that time was up simply leave having taken this money. I just do not see how the Department of Social Security could police this aspect with any confidence. I point out to the House that one can apply for a Medicare card after only six month's residence and this applies to a person of any nationality. These arrangements are long overdue for review. It is scurrilous that Australian taxpayers should be obliged to pay for young visitors from the United Kingdom or, for that matter, from any country while they enjoy a holiday in this country. These reciprocal arrangements are long overdue for review. I might add that they do not apply to countries other than the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The arrangements have been in operation for many years, as I have already indicated. In fact, the regulations in respect of New Zealand have not been revised since 1949. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.20) —I rise tonight because less than two weeks ago in this place I listened to an adjournment speech by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) during which he expressed his concern about Australia's contribution towards official development assistance overseas. Indeed, he was concerned that the Government had not been able to attain the 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product which was the United Nations target for official development assistance. A few days earlier the Caucus had rejected a proposal which would have injected another $90m into that program. I suppose it is understood by all that at a time of budgetary constraint, as we have at the moment, that was a very difficult decision. That adjournment speech perhaps would have been passed over had it not been for the effort today by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who asked a particularly obnoxious question in this House and, indeed, cast great doubt over the coalition's support for the initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is in the Philippines at the moment and who has suggested that there should be an increase in aid to that country. The Philippines, of course, has been struggling for a number of years, and it seems it has finally established a democratic government. One would have thought that Mrs Aquino and her Government deserve the support of all Australians, particularly in this very volatile and difficult time they are experiencing, and that one would have anticipated some bipartisan support. I hope that the honourable member for Fisher was not articulating foreign policy for the coalition. I return to the speech two weeks ago by the honourable member for Kooyong and his statement that Labor's actions had let down all those Australians who care about the poor and needy in the world. Those of us who know about the electorate of Kooyong would understand that there are not a great number of people who would come within that category in that electorate. He expressed concern about our failure to reach the 0.7 per cent of GDP which was the United Nations target. I believe that he was only shedding crocodile tears about that because it is salutary to look at the performance of the coalition when the honourable member for Kooyong was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When he took over as Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1975-76 the percentage of GDP available for overseas development assistance was 0.51 per cent. The next year it fell to 0.47 per cent. It was 0.48 per cent the next year. It fell to 0.45 per cent the year after and when he was removed from that position and was no longer the Foreign Minister the level was 0.44 per cent, which is lower than the present level. It was only in 1982-83 that there was an increase to above the present level. That occurred at a time when the economy was contracting significantly, so as a percentage of GDP it is not surprising that there was an increase in that year. Since the Australian Labor Party has been in office it has maintained the level of 0.45 per cent of GDP, which is above that of the coalition when it was in government. The other disturbing element of the Peacock years is that during that time foreign aid took on a particularly political aspect. If one looks at the figures for countries such as Pakistan, Vietnam and India, where there was a significant humanitarian need, there was a political decrease in aid to those countries and the aid was directed in other areas. I hope that we will be able to apply our aid more effectively and more efficiently in the future through improving our administration and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has suggested in the Philippines, by co-ordinating our activities with other countries. I hope that the Opposition's position is not that which was articulated today by the honourable member for Fisher. While the interest of the honourable member for Kooyong is laudable, I think that his performance was abysmal. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.25) —One of the emotional issues we are faced with at the moment in Australia is the environmental issue in South West Tasmania. I would like to place on record a few facts to try to clarify some statements which have been made today, particularly the statement by Senator Walsh in the other place. Senator Walsh referred to the fact that the Federal Government might look at putting more stringent conditions on Tasmanian woodchip exports, yet this particular issue has nothing to do with woodchipping-it is to do with saw logs. It is not to do with woodchipping whatsoever. I will just go into a bit of the background to the Farmhouse Creek situation. Road building for timber extraction in the Picton Valley stopped at the end of 1983 approximately 300 metres north of Farmhouse Creek. The work now under way will see the existing forestry road extended 300 metres to Farmhouse Creek and the construction of a bridge across the creek. The forestry road will then be extended up the valley a little further-1.7 kilometres. The purpose of the road is to enable the harvesting of old growth-saw logs-to supply important sawmills in the Dover and Hobart region. It is nothing to do with woodchipping-it is the harvesting of mature trees, which is the best way to manage our resources, rather than letting those trees fall down in a 100 years time and just rot on the ground. The depressed economy of the municipalities in that area is quite severe and currently they are experiencing unemployment in the vicinity of 20 per cent. It is heavily dependent on the production of forestry through sawmilling and contract harvesting. There are no alternatives to the southern Picton Valley copses as sources for high quality old growth saw logs for southern sawmillers. The jobs of several hundred workers are dependent on the continued availability of this resource. The management of the southern forests, including Farmhouse Creek, is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the working plan for the Crown forests in southern Tasmania prepared under the Forestry Act. Tasmania manages wisely its forestry resources and in this particular case we have a set of untruths, particularly those published in the papers in the last few days. I refer to one or two quotes by Dr Brown. He said: We are being vigilant. We are going to stay here as long as we can. We must. This is a national estate we are sitting in. It is not a national estate. That is totally false, yet these people portray to many Australians that the Tasmanian Government is taking a confrontationist approach on this issue. It is not; it is taking a very level-headed, sensible approach to the management of those resources. It is not moving into the south west area. It is not going into national parks. It is going into an area in which there are huge trees which need to be harvested to provide jobs and materials as they are needed. The Farmhouse Creek area is dedicated production forest, not wilderness forest. It is approximately 7.5 kilometres distant from the boundary of the South West National Park, which constitutes the nearest point of the World Heritage area. Extension of the forestry road southwards from Farmhouse Creek will not bring motor access any nearer to the south west area, since the forestry road will run approximately parallel to that park. As I have already said, Tasmania has wisely managed its forests and that is why it has three times the area of national parks of any State in Australia. That is why we still have trees to use as a valuable resource. Not only that, we are planting more trees than we are felling. In other words, we have got to a point where, whether we are looking at woodchipping or saw logs, Tasmania is wisely managing its resources and there will be jobs in the future and there will be trees in the future. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(10.30) —I also want to talk about the issue of woodchipping, the timber industry and the problems in Tasmania. The whole situation can be dreadfully distorted by those with a particular interest in pandering to groups in Tasmania because it seems to me that when people say that what has been said by Bob Brown and others is a total distortion, the only people saying that are our opponents here, Premier Gray and the industry. We have only to watch on television the very graphic details of the assaults that took place by people whom one can talk about only as moronic thugs who were walking around with chainsaws in the middle of the bush attempting to cut anything that they could. Let us look at the reality of what has been going on. All last year people from Tasmania, from the industry, from the Tasmanian government and conservationists said: `Take a reasonable stand. Take a position which is rational and on which people can come to an agreement'. That is what we did. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) took a very careful position which, it has to be conceded, was a bottom line position in terms of conservation. He put it to the Premier of Tasmania and said: `Here is a rational position which provides for a on-going industry, a position on which we should be able to reach agreement'. But because of the irresponsibility of Premier Gray in Tasmania, we have confrontation which has got out of hand and we are seeing the thuggery taking place that everyone tried to avoid for over 12 months. No conclusion can be drawn other than that the Federal Government cannot put any value in any agreement that Gray draws up. It is my proposition that the Federal Government has no choice now but to go to the extreme of imposing all sanctions on the companies and saying: `We cannot trust a government which is prepared to use every force to corrupt the police force in order to achieve an end'. Let us have a very good look at what happened. Not one newspaper in Australia-not even the Tasmanian newspapers which are renowned for their pro-Gray stand-says that the position taken by Gray and the way that he has corruptly used the police force can be supported anywhere in the community. The direct blame for the confrontation that has taken place has to rest with the Gray Government which has provoked the situation. What has Premier Gray said? He accused the conservationists of deliberately invoking confrontation. What did we see graphically on television? From where was the confrontation coming? It was from those thugs who were imported by Risby Forest Industries Pty Ltd- Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. I take strong exception to the unparliamentary language of the honourable member referring to Tasmanians as thugs. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member does not have a point of order. He will resume his seat. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member may interject but Risby Forest Industries imported the thugs which caused the confrontation. When they fell at the end of a threat, Mr Risby broke down on television and said: `This is dreadful. I have had my life threatened'. It did not worry him that his thugs were imposing physical threats on people. People with chainsaws were running around threatening lives. A newspaper report said that people had nooses put over their heads and told that they would be hung, strung up, if they did not comply. There is no doubt that Premier Gray has to take the blame for all this action. We also must condemn the police as did the editorial of the Mercury which quite clearly said that the police stood by while physical assault was taking place on people who had committed no crime other than being in a public reserve-a national estate. The Minister for Police said that if any physical assault had taken place, the police would have stepped in. Obviously, the Police Minister meant that if the conservationists had attempted any defence, they would have been arrested for physically assaulting the timber workers-if that is what they really were. I condemn wholeheartedly, as I think would all honourable members on my side of the House, the Gray Government for the way it has provoked this confrontation. I believe that members on this side would support me in saying that from now on we have to deal with the companies in a much harder way than would be the current trend. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.35) —I wished to speak tonight on foreign affairs and defence but after hearing the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) I must say that his speech will be published and distributed throughout Tasmania. If that speech represents the feeling of the Hawke socialist Government, I assure the honourable member that he will keep the Australian Labor Party in opposition for another quarter of a century in Tasmania and will ensure that we will continue to retain not only the five seats in the House of Representatives which we currently hold but will sweep the Senate at the next poll. I would have thought there would be a very clear obligation on members, even recent arrivals in this Parliament like the honourable member, to at least check the facts before they stand in the national Parliament making statements which bear no relation whatsoever to the facts. The reality is that for the first time in my memory radical conservationists have grossly miscalculated in Tasmania. They believed that by creating confrontation which was quite deliberate and provocative, they would pick up media support. The fact is that the honourable member who has just resumed his seat fails to understand that barely three weeks ago the people of Tasmania re-elected the Gray Government with an increased majority-a vote which went up 5 per cent-and a resounding defeat for the Australian Labor Party which was absolutely annihilated. I give an example of the electorate of Franklin where my brother, the Liberal candidate for Franklin, outpolled the alternative Premier of Tasmania, the then Leader of the Opposition. When we debated the Gordon below Franklin issue, I am sad to say that there was a litany of untruths, both in the Parliament and in the media. Photographs were published in the Melbourne Press of areas which were to be flooded in the Gordon below Franklin scheme. Many of those areas were in no way involved. People saw photographs of roads which were meant to be roads relating to the Gordon below Franklin scheme. In fact, the roads were created for the Serpentine scheme about 15 years earlier. The fact is that Tasmanians resolved then and there that never again would we sit back and permit untruths and inaccuracies about our environment to be uncontested. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) is quite correct. This is not a national estate area. It is product forest in which old timber is to be taken for saw logs. Honourable members would think, if they picked up the newspapers and saw what Dr Brown and others were saying, that we were dealing with something in relation to the South West heritage-the national estate. That is not true. We are talking about productive forests. Madam Speaker, you know the area well. I am certain that you have been there. One can drive into this area and see on one side of the road forest in its virgin state and on the other side of the road, south of Geeveston, regenerated forest. I invite any reasonable, rational person to look at the two areas, compare them and give a judgment as to which is the better. There has been deliberate confrontationist provocation, deliberate attempts to prevent men going about their work; persons lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing themselves in front of men as they went to work. These men have been subjected, not to months and months, but years and years of a campaign of hate headed by a radical group of conservationists who believe that they can say anything and it will be believed and they can do anything and get away with it. Last Friday that group went looking for trouble and it found it. The people who have their jobs to protect and who have a right to a earn a living are fed up to the back teeth with this lunatic conservation group. It does not surprise me that, once again, it is getting support form that radical socialist Left faction in Victoria represented by the honourable member who preceded me. I am sure that the Hawke socialist Government will think twice before it intrudes into matters which are matters for Tasmania and Tasmanians. It did it once and got away with it. I warn the honourable member who has just resumed his seat not to go around threatening Tasmanians because we will fight and this time we will win. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.40) —Tonight, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the persecution of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. I have spoken before about that once peaceful island called Ceylon. That island, so well known for its serenity, is now turned into a bloody slaughterhouse of innocent Tamils, who represent a sizable ethnic minority. Since the Jayewardene Government orchestrated the 1983 racial riots, violence against the Tamils has never ceased. As a matter of fact it is becoming worse as time goes on and has culminated in the use of helicopter gunships against the civilian population in Jaffna. One wonders how much of Australian aid is directed into military purchases and into the acquisition of weapons with which the security forces kill and maim innocent men, women and children, whose only crime is that they are born Tamils. The Jayewardene Government in Sri Lanka is spending this year nearly 6,000 million rupees on its defence budget. Yet Sri Lanka is not under threat by any external power whatsoever. The weapons that the Government purchases are not used against an enemy, but are used to massacre Tamils. They are used for a `final solution' of the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. The arms are used for genocide of the Tamils. The state rhetoric of `flushing out' and `mopping up terrorists' are euphemisms for the cold-blooded state murder of civilians. According to the Sri Lankan Finance Minister the states' revenue is `insufficient to meet current expenditure' and `almost all our capital expenditure has to be met by foreign aid and loans'. Yet the Government seems to have plenty of money to buy helicopter gunships and pay mercenaries to fly them and use the same to bomb Tamil populated areas. The Sri Lankan Government is running a 30 billion rupee budget deficit to finance the genocide and is trying to plug the holes with the foreign aid, including the Australian aid given to Sri Lanka. To satisfy its racial hatred, the Government is bankrupting the state, yet its military action against the Tamils and the gross violation of their human rights has achieved so far only the radicalisation of the Tamil youth who are refusing to be led to slaughter. As I said before, the state organised terrorism against the innocent Tamil civilians did not cease after the 1983 racial riots. Our Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) has expressed his concern about the racial violence in Sri Lanka. However, our aid, which enables the regime to finance its genocide against the Tamils, continues. I call on our Government to suspend immediately bilateral aid to the Jayewardene Government and channel the money through non-government organisations to Tamil areas to help those people who are in need and dispossessed because of the Government's action. The Leader of the Opposition, (Mr Howard) not long ago compared the Sri Lankan regime to that of South Africa. I go a step further and I compare the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka today to the plight of Jews under Hitler. The genocide against Jews succeeded because the rest of the world was silent. Do not let us assist the killing of fellow human beings in Sri Lanka by our silence and our inaction. As I have said before in this House, do not let us be associated with genocide by not speaking up, by not doing something while there is still time. I quote again Pastor Nimoller, who said: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out- because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out- because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out- because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak out- because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me and there was none left to speak out for me. Let us use all the influence that Australia has in international forums to stop the genocide against Tamils in Sri Lanka. Let us take the first step by redirecting our aid from the Jayewardene Government to the long-suffering Tamil areas. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.45) —I always thought that members of the Australian Labor Party supported the workers. I remember when I was younger that the prophesies of members of the Labor Party were always directed to the worker-they represented the working man; they wanted the working man to succeed in building up his family and his situation. Suddenly they have changed; they have become so trendy and so much involved in this conservation movement that it has blinded them to the realities of what is going on in Tasmania. Farmhouse Creek, or whatever it is called, is part of my electorate of Franklin. That is where all the controversy is at the moment. I heard a most unusual speech from a gentleman who I believe came from the trade union movement. Mr Hodgman —From the socialist Left. Mr GOODLUCK —The socialist Left, from Victoria no doubt. Running through my brain was the thought of what is happening down in Tasmania with the working class person, the ordinary average forest worker trying to make a decent respectable living for his family, the poor truck driver committed to the repayment of $100,000 and trying to pay his way and make a decent respectable living in the forest-based industries of Tasmania. The gentleman making this speech looked towards the other fellows on that side and said `I have your support', and unanimously they said `Yes, you have our support'-against the three Ds, Dr Brown, Dr Bates and Dr Sanders. They would be the greatest show ponies I have come across in my life. They more than anybody else I have ever known have divided Tasmania. Of course, the police had a job to do. What do those opposite think they would do with people falling in front of bulldozers? Would they leave the poor chaps in front of the bulldozers to be dozed into the ground? Would they leave them in the buckets? Mr Chynoweth —They did. Mr GOODLUCK —Of course they left them there because they knew dashed well that the forest workers would remove them, would try to get them away from the front of the bulldozers and the chainsaws for their own protection. We have had four horrific murders in Tasmania-apparently we are starting to catch some of the diseases of the mainland-and the police have been unable to solve most of those murders. Yet we have this ratbag element down at Geeveston trying to prevent decent and ordinary citizens earning a decent and respectable living-all because of conservation, as they say. It is not trespassing in the South West National Park, as depicted by the news. That brings me to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. If ever a crowd needed cleaning out, it is the ABC. We have some decent fellows in the box over there and a few whom I could name, but in the main they have become trendy and entwined- Mr Hodgman —Lefties. Mr GOODLUCK —They are lefties, as my dear friend said, and they have become entwined in this conservation movement. It is very easy to talk about people with packs on their backs lying in the beautiful forests of Tasmania and soaking up the sun. But what about the poor people who want to work and earn a decent living? What about the economy of Tasmania? The regrettable part about members of the Labor Party is that they have changed so dramatically that they do not win votes in Tasmania. Mr Hawke sold his soul to the devil over the dams issue. He is like Dorian Grey. Every day I look at him, and his photo seems to change because he has around his neck the albatross of the South West Tasmania dams issue. Now I find that these fellows over here keep telling me that they care for the worker, for the ordinary family person. Regrettably, they do not. They have become so trendy and engulfed in the conservation movement that they are no better than the Australian Democrats in the other place. One day we will have Democrats here. They seem to represent a minority group that will create problems in Australia that my dear friend at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will not be able to overcome. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.50) —I would like to raise briefly a conservation issue with which even the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) I hope would have some sympathy. The matter I seek to raise concerns what I believe to be the perceived threat to the dolphins at Monkey Mia in Western Australia. Honourable members may be aware that at Monkey Mia, which is at Shark Bay near the town of Denham, wild dolphins swim in from the ocean right to the very edge of the shore. They play there and frolic with adults and particularly young children. They have done so for the last 25 years. I was privileged to go to Monkey Mia during the Christmas recess and I was amazed and inspired by what I saw. Often when the dolphins swim in amongst a group of people they seem to be attracted particularly to young children. They will swim right up to the children and can be patted and fed fish. It is a truly remarkable attraction. The problem is that the dolphins at Monkey Mia are increasingly under threat. They are under threat because of the increased tourist pot- ential of the area and the lack of proper management of this wonderful natural feature. I would not seek to intrude on matters that are beyond my field of expertise but I have been approached by Wilf and Hazel Mason, the proprietors of a local caravan park, who have gained national prominence because of their understanding and commitment for the dolphins at Monkey Mia. They have drawn my attention to the situation whereby, as a result of a sealed road going through to the adjacent township of Denham and the approaching tourist season, there will be a flood of visitors to Monkey Mia who will need educating in regard to their approach to the dolphins. The local experts say that crowd control is becoming imperative. The tragedy is that although the Western Australian Government built an information centre some 14 months ago at a cost of $103,000, until recently nothing had been done to occupy that centre and make it operational. I commend the Commonwealth Government for having made community employment program funds available to employ I think three people to work at the centre but clearly what is needed is expert advice, expert support, for the community employment program workers in order to protect this wonderful development that has happened at Monkey Mia over the last 25 years. Wilf and Hazel Mason have written to me seeking the appointment by the Western Australian Government of an expert-someone who is compassionate, who is able to work with the local people and provide the necessary expertise to deal with the massive influx of tourists in the approaching tourist season in little more than a month or so. I hope that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has been to Monkey Mia and who I believe is held in the highest regard by Wilf and Hazel Mason, will use his good offices to approach the Western Australian Premier to provide that necessary expert backup and support, and I personally add my full support to Wilf and Hazel Mason who have done probably more than anyone else in Australia to encourage interest and awareness of the wonderful dolphins at Monkey Mia. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.55) —I desire to raise a matter in relation to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. I point out to the House that the last year has been one of very severe cutback and change for many veterans across Australia. The application of the assets test has cost over 13,000 veterans a reduction in or loss of pension, totalling in excess of $25m. Cutbacks in travel allowance have impacted very heavily on country veterans. We have had cutbacks in the dental scheme and in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme associated with veterans. Of course, the veterans legislation is in great difficulty at this time and is in the balance due to the fact that the Government refuses to accept a responsible amendment proposed by the coalition to provide that applications submitted before 15 May 1985 be dealt with under the law as it then stood. That is a very reasonable proposition but I know that I cannot deal with it in detail because it relates to legislation which is before both chambers. Related to all of this is the undervaluing of the concept of totally and permanently incapacitated. I will certainly have more to say about that at another stage. The particular matter relating to veterans' affairs that I seek to raise tonight is in respect of the annual report of the Australian War Memorial that was tabled in this Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. The annual report provides a number of details and relates the good progress which is being made in the Australian War Memorial, which is a vital and valuable national institution. Of course, it is the focus of the nation on Anzac Day and also on many other days of the year, and it enjoys a record rate of visits. It is my duty to point out to the House that the annual report as tabled in the Parliament is in fact wrong. I refer to that part of the report which states: Work has continued on other galleries within the Memorial, although at a slower rate than originally envisaged. Several, including the Korea, Vietnam and introductory galleries, will be open by the end of 1985. That is a very clear cut statement in a report that was written in the last half of last year, but it is a matter of record that the Vietnam gallery has not yet opened and will not open until at least April of this year, and it may be later. The Australian War Memorial has failed to comply with a deadline detailed in its annual report due, in fact, to some atrocious design and construction work by the National Capital Development Commission. In one sense, the annual report misleads the Parliament, and this must always be a matter of concern. I blame not the Australian War Memorial but the NCDC for being the cause of the delays which have brought about the situation wherein an annual report tabled a few weeks ago contained wrong information. The problem all relates to a staircase which perhaps will become the most famous staircase in the nation's capital. The NCDC had the responsibility for the control of, design of and expenditure of moneys on extensions to the Australian War Memorial. It designed a hopelessly inadequate and dangerous staircase to cater for one aspect of the extensions at the War Memorial. As a consequence, the work had to be torn out and redone at great expense and great waste of valuable taxpayers' money. I submit that the NCDC has a responsibility to reveal publicly just how much money was wasted on its inadequate approach to building this staircase, this vital link to the extensions at the Australian War Memorial. It has a responsibility to tell the Parliament and the nation not only the amount of money wasted on the staircase originally constructed for the extensions but also who was responsible in real terms for those very costly mistakes being made. This should happen in the interests of cutting back Government waste, of ensuring that this type of thing does not happen in the future and of helping to ensure that further progress is made with work on the Australian War Memorial which, I repeat, is a very great, wonderful and significant institution, one which is valued by all veterans across Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, and for related purposes. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 March 1986: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 26. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1986- L4/86-Livestock for Slaughter or Breeding Purposes to the Peoples' Republic of China. M27/86-Revocation of Meat Order ``M'' Series. Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act- Return for 1984-85. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 21,23,24. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Books) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Computers) Act-Return for period 6 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. Bounty (Electric Motors) Act-Return for period 17 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Metal-Working Machine Tools) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Paper) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Ships) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Act-Return for 1984-85. Bounty (Two Stroke Engines) Act-Return for 1984-85. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 28. Defence Act-Determinations-1986- No. 5-Salary of Permanent Force Members, Temporary Accommodation Allowance and other allowances. No. 6-Antarctic Allowance. No. 7-Outfit Allowance for Special Appointments. No. 8-Education Assistance Overseas. No. 9-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 10-Temporary Rental Allowance. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986- No. 2 Prescribed Goods (General) as amended (Amendment). No. 3-Export Meat as Amended (Amendment). Fisheries Act- Notices, Nos. 158, 159, 160, 162, 163. Plan of Management-No. 3-Northern Prawn Fishery. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 18. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 19, 20. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 22. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Crime Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 29. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return for 1984-85. Passports Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 25. Phosphate Fertilizer Subsidy Act-Return for 1984-85. Proclamation by Her Majesty The Queen of Australia, fixing 3 March 1986 at 5.00 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time as the day on which, and the time at which, the Australia Act 1986 shall come into operation. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985-Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9-3 March 1986. Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985-Sub-sections 26 (1) and (3), section 29, sections 31 to 36 (inclusive), sections 39, 40 and 41, sections 44 to 54 (inclusive), section 56 and section 71-22 February 1986. Petroleum Revenue Act 1985-3 March 1986. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 (other than the amendments of sub-section 34 (3) and Schedule 1)-1 March 1986. Public Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 8. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance-1986-No. 1-Standard Time and Summer Time (Amendment). Ship Construction Bounty Act-Return for 1984-85. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Guidelines determined for the purposes of sub-sections 9 (3) and 9 (4). Statements of particulars of directions given under- Sub-section 29 (1), dated 21 February 1986. Sub-section 41 (1), dated- 5 December 1985 (2). 11 December 1985 (2). 16 December 1985. 18 December 1985. Sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (1), dated- 13 December 1985 (2). 16 December 1985. 18 December 1985. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 27. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 543) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What is the level of investment by (a) Australian companies in South Africa, and (b) South African firms in Australia. (2) What are the forms of these investments (e.g. joint venture, corporate shareholding in South African firms). (3) What industries are the target of these investments (e.g. computers, mining and electronics). Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates that South Africa is a minor source of investment in Australia. At 30 June 1983 (latest data available), the level of South African investment in Australia stood at $24 million (see Table 1), of which half was in the form of corporate equities. The level of Australian direct investment in South Africa at that time was $13 million, of which $9 million was in the form of corporate equities (see Table 2). Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of data on levels of investment. Equity levels are estimated on the basis of the paid-up value of shares; a method which excludes share premiums, reserves, provisions and retained earnings. The recorded equity figures, therefore, may bear little relationship to the actual levels of equity funds to which foreign investors have claims. Investment flows between South Africa and Australia have been low and variable. In the period 1979-80 to 1983-84, total inflow of foreign investment in enterprises in Australia from South Africa amounted to net $10 million, most of which is attributable to a $14 million portfolio investment inflow in 1982-83 (see Table 3). Apart from the uncharacteristic inflow in 1982-83, which was predominantly directed to manufacturing, South African investment in Australian enterprises, in the period 1979-80 to 1983-84, has been in industries other than mining and manufacturing (see Table 4). In 1983-84, South African interests disinvested in Australian enterprises to the extent of $8 million. Over the 5 years to 1983-84, Australian direct investment in South Africa totalled $24 million, of which two thirds was in the form of undistributed income rather than new funds sourced in Australia (see Table 5). There are no statistics available on the flows of Australian investment to South Africa by broad industry group comparable to Table 4 for South African investment in Australia. (3) In rank order of importance, mining, manufacturing and service industries were the major recipients of South African investment in Australia. No comprehensive data on Australian investment in South Africa is available. Known Australian investment interests in that country include food processing, heavy and automotive engineering and componentry, chemicals, cement products and security equipment. TABLE 1: LEVELS OF SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIAN ENTERPRISES, BY BROAD INDUSTRY SECTOR, BY TYPE, 1982-83 ($ million) Industry Sector Type Corporate Equities Other (a) Total Mining... 3 7 10 Manufacturing... 7 -3 4 Other... 2 8 10 Total... 12 12 24 Note: (a) Includes branch liabilities to head office, intercompany indebtedness and borrowings. Source: ABS Unpublished Statistics. TABLE 2: LEVELS OF AUSTRALIAN INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN ENTERPRISES, BY TYPE, 1978-79 TO 1982-83 Year Type Corporate Equities Other (a) Total 1978-79... 8 4 12 1979-80... 13 5 18 1980-81... 11 7 18 1981-82... 8 5 13 1982-83... 9 4 13 Note: (a) Includes branch liabilities to head office, intercompany indebtedness and borrowings. Source: ABS Unpublished Statistics. TABLE 3: SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIAN ENTERPRISES, 1979-80 TO 1983-84 ($ million) Year Direct Investment (a) Portfolio Investment Total (c) 1979-80... -1 (a) -1 1980-81... 5 1 6 1981-82... -6 (a) -6 1982-83... 5 14 18 1983-84... (a) -8 -7 Notes: (a) Nil or less than $A0.5 million. (b) In the financial years 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1983-84 positive investment inflows were offset by negative undistributed income flows. (c) Errors due to rounding. Source: ABS Unpublished Statistics. TABLE 4: SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIAN ENTERPRISES, BY BROAD INDUSTRY GROUPS, 1979-80 TO 1983-84 ($ million) Year Industry Mining Manu- facturing Other Industries 1979-80... (a) -2 (a) 1980-81... 5 -1 2 1981-82... -2 -6 2 1982-83... -3 19 2 1983-84... -3 -10 5 Notes: (a) Nil or less than $A0.5 million. Source: ABS Unpublished Statistics. TABLE 5: AUSTRALIAN DIRECT INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN ENTERPRISES 1979-80 TO 1983-84 ($ million) Year Undis- tributed Income Other Direct Investment Total (a) 1979-80... 2 6 8 1980-81... 4 2 5 1981-82... 1 1 2 1982-83... 3 -1 2 1983-84... 6 1 7 Notes: (a) Errors due to rounding. Source: ABS Unpublished Statistics. (Question No. 1287) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant-In-Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant In Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from mainstream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agency. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. See (3). (2) Yes. In addition, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has advised that the paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant-In-Aid (GIA) Assessment' was produced by his Department as an explanation of the policy consideration arising from the process of assessing the relative merits of 207 applicants for 49 available grants. The paper has had some limited circulation among GIA agencies, some of whom have taken up the Department's invitation to comment on the issues raised. The paper does acknowledge the policy of the Government that, wherever possible, the needs of migrants and all overseas-born residents are to be met by adjustments to those services provided to the community at large. It does not assert that all established ethnic community organisations must in future seek funding from mainstream sources. It clearly states that the proportion of GIA grants for established communities should be maintained in future years. In practice the 1984-85 assessment process made a marginal adjustment to the proportion of grants awarded to established communities (from 44.6% to 43%) while 78% of agencies seeking re-award of grants (most of them representing established communities) were successful. (3) (i) Children's Services Program Under this program funding is provided to services catering for special needs groups such as migrants. Children of migrant families have always been regarded as a group having special needs for child care. Priority of access to services is given to children from these groups. Family Support Services Scheme The Family Support Services Scheme is aimed at encouraging and assisting the development of services designed to support families in stress in their parenting responsibilities. The focus of the scheme is upon disadvantaged groups and specific attempts are made to address the needs of migrant families. (ii) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Disability Services Program Home and Community Care Program. All of these programs consider applications for funds according to a community need criteria, and permit a definition of community to include ethnic groupings. (iii) Aged or Disabled Persons Accommodation Program. Ethnic groups are given particular consideration when priorities for capital funds for self-contained units, hostels, day care centres or nursing homes for aged or disabled, are being determined. On 15 November 1985 the Minister for Community Services announced the implementation of guidelines for assessment of applications for ethnic specific nursing home accommodation. These guidelines were developed with input from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and they will ensure that appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations in the provision of nursing home care. (Question No. 1292) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant in Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from mainstream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agency. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes; the Conference Program, comprising the International Seminar Support Scheme and the Research for Development Seminars Program, allows organisations to apply to ADAB for funds to conduct conferences and seminars on matters of importance to the Government's overseas aid policies. (b) Eligible Australian non-government organisations (NGO's) may apply for government subsidies for overseas development projects through the ADAB/NGO Co-operation Program. The ADAB/NGO Committee for Development Co-operation (NDC) determines which of the projects will receive subsidies. (c) The Women in Development Facility supports innovative development projects, training, action-oriented research, workshop and other activities of benefit to women in developing countries. Proposals for funding are accepted from any organisation and assessed according to established guidelines. (d) The Department also administers cultural relations funds for cultural relations activities overseas for which anyone may apply. (2) Yes the paper was distributed by my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It examines the objectives of the Grant in Aid scheme (GIA). A preliminary analysis of 1984-85 applications demonstrated that a scheme which primarily seeks to form a bridge between migrant on-arrival and mainstream community services was attracting applications which could be diverted to mainstream agencies, and requests from mainstream agencies seeking to add a migrant dimension to their normal activities. The Paper suggested that the proportion of grants to ``established'' ethnic community organisations be maintained but concluded that it would be desirable to increase the proportion of grants for ``emerging'' ethnic community organisations and to reduce the proportion of grants to `generalist' agencies by diverting such applications back to mainstream community services. (3) This paper does not suggest that the proportion of grants for `established' organisations should be reduced nor is there any suggestion that such organisations will have reduced access to the full range of other Government services. Therefore, in my view, there is no need for a special provision to enable such organisations to `compete equitably' for funds available through programs administered by my Department or related agencies. The Government is concerned that key institutions and structures remain responsive to migrants and their families, and that access and equity are maintained in delivery services to all groups in the community. This is a major objective of the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services recently announced by my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (Question No. 1424) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the reported result of elections held in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on 24 January 1985 that candidates for the Communist Party polled 36,508,343 votes, candidates against the Communist Party 4,465 votes and informal votes were nil. (2) Is he able to say what the reason was for (a) the low opposition vote and (b) the absent informal vote. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) While it is not possible independently to verify these reported results, they appear to be consistent with the general pattern of elections in the USSR. These elections are characterised by the fact that the Communist Party is the only political organisation permitted to field candidates; and that the normal method of voting is simply to drop the ballot-paper unmarked into the ballot box. These factors explain why the opposition and informal votes are kept to a minimum. (Question No. 1440) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign 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 Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's questions are set out below. AUSTRALIA CHINA COUNCIL 1. Australia-China Council Grants for 1985-86 were advertised in all national and regional newspapers in January 1984 and for 1986-87 on 7 December 1985 and 5 January 1986 in the same newspapers. 2. The 1985-86 and 1986-87 series were co-ordinated by the Australian Government Advertising Service. 3. Not applicable. 4.- (a) 1985-86 campaign cost $8,263 1986-87 campaign cost $6,179 (b) Not applicable. AUSTRALIA JAPAN FOUNDATION 1. (a) Advertising Campaigns:- (i) 1st Australian Tourist Commission (ATC), Roadshow (ii) 2nd Australian Tourist Commission (ATC), Roadshow (iii) 3rd Australian Tourist Commission (ATC), Roadshow (iv) Joint ATC and AJF Library Advertisement Campaign. (b) Research Studies:- (i) Analysis of Japanese applicants for working holiday visas (Tokyo) (ii) Analysis of Japanese applicants for working holiday visas (Osaka) (iii) Survey re: returned working holiday makers. 2. In respect of (1) (a)-Yes In respect of (1) (b)-No Note: (1) (a) and (b) were conducted in Japan. 3. In respect of (1) (a) (iv)-Kyoei Advertising Company $3108. In respect of (1) (b) (iii)-ASI Market Research (Japan) Inc. $8218. 4. (a) Costs:- In respect of (1) (a)...(i) $1948 (ii) $1400 (iii) $1223 (iv) $3108 In respect of (1) (b)...(i) $1196 (ii) $588 (iii) $8218 4. (b) Split for advertising campaigns. In respect of (1) (a) (i) to (iii) were contributions to the ATC Roadshow for Advertising AJF Scholarships. (1) (a) (iv), the full amount is the advertising fee. AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION 1. Not applicable. 2. The Australian Branch of the Australia New Zealand Foundation together with the Foundation New Zealand Branch commissioned in 1984 an Attitudinal Survey. The broad objective of the survey was to provide data on attitudes held in both countries which have positive and negative effects on the relationship for use in planning the activities of the Foundation. (3). (a) (i) McNair Anderson Associates (ii) PIA Research-Melbourne (b) (i) $30,000 (By Australian Branch) (ii) $1,707.50 (By Australian Branch) 4. See 3 (b) above. INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE SECRETARIAT 1. Advertising Campaign A national communication campaign for the International Year of Peace (IYP) in Australia is to be conducted from early in 1986. Research Study As part of the Government's contribution to the national IYP program, in 1985-86, CSIRO is to research the effects in the southern hemisphere of the nuclear winter hypothesis. 2. Advertising Campaign The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Information Co-ordination Branch) advised the Department of Foreign Affairs concerning the IYP national communication campaign. Research study No. 3.- (a) Monahan, Dayman, Adams (MDA) is to conduct the national communications campaign for the International Year of Peace in 1986, and preliminary work took place in 1985. (b) The amount paid to MDA at 31 December 1985 was $35,100.00. The total contract for this campaign in 1985-86 is $600,000. 4.- (a) The cost for each campaign study is: (i) the IYP national communication campaign is to cost $600,000 in 1985-86. (ii) the CSIRO study into the effects in the southern hemisphere of the nuclear winter hypothesis is to cost $140,000 in 1985-86. (b) the IYP advertising campaign will commence shortly; the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs is still being determined. CONSULAR AND PASSPORTS BRANCH 1. Advertising campaigns were conducted to inform the public and the travel industry of changes in passports procedures implemented following consideration of recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and to inform the public on aspects of the Department of Foreign Affairs' responsibility for consular matters. 2. Australian Government Advertising Services and the Information Co-ordination Branch advised. 3. and 4. 1983-84 Purpose Payee Amount $ Production... Doyle Dane Bernbach 1,080.00 I.J.K. Advertising... - do - 837.00 Newspaper Advertising Neville Jeffress... 437.74 Shooting & Editing Film Fortune Communication Holdings Ltd... 60,667.48 Newspaper Advertising Doyle Dane Bernbach... 13,806.66 - do - - do - 297.52 Passport Application Information Leaflets Watson Ferguson... 86,104.02 Video Tape Dubbing Omnicon... 1,818.00 Marketing & Passport Commercials Doug Holden & Assoc.... 540.00 165,588.42 1984-85 Purpose Payee Amount $ Passport Advertising... Australian Law News... 1,550.00 Passport Advertising... Doyle Dane Bernbach... 169.24 Posters & Booklets... I.H.J. Advertising... 5,167.66 Passport Publicity... - do- 548.00 Artwork... - do - 30,417.14 Film... Alpha Offset... 451.56 Passport Posters... Blake & Hargreaves... 781.66 Radio Advert... Monahan Dayman Adams... 23,379.49 Passport Dispensers... I.H.J. Advertising... 150.62 Radio Advert... Monahan Dayman Adams... 42,007.68 104,623.05 (Question No. 1478) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following table contains the information requested. Instrumentality/ Publication When established Produced by Staff involved % time How often produced Printer/Print un Circulation Editorial Control Stated objectives Production costs ($) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Qantas Airways Limited Airways magazine January, 1935 Qantas 1 contract editor for approx. 4 months per year Six times per year Exportad P/L/ 105,000 copies Approxi- mately 105,000 Passengers travelling on airline Qantas Public Affairs Depart- ment To provide a travellers magazine for the long average passenger sectors on Qantas Qantas considers this information `Commercial in Confidence' Trans Australia Airlines Transair First published in 1946 TAA 1 staff member full time Monthly Printed by commercial printer on tender basis selected annually/60,000H Approxi- mately 60,000 Passengers travelling on airline TAA To promote travel on TAA TAA considers this information `Commercial in Confidence' Flight Deck Newsletter First established 1982 TAA One staff; 30% of time Approx. Eight issues per year TAA Printery; print run 27,000 Approxi- mately 27,000 Mailed to all TAA Flight Deck Club Members TAA Marketing Director To inform members of Flight Deck Club of Club develop- ments, member benefits and TAA services TAA considers this information `Commercial in Confidence' Department of Aviation Aviation Safety Digest July 1953 Bureau of Air Safety Investi- gation (BASI) 2 staff, 1 full time 1 90% of time Currently 5 issues per year Fine Press Sydney 40,000 copies per issue Approxi- mately 40,000 per issue All Australian licence holders (pilots and licenced aircraft maintenance engineers) except student pilots; registered aircraft owners; other persons or organisations with an operational interest in Australian civil aviation BASI Safety education of all licensed pilots and aircraft maintenance engineers, plus other interested agencies 94,400 per annum Aviation Australia July 1982 Public Relations Branch 2 staff, both 50% of time Bi-monthly 12,000 copies per issue Approxi- mately 12,000 per issue Departmental staff and aviation industry Public Relations Branch To inform staff and interested public about Departmental activities 19,830 per annum (Question No. 1482) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Territories, 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 Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following publications (excluding annual reports) are produced regularly by instrumentalities within my control: * ACT Schools Authority Bulletin * ACT Schools Authority News * Selected School Statistics-ACT * Project Parliament-produced by Parliament House Construction Authority * National Capital Development Commission produces a series of Technical Papers. The ACT Health Authority provided information for inclusion in a response by the Minister for Health to Question No. 1480. This response appeared in the Hansard on 17 October 1985. (2) Information on each publication is as follows: Act Schools Authority Bulletin (a) 1979 (b) ACT Schools Authority (c) Five staff for periods varying from one hour to five hours per publication. (d) Weekly during school term (e) ACT Schools Authority, 6,500 copies (f) 6,500 to all staff members, non-government schools, unions, professional bodies, other government departments and interest groups (g) Principal Executive Officer (Publications and Public Relations) (h) Advice to staff (i) Printing cost estimated as $11,500 in 1985-86. Staff and administrative costs are absorbed in general staffing costs. ACT Schools Authority News (a) 1984 (b) ACT Schools Authority (c) Five staff for periods varying from one hour to five hours per publication. (d) After Authority Council meetings, approximately 15 a year. (e) ACT Schools Authority, 6,500 copies (f) 6,500 to all staff members, non-government schools, unions, professional associations, other government departments and interested groups. (g) Principal Executive Officer (Publication and Public Relations) (h) Advice to staff and community (i) Printing cost estimated $4,000 in 1985-86. Staff and administrative costs are absorbed in general staffing costs. Selected School Statistics-ACT (a) 1981 (b) ACT Schools Authority (c) Three staff for periods varying from three hours to five days per publication. (d) Annually (e) ACT Schools Authority (f) 500, ACT government and non-government schools, other interested government departments, State education departments. (g) Principal Executive Officer (Planning & Research) (h) To provide information (i) Printing costs estimated as $1,000 in 1985-86. Staff and administrative costs are absorbed in general staffing costs. Project Parliament (a) 1985 (b) The External Relations Section of the Parliament House Construction Authority. (c) Involves approximately 7.0% of the Public Relations Officer's working time. (d) Quarterly (e) Southbank Printing of Melbourne with a print run of 5000 copies. (f) Distributed to Federal Parliamentarians, libraries, electronic and print media in Australia, professional organisations, educational institutions, the Australian Information Service and to those associated with the new Parliament House project. Copies are also sold to the public. (g) Is under the editorial control of the PHCA (h) Is designed to meet the considerable and increasing interest in the project by providing interesting information in an attractive and easily read form. (i) Has cost of approximately $7,200 per issue associated with production in addition to that proportion of the Public Relations Officer's salary applicable to it. In an overall sense these costs are offset by the estimated revenue of $1,750 per issue obtained from sales. Technical Paper Series (a) 1974 (b) The External Relations and Information Branch in conjunction with the Technical Services Branch of the NCDC (c) Editorial-2 staff (equivalent) 35% of time Printing-2 staff (equivalent) 55% of time (d) About 4 issues per year (e) Printed in-house by NCDC. Normal print run is 1000 copies. (f) About 200 copies are distributed free to local political and social groups, other government departments, libraries and academic institutions. The balance is available for sale to the public at a price of $2 or $5 depending on size, use of colour, etc. (g) NCDC (h) The objective is to disseminate technical and professional information and experience gained by NCDC in its planning and development role. (i) It is not possible to identify all costs associated with the production, but in round figures the staff and administration cost would be about $8,500 and the printing costs about $2,000 per issue. (Question No. 1510) Mr Blunt —asked the Minister for Territories, 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 Scholes —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Burroughs, NCR, Hewlett Packard, Digital Equipment Corporation, BBC, Apple McIntosh, Wang, Prime, Decsystem, Perkin Elmer, Apple, IBM, NEC, AWA, Olivetti, International Computers Limited, Datapoint. (2) (a) to (e) see attached table. (3) The Burroughs mainframe computers in my Department are also used by the Public Service Board for their administrative and statistical systems. On-line inquiry access is provided to the Australian Federal Police for motor vehicle registration information. These answers do not include the computer or ADP hardware used by the ACT Health Authority. A response relating to the Authority was contained in an answer to question No. 1508 by the Minister for Health, which appeared in the Hansard of 12 November 1985. System Function When installed Cost Expected life Plans for replacement $ DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES Burroughs (2) variety of functions including: monitoring rates, rents, loans, land information, driver licensing & parking infringement notices Oct 1981 and 1977 675,000 2,000,000 are at end of economic life tenders called April 1985 NCR capture receipt details from cash registers 1976 120,000 10 years planned 1986-87 Hewlett Packard forestry modelling Feb 1982 95,000 8 years none Digital Equip control Canberra's automated traffic signal system 1982 125,000 10 years none 93 Burroughs microcomputers work processing & general administrative & scientific activities since Dec 1983 980,000 5 years none BBC stores control-Cocos (Keeling) Islands July 1982 160,000 10 years none Apple McIntosh purchasing-Cocos (Keeling) Islands Feb 1980 75,000 10 years none ACT FIRE BRIGADE Hewlett Packard microcomputer control fire alarm equipment 1975 130,000 10 years being replaced PHOSPHATE MINING CORPORATION OF CHRISTMAS ISLAND Hewlett Packard payroll, financial ledger July 1982 230,000 10 years none PARLIAMENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY Wang (2) word processing, recording and reporting on drawing issues, shop drawings and contract variations Mar 1982 220,000 7 years none Prime personnel & contractors records, room data, quality assurance and stone management Feb 1985 100,000 3 years none ACT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY DECSYSTEM mainframe (2) monitor generation & collection of revenue; stores operation and production of financial statements and management reports 1977 2,200,000 at end of economic life tenders under review ACT GAMING AND LIQUOR AUTHORITY Perkin Elmer (4) cash & telephone betting; information & licensing; development and backup betting 1983 to 1985 515,000 7 to 8 yrs none NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Hewlett Packard storage of land information, financial projects & staff matters July 1982 200,000 6 years none BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE BOARD Wang data storage & word processing July 1985 120,000 7 years none ACT SCHOOLS AUTHORITY Hewlett Packard Administrative Purposes including Student Administration, personnel and Finance July 1983 734,864 10 years none Digital Equipment Corporation Educational Purposes July 1978 142,314 Dec 1986 none (Question No. 1576) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Foreign 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) (i) Compensation-Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $164,699. For the most part this covered regular ongoing compensation payments (amounting to $116,255) made to thirteen former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals etc relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 89 officers and comprising 411 individual transactions. (ii) Legal Expenses Amount Recipient $ 10362.70 Law Council of Australia Charges relating to the Father Gore trial in Philippines. 6226.95 Law Council of Australia Charges relating to the Father Gore trial in Philippines. 1996.00 RA & PA Murray Reimbursement of costs associated with transfer to Canberra. 77.20 Australian Government Solicitor Legal costs incurred in Marshall ats Tampi. 272.00 Mr P. Graham QC Commonwealth and others v Hallows. 1959.00 Law Council of Australia Charges relating to the Father Gore trial in Philippines. 740.00 Pamela Coward & Assoc. Charges relating to Submission on Compensation for Staff serving overseas. 2018.80 Law Council of Australia Charges relating to the Father Gore trial in Philippines. 4290.00 Mr J. N. Elliot Reimbursement of costs associated with transfer to Melbourne. 1160.00 Mr Leslie Katz Charges relating to Minister of Foreign Affairs ats Barton. 339.37 Australian Government Solicitor Charges relating to Commonwealth ats Kimberley. 4208.80 Mr J. N. Elliot Reimbursement of costs associated with transfer to Melbourne. 3227.00 Ms C. A. Longobardi Reimbursement of costs associated with transfer to Newcastle. 2410.60 Law Council of Australia Charges relating to the Father Gore trial in Philippines. 125.00 Director of Legal Services Charges relating to Commonwealth v Chapman. 1500.00 Mr F. Douglas Charges relating to Commonwealth v Kimbe. 154.00 CPM, Attorney-General's Department Charges relating to proceedings in High Court regarding Salt II Treaty. 162.00 CPM, Attorney-General's Department Charges relating to proceedings in High Court regarding Salt II Treaty. (Question No. 1586) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 by payment for legal expenses. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $2,194,509. For the most part this covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($1,027,307) made to one hundred and fifteen former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($1,167,202) covered payments to medical practitioners, hospitals, chemists etc relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 1,006 officers and comprising 2,062 individual transactions. (ii) Other compensation payments. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $11,600. For the most part this covered payments for personal injury ($9,585) made to five persons. The balance of expenditure ($2,015) covered payments for damage to property on fourteen occasions. (iii) Legal expenses Amount Recipient Service $ 400 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees-Mr M. D. F. Sullivan representing the Commonwealth re J. Crompton 2,290 Australian Government Solicitor Payment of Commonwealth portion of legal costs of G. J. Mitchell 4,000 Australian Government Solicitor Party costs re J. C. Voormeulen 4,500 Australian Government Solicitor Plaintiff's costs re A. J. Buckley 470 Australian Government Solicitor Medical costs re L. W. Abberton (Question No. 1659) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) What companies have made applications since March 1983 to import passenger aircraft, required by legislation to be approved. (2) On what dates was each application (a) made and (b) approved Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: While all aircraft require the approval of the Department of Aviation under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations prior to import into Australia, I presume the honourable member's question refers to turbo jet aircraft with a maximum certificated capacity in excess of 30 seats/3,500kg maximum payload covered under the provisions of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981 and the Airlines Equipment Act 1958. On this basis the answers to the honourable member's specific questions are (1) Ansett, East-West Airlines, TAA, Qantas, Lloyd Aviation. (2) Date of application Aircraft type Date Import Permit Issued Ansett... 10.8.83 B727-277 15.09.83 East-West... 8.11.83 F28-4000 17.11.83 East-West... 16.1.84 F28-4000 (two) 11.5.84 TAA... 23.2.84 B727-100 3.4.84 Ansett... 3.5.84 BAE146-200 11.5.84 Ansett... 12.7.84 B767-277 28.8.84 Ansett... 11.7.84 F28-4000 29.8.84 TAA... 10.10.84 A300 (two) 18.10.84 Qantas... 18.10.84 B747-338 12.11.84 Qantas... 13.12.84 B747-338 15.1.85 East-West... 1.3.85 F28-4000 (i) B737-200 (ii) Qantas... 21.3.85 B747-338 12.4.85 Lloyd Aviation... 29.4.85 F28-4000 5.6.85 Ansett... 14.6.85 BAE146-200 17.6.85 Qantas... 7.6.85 B767-238 19.7.85 Qantas... 18.9.85 B767-238 27.9.85 Qantas... 19.11.85 B767-238 2.12.85 (1) East-West has been advised that I am unable to certify that, in my opinion, the obtaining by East-West of an additional F28 aircraft during the period 5 February to 30 June 1986 will not result in the airline having the use of an aircraft in excess of the aircraft required to provide the aircraft capacity determined. I have also drawn East-West's attention to the undertaking that East-West has given to the Commonwealth not to acquire additional aircraft in these circumstances. (ii) East-West has asked the Commonwealth to defer consideration of this application. (Question No. 1891) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his Department or any authority under his control installed new security or alarm systems during 1984-85; if so, what was the cost of the equipment. (2) Is the installation of new security equipment proposed in 1985-86; if so what is the estimated cost of the equipment. (3) Does the installation of this equipment incur additional monitoring costs; if so, what are they. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes-$43,140. (2) Yes-$271,000. (3) Yes-$2,550 estimated for 1985-86. It should be noted that the above figures represent only those systems installed and funded by the Department of Social Security. The Department of Housing and Construction has also installed a number of security systems as part of fitout of Regional Offices, the actual costs of which are not able to be separated out from the total fitout cost by the Department of Social Security. (Question No. 1893) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his Department or any authority under his control purchased or installed musaak-type sound systems in offices during 1984-85; if so, what was the cost. (2) Is it anticipated that such equipment will be installed during 1985-86; if so, what is the estimated cost. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes-$7,210 (2) Yes-$16,000 It should be noted that the above figures represent only those systems installed and funded by the Department of Social Security. The Department of Housing and Construction has also installed a number of musaak-type sound systems as part of fitout of Regional Offices, the actual costs of which are not able to be separated out from the total fitout cost by the Department of Social Security. (Question No. 1923) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his intention been drawn to press reports concerning the apparent disappearance of Dr Andrei Sakharov from his home in Gorky, USSR. (2) Will he ask the Australian Embassy in Moscow to (a) pursue this matter with Soviet authorities, (b) trace the whereabouts of Dr Sakharov and his wife and (c) determine the reasons for their disappearance. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The whereabouts of Dr Sakharov and his wife Mrs Bonner were unclear during September and October. In early November, however, they succeeded in making contact by telephone from Gorky, their place of exile, with members of their family in the United States. On 2 December Mrs Bonner left Moscow for Rome to receive medical treatment and to be reunited with her family. (Question No. 2066) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sums 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 sums 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A payment of $2985 was made by my Department in May 1985 to `Monahan Dayman Adams' for advertising of the National Campaign to encourage Women to become Blood Donors. A payment of $10,000 was also made for the preparation of submission by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls (ANOP) Advertising Agency as background material for the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) media campaign (September 1985). The Health Insurance Commission made the following payments to ANOP: $10500-Medicare Qualitative Research (September 1984) $49500-Medicare 1984 Quantitative Monitoring Study (November 1984) $10500-National Identification System Qualitative Research Study (July 1985) $35000-Survey on community attitude towards Medicare (January 1986) $22000-Survey on community attitude towards Australia Card (January 1986). (2) The payment made to `Monahan Dayman Adams' was specifically for advertising costs. The fees charged by ANOP for the studies carried out on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission and the National Campaign against Drug Abuse included all associated costs and were not identified separately. (Question No. 2195) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: Does the Independent Air Fares Committee have the power to accept a determination for an air fare set by a State regulatory body, for air services within that State; if so, for which determinations did the Committee (a) accept State determinations or (b) conduct its own inquiries. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Independent Air Fares Committee does have the power, as described, to accept State fare determinations. This ability is provided for under the Committee's enabling legislation. Section 25 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981 provides that the Committee may, at the request of an airline operator, amend any IAFC determination or approval so as to ensure that any fares charged by that operator ``are the same as any fares determined'' by the Government of a State or of the Northern Territory for routes within that State or Territory. The Committee has advised that, to date, it has received six such requests, three from Ansett WA, two from Skywest Airlines and one from East-West Airlines, all involving fares on routes within Western Australia. Of the six requests, five were accepted by the Committee and in the remaining case the Committee chose not to amend its determination. The Committee's policy and practice is not to endorse without inquiry fares approved by a State Authority. In all the above instances the Committee's decision was made on the basis of information required to be submitted by the applicant operator, and following consultations with the Western Australian Transport Commission. (Question No. 2303) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and 1984-85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so, (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Expenditure on Public Relations, within my portfolio, was as follows: 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ Australian Bureau of Statistics... 284,850 260,437 Australian Taxation Office... - 46,172 Prices Surveillance Authority... - 205 Information has not been provided for the Commonwealth Banking Corporation which regards such information as confidential; no other organisation within the portfolio incurred any expenditure on public relations in 1983-84 or 1984-85. (2) The nature of such public relations expenditures is indicated below: Australian Bureau of Statistics Salaries of staff in the Public Information Unit. Production of brochures, pamphlets, news releases, special articles and audio-visual and display material. Australian Taxation Office Salaries for staff in the Public Information Unit. Prices Surveillance Authority Production of an explanatory pamphlet on the Prices Surveillance Authority. (3) Outside assistance obtained for public relations is detailed in the following table: Australian Bureau of Statistics (a) Provision of assistance (b) P 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ (i) Public Relations Consultation W. Smither, Majura Enterprises... - 7,750 Jean Pascall Communications... 12,345 - P. von Wolfe... 115 - C. Brammall... - 190 J.D. & J.M. Grisgsby, Editorial & P.R. Services... 2,907 9,427 R.L.S. Starling Pty Ltd... 750 850 Communication Advisory and Research Enterprises... - 5,000 W. Munday... 1,424 - Keenan Communications... 836 500 E. Spratt... 231 - D. Baker... 231 - Dr R. Penman, Centre for Communication Studies... 1,305 - Neville Sloss Public Relations... 808 500 T. Hardy... 241 - Robin Owen Associates... 722 13,954 (ii) Graphic Design Media Graphics... 10,528 4,385 Adgraphics... 4,426 505 The Executive Centre... 510 - The Artworks... 3,744 987 Meridian Advertising (Aust) Pty Ltd... 6,765 1,634 Artstaff Advertising Services... 2,949 1,411 Pagoda Sandercock & Greig Pty Ltd... 743 - Lunn Design Group... 2,500 - (iii) Media Monitoring Monitair... 2,869 3,655 Richard Croll & Co... 692 2,674 Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd... 225 143 (iv) Media Training Richard Croll & Co... - 2,037 NOTE: The expenditure not covered in the itemised lists was for the purchase of goods such as audio-visual equipment, display stands and related display/public relations/promotions material for use in all States and Territories. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a small Public Relations Unit (PRU) comprising four positions (two public relations officers with support from two clerical officers). The PRU does not have the capability or the expertise to carry out the full range of functions and services which it is called upon to provide. The assistance of public relations consultants, graphic designers and media monitoring and training services is therefore required from time to time. Australian Taxation Office and Prices Surveillance Authority No assistance was obtained. (Question No. 2331) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Details of advertising for the Treasurer's portfolio for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 is as shown in Table 1. Information has not been provided for the Commonwealth Banking Corporation as the provision of such information could compromise its competitive position. Table 1: TREASURER'S PORTFOLIO: ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE (i) Subject or Program Expenditure 1983-84 1984-85 Initiated by Conducted by $ $ Department of the Treasury Australian Savings Bonds... 2,257,579 1,944,826 the Treasury to 8/83, Ogilvy & Mather (Australia) Pty Ltd from 9/83 Rodney Silver & Partners Pty Ltd Australian Savings Bonds Maturities... 99,992 45,527 the Treasury `as above' Special Bonds Maturities... 26,189 - the Treasury `as above' Treasury Bonds Tenders... 387,120 918,549 the Treasury `as above' Treasury Bonds Maturities... 97,847 60,323 the Treasury `as above' Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Goodwill advisory tours... 210 212 ATO Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS) Toll-free telephone service for taxpayers (Sydney Office)... 2,910 2,915 ATO AGAS Advisory tours and after hours telephone service (Brisbane Office)... 2,136 2,136 ATO AGAS Australia Post-Display of advisory tour posters (Perth Office)... 130 - ATO AGAS Advisory tours and after-hours telephone service (Hobart Office)... 761 734 ATO AGAS Toll-free telephone service for taxpayers (Parramatta Office)... 2,910 2,915 ATO AGAS Toll-free telephone service for taxpayers (Newcastle Office)... - 1,199 ATO AGAS Royal Australian Mint Launching of $1 coin... 126,824 (ii) - Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Corporate Television (Australia) and RBA Reserve Bank of Australia Launching of $1 coin... 126,824 (ii) - Reserve Bank of Australia Corporate Television (Australia) and RBA Launching of $100 note... 165,486 - Reserve Bank of Australia Corporate Television (Australia) and RBA Footnotes (i) Excludes classified newspaper advertising. (ii) Represents only fifty per cent of total cost; total cost was shared between the Royal Australian Mint and the Reserve Bank of Australia (3) the Government considers that all Australians should have an equal right or access to Government information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians, in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity for information campaigns, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. (4) The basis for remuneration for each campaign was payment for services provided under the accepted formula set out by the Australian Government Advertising Service. (5) (a) and (b) Yes, with all campaigns. (Question No. 2334) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question by individual subject or program is as follows: (a) Australia-China Council (1) (a) $8,634, (b) $8,262 (2) (a) The Australia-China Council, (b) Ron Patten Publicity assisted with costing and designing of the advertisement. Neville Jeffress Advertising Pty Ltd were the agency in charge of placing the advertisement in 1983/84. Gordon and Gotch Limited handled the 1984/85 campaign. (3) To promote an awareness of Council activities and advertise availability of grants to further the aims of the Australia-China Council. The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. (4) The Council approved expenditure at a meeting prior to each campaign. (5) Advertising campaigns both in 1983/84 and 1984/85 were co-ordinated by the Australian Government Advertising Service. (b) Australia-Japan Foundation (1) (a) $9,867, (b) $10,555 (2) (a) Australia-Japan Foundation, (b) Australia-Japan Foundation with assistance from Australian Tourist Commission, Unicom Consultants and Lenea Fresca. (3) To publicise the nature of the Foundation's activities. The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. (4) Board of Foundation or its sub-committees authorise the allocation of funds to AJF programs. The Executive Director in Sydney and the AJF Office Director hold some delegations under the classification of `minor projects' under which they could authorise minor expenditure relating to question one above. Where this occurs the decision is reported to the Board at the next foundation meeting. All of the expenditure itemised in question (1) above relates to expenditure in Japan, part of which (i.e. 1983/84 I-DLRS Aust 2248 and 1984/85 IV-DLRS Aust 1223) relate to Japan Office Director minor projects. (5) No, as the expenditure in question (1) occurred in Japan. (c) Consular and Passports Branch (1) (a) $165,888.42, (b) $104,623.05 (2) (a) Consular and Passports Branch, (b) Australian Government Advertising Service. (3) Changes in passport procedures which resulted from consideration of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking recommendations, were implemented over a twelve month period commencing in July 1983. Campaigns were conducted to publicise the new requirements and procedures. The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. (4) Expenditure to the payees listed below was authorised in accordance with the Department of Finance Directions and Regulations. 1983-84 Purpose Payee Amount $ Production... Doyle Dane Bernbach... 1,080.00 I. J. K. Advertising... -do- 837.00 Newspaper Advertising... Neville Jeffress... 437.74 Shooting & Editing Film... Fortune Communication Holdings Ltd... 60,667.48 Newspaper Advertising... Doyle Dane Bernbach... 13,806.66 -do- -do- 297.52 Passport Application Information Leaflets... Watson Ferguson... 86,104.02 Video Tape Dubbing... Omnicon... 1,818.00 Marketing & Passport Commercials... Doug Holden & Assoc... 540.00 165,588.42 1984-85 Purpose Payee Amount $ Passport Advertising... Australian Law News... 1,550.00 Passport Advertising... Doyle Dane Bernbach... 169.24 Posters and Booklets... I. H. J. Advertising... 5,167.66 Passport Publicity... -do- 548.00 Artwork... -do- 30,417.14 Film... Alpha Offset... 451.56 Passport Posters... Blake & Hargreaves... 781.66 Radio Advert... Monahan Dayman Adams... 23,379.49 Passport Dispensers... I. H. J. Advertising... 150.62 Radio Advert... Monahan Dayman Adams... 42,007.68 104,623.05 (5) Yes. (Question No. 2366) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) Does equipment for the detection of nuclear weapons on foreign aircraft exist; if so, for how long has it been available. (2) Does the Government possess, operate or have access to, any such equipment in Australia or its Territories for monitoring the visits of foreign aircraft to Australia or the transit of any foreign aircraft through Australian airspace. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There is nothing further I can add to my answer to Question No. 546 in Hansard of 16 October 1985, page 2247. (Question No. 2400) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: Does he intend to implement the recommendations of the departmental working party report of May 1984 on the ACT Landlord and Tenants Ordinances. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The working party report was referred to the House of Assembly for consideration in June 1984. The Assembly referred the Report to its Standing Committee on Education & Community Affairs on 9 July 1984. The Standing Committee's report was debated in the Assembly on 22 October 1985 but no agreement was reached. I have asked my Department for a report so that I may consider what further action is now appropriate. In considering this matter I shall also take into account whether this is a matter that should be examined by the proposed ACT Council. (Question No. 2417) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: What action has the Government taken since June 1985 to improve television reception in the Mt Martha-Safety Beach area on the Mornington Peninsula, Vic. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is aware of the reception difficulties in the Mt Martha-Safety Beach area and also of the reported decrease in signal strength in the area in recent months. Following the recently reported deterioration in television reception, the Department of Communications has increased the priority in planning a national UHF television translator to serve the area. Detailed planning work for the proposed service will commence shortly. The date for the provision of the translator service will be subject to Government decisions on the provision of funds. In addition, under the auspices of the Department, engineers from HSV-7 conducted propagation tests in the Mt Martha-Safety Beach areas during December last year. The Department is presently awaiting official proposals to establish commercial television translators in the area. (Question No. 2435) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 November 1985: Has his Department transferred the land of the Army Engineers Depot in Moore Park Road, South Paddington, to the NSW Government; if so, what conditions regarding the use of the land were attached to the transfer. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The administration of property on behalf of the Commonwealth is the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I am aware that the land on which the Army Depot at Moore Park stands was part of the 1979 Commonwealth-NSW land exchange agreement and was actually transferred to the State for public recreation purposes in 1981. Since then the land has been leased back to the Commonwealth for Army use. As announced in a joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of N.S.W. on 17 December 1985, the Commonwealth has now agreed to vacate the site by 24 April 1986. (Question No. 2444) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims suggesting that Australia's standard of living is falling. (2) Does his answer to question No 2125 giving figures for Gross Domestic Product per head of population, indicate that in real terms, the per capita income of Australians has (a) more than doubled since 1950, (b) increased by approximately 16% over the last 10 years and (c) increased by approximately 8% over the last 5 years. (3) Is per capita income a major indicator of living standards. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, measuring real income as Gross Domestic Product at constant prices. (3) There is no single definitive indicator of living standards. While real GDP per capita is widely used as such an indicator, it provides an estimate of total income per head available to the nation as distinct from the actual standard of living which this income is used to secure at any point in time for any particular group. Real consumption per capita may give a better approximation of actual living standards as it provides a measure of goods and services enjoyed by individuals. The table below shows consumption at constant prices per head of population. As 1979-80 is the most recent base period for constant price estimates, the series in the table are shown on this base. The estimates are shown on a financial year basis as calendar year data are not available for all periods. Real consumption (1979-80 prices) Population Real consumption per head of population $M (a) '000 $ 1949-50 (b)... 26,471 8,046 3,290 1959-60 (b)... 37,652 10,161 3,706 1964-65 (b)... 46,981 11,280 4,165 1969-70... 61,210 12,407 4,934 1974-75... 77,203 13,832 5,581 1979-80... 89,144 14,603 6,104 1984-85... 104,624 15,649 6,686 Sources: `Historical Series of Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure' (ABS Catalogue No 5207.0) Australian Demographic Statistics (ABS Catalogue No 3101.0). (a) As at 31 December of year shown. (b) Constant price estimates for years prior to 1969-70 have been derived by `splicing' estimates on earlier base years. (Question No. 2447) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) What was the cost of producing and disseminating all departmental publications in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What is the estimated cost for 1985-86. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $32,390, (b) $37,014 (2) $40,506. The above figures refer to the actual cost of printing departmental publications. The majority of these publications are produced in the normal course of the Department's activities. The Department does not retain a record of the staff time specifically devoted to production of these publications. The postage and other costs of disseminating departmental publications are not separately recorded and it is not possible to estimate these costs with any precision. (Question No. 2463) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: What is the projected additional cost to his Department of travel allowances in 1985/86 under the proposed fringe benefits tax. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is anticipated there will be no additional cost in 1985/86 to my Department for the payment of travel allowances. (Question No. 2466) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) What is the estimated cost of the imposition of the proposed fringe benefits tax in its first full year of operation. (2) How will the Department meet the cost. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Until such time as legislation is passed and more detailed guidelines are available it is not possible to accurately assess the cost to my Department of the proposed fringe benefits tax in its first full year of operation. I would expect that the guidelines will cover arrangements for funding the fringe benefits tax from appropriations to this portfolio. (Question No. 2453) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) What are the (a) names, (b) dates and terms of office, and (c) salaries of all persons appointed to commissions and boards of instrumentalities under his jurisdiction. (2) How many officers and employees are involved in supporting and monitoring these boards and commissions and at what cost. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Housing and Construction I am responsible for two instrumentalities-The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION (HLIC) BOARD (1) (a) Names (b) Dates and Terms of office (c) (i) Salaries (ii) Fees $ Fitzpatrick, J. M. B. Chairman Reappointed 18 June 1985 for 3 years 68,460 (i) Rowe, J. T. Deputy Chairman Appointed 18 June 1985 for 7 years 54,995 (i) Begg, S. W. Part-time Reappointed 17 May 1983 for 3 years 6,781 (ii) Tune, J. M. L. Part-time Appointed 31 January 1984 for 3 years 6,781 (ii) Vipond, M. J. Part-time Appointed 4 October 1984 for 3 years 6,781 (ii) (2) At 30 June 1985 the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation employed 58 full-time and 3 part-time staff. HLIC paid salaries of $1,251,254 during 1984/85. SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION (SMEC) BOARD (1) (a) Names (b) Dates and Terms of office (c) (i) Salaries (ii) Fees $ Liebelt, J. L. Part-time Chairman Appointed 14 November 1985 for 3 years 324 per diem (ii) Price, D. G. Managing Director Appointed 14 November 1985 for 3 years 79,435 (i) Duprey, R. Part-time Director Appointed 14 November 1985 for 3 years 265 per diem (ii) Kouzmin, A. Part-time Director Appointed 14 November 1985 for 3 years 265 per diem (ii) McMullan, B. Part-time Director Appointed 14 November 1985 for 3 years 265 per diem (ii) (2) The SMEC Board was established on 14 November 1985. At 27 November 1985 the Corporation employed 337 staff. Salaries paid for the fortnight ending 27 November 1985 totalled $525,892. (Question No. 2553) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Copies of petitions received from the House of Representatives which are relevant to my portfolio responsibilities are forwarded to my Department, where they are drawn to the attention of senior officers. (Question No. 2576) Mr Halverson asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports on page 3 of the Herald of 3 September 1985 and page 23 of the Sun of 4 September 1985, stating that (a) Victoria's `posties' could soon be `blowing the whistle' on criminals and (b) the humble postie is to become a social worker and an unofficial policeman. (2) Has it been decided that employees of Australia Post will become part of the Domiciliary Care Plan and the providers of security for local residents within their specific areas of operation; if so, when. (3) Is this the first of other schemes involving unions and staff already employed to carry out specific duties for one department, being informally seconded to another to provide domiciliary and surveillance services in the cheapest way. (4) What special and additional training has been provided for the postmen and postwomen who are responsible for implementing this `alert' service. (5) Does the wording of the pamphlet issued to announce this service, suggest to elderly, infirm or disabled people that the service will operate 7 days a week in its reference to postmen and postwomen passing on their rounds each day; if so, who was responsible for the wording on the pamphlet. (6) What guarantees are available to ensure the security and confidentiality of the list of addresses of elderly, infirm or disabled people which will be issued to postmen and postwomen. (7) Will postmen and postwomen be subject to disciplinary measures if the lists are lost or stolen. (8) Will postmen and postwomen be invited to participate in the scheme on a voluntary basis or will their participation be obligatory. (9) When will the level of success of the pilot schemes in Essendon and Bairnsdale be assessed, and the results of the assessment made public. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. There is no security role envisaged for the Alert scheme; nor is it a formal extension of the Domiciliary Care Plan. The scheme is directed at the welfare of individuals rather than their security or the security of their property. (3) Neither Australia Post nor the APTU has previously been involved in any similar scheme, nor is any planned. (4) Postmen and postwomen are involved on a voluntary basis in the Alert scheme and no additional training is involved. (5) No. It is well known in the community generally that mail deliveries are confined to weekdays only. (6) Names and addresses of registered persons are provided to the respective post offices and identified by a separate endorsement in the postman's/postwoman's delivery book. This information is accorded the same confidentiality and security that applies to other addressee information which appears in the delivery book. (7) Under the Postal Services Act and the Postal By-laws, provision exists for disciplinary and other action to be taken if certain information is divulged in an unauthorised way or, through negligence, is lost or stolen. Whether an officer volunteered to participate in the Alert scheme or not, would have no effect on the action taken if he or she divulged or, through negligence, allowed to be lost or stolen, any information in the delivery book including that relating to persons registered as part of the Alert scheme. (8) Participation will be voluntary. (9) A review of the scheme is to be conducted by May 1986, and the matter of a public announcement on the future of the scheme will be decided at that time. (Question No. 2577) Mr Halverson asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) How many Telecom subscribers were there within the areas of (a) Cottles Bridge, (b) Kangaroo Ground, (c) Hurstbridge, (d) Panton Hill, (e) Research, (f) St Andrews, (g) Warrandyte and (h) Yarra Glen, Vic., at (i) 1 January 1983, (ii) 1 January 1984, (iii) 1 January 1985 and (iv) 1 November 1985. (2) What action has the Government taken since January 1985 to improve Telecom Australia facilities and services for subscribers in each of these areas. (3) How many service complaints have been registered through the difficulties and faults line or at Telecom business offices since 1 January 1985 by subscribers in each of these areas. (4) How many credits were allowed to subscribers from within each of these areas for calls connected incorrectly to a number other than the number dialled by the subscriber during the period 1 January 1985 to 1 November 1985. (5) How many calls from each of these areas required difficulties and faults operators' assistance to enable callers to be eventually connected to numbers they had correctly dialled but were consistently unable to obtain owing to equipment deficiencies. (6) What was the approximate cost to Telecom Australia of registering, processing and rectifying the matters referred to in parts (3), (4) and (5). Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) Telephone customers connected to the listed exchanges at the dates mentioned are as follows: Exchange 1983 1984 Jan. 1985 Nov. 1985 Cottles Bridge... Cottles Bridge residents are connected to the Arthurs Creek Exchange and constitute 87% of the customers Arthurs Creek... 136 131 136 150 Kangaroo Ground... 257 253 266 290 Hurstbridge... 1084 1101 1186 1216 Panton Hill... 291 308 323 341 Research... 585 612 673 687 St Andrews... 398 402 419 470 Warrandyte... 2106 2258 2273 2293 eYarra Glen... 630 667 703 728 (2) Action taken since 1 January 1985 to improve service is as follows:- (a) Arthurs Creek, Kangaroo Ground, Hurstbridge, Panton Hill, Research, St Andrews (i) A re-jointing program for aluminium junction cable was completed at a cost of approximately $100,000. (ii) Continued effort by both local staff and transmission specialists to improve service provided by carrier systems on which the junction network operates (iii) A lightning protection program was implemented for external plant. (iv) Improved testing programs have been implemented to ensure better surveillance of traffic routes. (v) Provision of additional traffic routes for St Andrews. (vi) A hot line was set up in response to complaints from Kangaroo Ground customers so they could report difficulties direct to Telephone Exchange Staff. Few calls have been received on the `Hot Line' about service difficulties since its inception. (vii) All exchanges except Research have been provided with International Subscriber Dialling (ISD) access. (viii) Some diversion of exchange maintenance resources to this area has been effected. (ix) Total replacement of Research Exchange with AXE equipment has been brought forward and will now take place in December 1986. (x) Where necessary and practicable out of area services have been provided. (xi) Extensive contact was made with Kangaroo Ground customers by the District Telecom Manager in mid 1985. This resulted in the identification of specific problem areas and rectification of the problems. All Kangaroo Ground customers were given a six months rental rebate. (b) Warrandyte (i) Exchange capacity increased by 200 lines. (ii) Replacement of directly buried armoured cable with new conduits and cable at a cost of $380,000. (iii) Special maintenance of cable cabinets and pillars at a cost of $12,800. (iv) Exchange building extended. (v) A Technical Officer has recently been placed at the Warrandyte Exchange on a full-time basis. (c) Yarra Glen. Normal maintenance effort continued including routine maintenance as well as maintenance in response to customer reports. (3) Service Complaints registered by customers since January to 25 December 1985 Exchange Reports Arthurs Creek... 670 Kangaroo Ground... 871 Hurstbridge... 1622 Panton Hill... 538 Research... 1307 St Andrews... 881 Warrandyte... 4587 Yarra Glen... 1027 (4) Statistics for the period specified are not available, however it has been estimated that credits allowed to customers for incorrectly connected calls at each of the exchanges mentioned for the last three months of 1985 are: Exchange Reports Arthurs Creek... 9 meter registrations for 5 customers Kangaroo Ground... 7 meter registrations for 3 customers Hurstbridge... 38 meter registrations for 18 customers Panton Hill... 11 meter registrations for 5 customers Research... 16 meter registrations for 8 customers St Andrews... 18 meter registrations for 8 customers Warrandyte... 123 meter registrations for 54 customers Yarra Glen... 15 meter registrations for 15 customers (5) Records of operators' assistance to enable callers to be eventually connected to numbers dialled are not available. (6) Telecom does not maintain costings of handling service difficulties and faults in such a way as to enable the information sought to be extracted. (Question No. 2580) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Has the NSW Minister for Roads contacted him about the funding of the Swansea Bridge on the Pacific Highway, Swansea; if so, what (a) were the points raised and (b) was his response. (2) Has there been an allocation of funds for the Swansea Bridge project; if so, what (a) is the allocated amount and (b) percentage of the total estimated costs does the allocation represent. (3) Is it a fact that there is considerable community opposition to the project; if so, did it influence his decision to allocate funds. (4) Is he able to say what the community's attitude is towards the plans for a re-duplication of the lifting span bridge over the Swansea channel. (5) Have there been several meetings of protest over the plans. (6) Have the residents of the Swansea area been consulted on the matter and what measures will be taken to project their interests. (7) Has an environmental impact statement on the road project in the Swansea area been prepared; if so, what were the findings. (8) Has his attention been drawn to the community's proposal for an acceptable development project for the upgrading of the highway in the Swansea area. (9) Is the proposal acceptable to the Government; if not, why not. (10) Does this project merit funding under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In January 1984 the then NSW Minister for Roads, the Hon. G. Paciullo, MLA proposed that the Federal Government provide a contribution of $300,000 under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program towards the construction of a new duplicate bridge over the Swansea Channel. In March 1984 I approved this proposal as an Urban Arterial Roads project. In August 1984 the New South Wales Department of Main Roads sought my approval to increase the ABRD contribution to $3.5 million. In January 1985 I advised the NSW Minister for Roads, the Hon. L. J. Brereton, MLA, of my approval of this variation to cover the estimated full cost of the project. On 29 October 1985 the New South Wales Minister for Roads, the Hon. L. J. Brereton, MLA, wrote to me seeking a meeting to discuss future action to be taken on the Bridge in the light of recent public debate. On 4 November 1985 I wrote to the State Minister advising him that, as the design, construction and funding priority for the duplicate Swansea Bridge project were matters for the State Government to resolve, a meeting would be inappropriate. Since the above approvals were granted no request for reimbursement of expenditure on the project has been submitted by the State Minister. (2)- (a) Yes. $3.5 million. (b) On the basis of the proposal submitted by the NSW Department of Main Roads the ABRD funding will provide 100 percent of the estimated total cost of the proposed project. (3) to (6) and (8) to (10)-The questions raised all relate to the appropriateness of the bridge proposal in terms of community support. This issue is, in relation to Arterial Roads, a matter for the State Government to resolve. Accordingly, these questions would be more appropriately addressed to the responsible State Minister. (7) The State Minister in submitting this project for funding under the ABRD Program has provided assurances that the works satisfy State environmental requirements. (Question No. 2605) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Parliamentary Question Numbers 2305, 2333, 2507 and 2535 (b) Parliamentary Question Numbers 2074-2101 and 2145-2172 (c) nil (d) Parliamentary Question Numbers 1684, 1793-1820, 1876 and 1931-1957 (e) Parliamentary Question Number 1563 (f) Nil This answer includes questions to which the Minister will be responding in his capacity as Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Public Service matters. (Question No. 2622) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 2322; 2350; 2368; 2429; 2522; 2552; 2557 (b) 2070 (c) Nil (d) 1456; 1484; 1512; 1562; 1649 (e) Nil (f) 1257 (Question No. 2664) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What proportion of staff of the Minister's Department in Australia are employed in policy-making divisions. (2) What are the main policy sections and branches of the Minister's Department. (3) How many staff are employed in each of those policy sections and branches. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All Divisions of the Department are involved to some extent in policy-making, which represents 100 per cent of Australian-based civil staff. Staff numbers for the main policy Branches of the Department, as detailed below, represent 0.6 per cent of the 38170 civil staff in Australia. (2) The main policy Branches of the Department are as follows: Strategic and International Policy Division Strategic Guidance and Policy Branch 11 International Policy No. 1 Branch 26 International Policy No. 2 Branch 7 International Policy No. 3 Branch 8 Force Development and Analysis Division Force Development Branch 6 Project Development Branch 8 Force Analysis Branch 5 Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division Industry Policy and Planning Branch 10 Materiel Policy Branch 15 Supply Division Supply Policy Branch 29 Industrial Division Defence Force Industrial Branch 19 Service Conditions Branch 20 Personnel Administration and Policy Division Service Personnel Policy Branch 7 Defence Facilities Division Policy and Development Branch 29 Organisation and Manpower Resources Division Manpower Policy and Requirements Branch 15 Technical Services and Logistic Development Division Logistic Resources and Development Branch 21 Quality Assurance, Technical Services and Standardisation 14 Programs and Budget Division Resources Policy Branch 11 In determining which are the main Branches, those operating under the authority of overall Commonwealth policies, i.e. Finance and Personnel, and Service Offices have been excluded. (3) Civil staff numbers as at 20 January 1986, for each of those policy Branches are detailed in the above list. (Question No. 2694) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3)-(7) Not applicable. (Question No. 2714) Mr Robert Brown asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) How many people have visited Tuggeranong Station, Isabella Plains, Australian Capital Territories, in each year since 1980. (2) What hours is the Station open to the public. (3) What (a) comprises the exhibition areas and (b) is the major attraction for visitors. (4) Who operates the kiosk and what hours is it open. (5) What is the value of the land rent. (6) Is the rent due for review during any time within the 12 year lease. (7) What was the condition of the property prior to the grant of the lease. (8) What (a) buildings and (b) equipment on the property (i) are to be restored and (ii) have been restored and what is the current state of their restoration. (9) What amount has the lessee spent on (a) restoration and (b) maintenance in each year since 1980. Mr Scholes —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: The conditions of the lease do not require the lessee of the Tuggeranong Station to make the Station available for public inspection. On this basis, the following responses are provided: (1) No statistics are available as the lessee of the Station has not kept any count on the number of people who have visited the Station. (2) The lessee of the Station has not maintained regular hours for public inspection. (3) (a) Woolsheds. (b) Fine wool production in the context of the historical setting of the Station. (4) At present there is no kiosk in operation. (5) The land rent is $2,000 per annum (exclusive of rates). (6) No. (7) The property was only in fair condition at the start of the lease. (8) (i) Items on the restoration list on which work has been completed are the original homestead, shearers quarters, machinery shed, barn, stables, grain shed, pump shed, workshop, fuel store, and tanker shelter. (ii) Outstanding items on the list are structural repairs to a raised water tank, connection of sewerage to the shearing shed, barn and stables. (9) The following amounts are estimated to have been spent by the lessee on restoration repairs and maintenance since 1980. $ 1980-81... 97,319 1981-82... 54,689 1982-83... 52,422 1983-84... 28,965 1984-85... 23,906 Total... 257,301 (Question No. 2716) Mr Maher asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Bicentennial projects have been approved in the Electoral Division of Lowe. (2) What is the cost of each project and what percentage of that cost will be Commonwealth Government expenditure. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth has approved funding for the $8 million Homebush Bay Bicentennial Park under the Commonwealth-State Bicentennial Commemorative Program. The project is being jointly funded by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments with the Commonwealth contributing 50 per cent of the total cost up to a maximum of $4 million. In addition a total of $163,100 has been allocated to local government areas falling partially or completely within the electorate under the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme. The Scheme, which is administered by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, provides for a base grant of $2,000 for each local government authority plus $1 per capita. Grants are to be matched by the local government authority on a $1 for $1 basis. The allocations for local government areas either wholly or partly within the Electoral Division of Lowe are: Municipality of Ashfield...$43,700 Municipality of Burwood...$31,100 Municipality of Concord...$25,900 Municipality of Drummoyne...$33,800 Municipality of Strathfield...$28,600 (Question No. 2747) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: Is the Government exerting pressure to evolve the role of the Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committee on Nursing Home Accommodation into a mechanism for integrating and co-ordinating, on a regional basis, the whole range of services for care of the aged; if so, would this integrating and co-ordinating role take account of the extent to which other types of facility, such as psychiatric institutions and general hospitals, are functioning as substitutes for nursing home or other forms of service and care. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In the course of examining the need for nursing home accommodation in a region, the Committees are required to take into account other forms of community care for aged or disabled persons in that region. (Question No. 2758) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea, (b) the UN Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, (c) the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 and (d) the Navigation Act 1912, each state that the Commonwealth has an obligation to warn all concerned of any dangers to shipping within port limits. (2) Is it also a fact that (a) the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 and (b) the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 state that the Commonwealth Government may not pass its responsibility under the 2 international agreements listed to the States. (3) Is there any legislation which allows the Commonwealth to delegate its responsibility under the international agreements to a State body. Mr Peter Morris —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) (a) The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, includes the following provisions: Chapter V, Regulation 2 (b) ``Each Contracting Government will take all steps necessary to ensure that when intelligence of (. . . dangers to navigation . . .) is received, it will be promptly brought to the knowledge of those concerned and communicated to other interested Governments.'' Chapter V, Regulation 14, ``The Contracting Governments undertake to arrange for the establishment and maintenance of such aids to navigation, including radio beacons and electronic aids as, in their opinion, the volume of traffic justifies and the degree of risk requires, and to arrange for information relating to these aids to be made available to all concerned.'' The International Association of Lighthouse Authorities is not responsible for the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. (b) Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958 states that: ``The Coastal State is required to give appropriate publicity to any dangers to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.'' (c) No. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958 is annexed to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. Article 15 which is quoted in (b) above is not given specific legal effect by the Act. (d) No. The provisions set out in (a) above are not given specific legal effect by the Act. (2) No. Under both the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 and the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980, section 6 states: `Nothing in this Act affects the status of the territorial sea of Australia under international law or the rights and duties of the Commonwealth in relation to ensuring the observance, in relation to that sea or any other waters, of international law, including the provisions of international agreements binding on the Commonwealth and, in particular the provisions of the Commonwealth and, in particular the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone relating to the right of innocent passage of ships.' This provision does not prevent co-operative arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth concerning implementation of international maritime agreements. (3) As a matter of policy, the Federal Government relies on sharing responsibility with the States and Territories in the implementation of many international maritime agreements. Responsibilities in relation to navigational aids and warnings are shared with the States, the relevant port authority of a State being responsible for such matters within ports. (Question No. 2771) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 24 November 1985: (1) What stage has been reached in the planning for the River Murray Interpretative Centre being constructed at Goolwa, South Australia, near the mouth of the Murray River, with Commonwealth Government funding. (2) When does he anticipate that a permanent and professional Board of Management will be set up to replace the present interim local committee. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The River Murray Interpretative Centre and River Boat Museum at Goolwa is a project approved under the Commonwealth-State Bicentennial Commemorative Program at a total cost of $2.8 million. The Commonwealth and State Governments will each provide half the funds, and the project will be administered by an incorporated body which is being established by the District Council of Port Elliot and Goolwa. The interim planning committee has already been replaced by a permanent Board of Management which includes representatives of the local Council, State Government and the community. I have been informed that architects have been appointed and that the first planning document is in final draft form. An active community support group is operating and it is anticipated that the Centre will be opened on Australia Day 1988. (Question No. 2803) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Housing and Construction has been actively involved in equal employment opportunity since 1979 and has developed policies to ensure equality of opportunity for all persons employed or seeking employment within the Australian Government employment sector. Consistent with the Government's National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals, a Departmental program was developed in 1982 which sought to increase recruitment and to achieve a more favourable employment situation for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. This included: * the identification of positions which related to the provision of services to the Aboriginal community (currently 35 such positions are identified) * sponsorship of Aboriginal employees to undertake full-time study continued. Aboriginal employees are given leave on full pay for a period of up to three years to undertake studies to upgrade their skills levels and increase opportunities for further career development. The majority have undertaken Certificate Courses to gain access to Clerical/Administrative positions within the Public Service. From March 1983 to November 1985 eight employees were sponsored bringing the total to eighteen since 1977. * In areas of Australia where significant numbers of Aboriginals live and where contractors or their sub-contractors would normally be recruiting employees locally or bringing them from other locations for the duration of the project, Departmental contract provisions ensure that contractors and sub-contractors explore opportunities for Aboriginal employment and training on work described in tender documents. A Certificate of Compliance must be endorsed by the Commonwealth Employment Service confirming that this action has been carried out, and lodged with tender application. An example is Tindal RAAF Base Project which has this provision in all contract documents. Other initiatives taken by the Department have been- * Public Sector Training. This continued to be offered under Department of Employment and Industrial Relations subsidy with a total of 39 traineeships being offered between March 1983 and November 1985. Apprentices (3-4 years training)...37 Clerical/Keyboard (17 weeks training)...2 * The Department continued its involvement in the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program. A total of 16 Clerical Administrative and Clerical Assistant recruits have been given on-the-job training in office and administrative skills, through a series of rotations over a twelve month period. * One officer was released under the Mobility provisions of the Public Service Act to gain external experience for three years with the National Aboriginal Conference. * With the development of the Tindal RAAF Base project, in an area of high Aboriginal population, all positions are being examined to identify those which can be identified for Aboriginal and Islander people. The aim of this initiative is to maximise the Aboriginal employment and training opportunities provided by the Department. Parallel training is being developed for suitable Aboriginals to enable them to take up employment in identified positions where suitably qualified Aboriginal employees are not already available. One trainee has already commenced in a Clerical/Administrative position under this arrangement. * In accordance with the requirements of the Public Service Act the Department, in consultation with unions/staff associations, issued an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program in October 1985. The EEO Program for 1985/86 contains 57 objectives, 15 of which are specifically aimed at increasing employment and career opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Some of the expected outcomes are: - an increase in Aboriginal employees to between 1 and 2 per cent to reflect their representation in the community generally - an increase in the Aboriginal occupancy of those positions identified which involve the Department with the Aboriginal community - promotion of more Aboriginals to supervisory and management positions in the Department. (2)- (a) 30 November 1985 (b) 31 March 1983 Permanent... 21 12 Exempt... 40 38 Apprentices... 2 nil Apprentices (subsidised under the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals)... 31 31 Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program... 5 2 Total... 99(19% increase) 83 (Question No. 2808) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-Aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department has an Equal Employment Opportunity Program in place, part of which is specifically directed towards increasing the employment and developmental opportunities for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Particular objectives under this Program include `promoting the Department as a potential employer of Aboriginals in all occupations and locations', `increasing the number of Aboriginals applying for vacancies with the Department', and `increasing the Department's participation in training programs for Aboriginals'. Over the last two years, the Department has been actively training Aborigines under the NESA and Training for Aborigines Programs with a view to permanently placing trainees on completion of their period of training. The Department also employs Aboriginals under the Aboriginal Services Program which is designed to introduce Aboriginals to clerical and administrative work. The combined effect of these initiatives has been to increase the range of opportunities for Aboriginals in the Department, particularly in 1984/85. (2)- (a) At the most recent survey on 1 October 1985 the Department employed 54 Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders in various occupational categories. A more recent informal count suggests this figure remains the same for 30 November 1985. (b) No historical statistical information is available for 31 March 1983. (Question No. 2830) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) TAA and Air Queensland...46.5% (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries...48.7% (c) East-West Airlines...0.3% (d) commuter aircraft...1.0% (e) charter aircraft...3.5% The percentages shown above are for the 1984/85 financial year and have been expressed as a percentage of total costs and include Departmental officers only. (Question No. 2845) Mr Tickner asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Bicentennial projects have been approved in the Electoral Division of Hughes (2) What is the cost of each project and what percentage of that cost will be Commonwealth Government expenditure. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) To date no Bicentennial projects have been funded by the Commonwealth in the Electoral Division of Hughes. A total of $450,700 has been allocated to local government areas falling partially or completely within the electorate under the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme. The Scheme, which is administered by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, provides for a base grant of $2,000 for each local government authority plus $1 per capita. Grants are to be matched by the local government authority on a $1 for $1 basis. The allocations for local government areas either wholly or partly within the Electoral Division of Hughes are: City of Liverpool...$97,000 Shire of Sutherland...$174,800 City of Woolongong...$178,900 (Question No. 2894) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has action been taken by him during 1985 to express concern about violations of human rights in the Soviet Union; if so, (a) on what occasions and (b) which human rights abuses were raised. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In March 1985 the Australian delegation to the forty-first session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission held in Geneva, in its statement under agenda item 12, raised the matter of human rights in the USSR. The statement referred to concern felt in Australia over the repressive measures used against those seeking, by non-violent means, to assert their cultural and religious identity. (Question No. 2954) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985. What action has been taken to ratify the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Liner Convention, on cargo reservations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia has not yet made any decision on the United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences (Liner Code). The question of ratification of the Liner Code is complex and the Government is anxious to ensure that its approach to the Code is fully consistent with our national objectives and our international obligations. The Government wishes to see the expansion of an efficient Australian trading fleet. The cargo sharing provisions of the Code, known as the 40:40:20 rule, most often attract attention in this context. However, these are only one aspect of a complex code, and would apply only to liner conference services between countries which adopt the code. They would not apply to bulk shipping or to the growing non-conference share of liner shipping. Only about 5 per cent of Australia's total trade by volume is now carried by liner conferences. The code or its cargo-sharing provisions cannot be applied in most major conference trades which make up that 5 per cent. The United States has rejected the code. Japan has not yet announced a position on accession. The application of cargo sharing provisions in our other major trades would be held by OECD member countries to be in conflict with separate commitments made in the OECD context to a freely competitive international shipping regime. European OECD members who have ratified the liner code have disapplied the cargo sharing provisions in relation to their national shipping lines. In September 1984 I announced a review of Australia's overseas liner shipping arrangements. That review was conducted by a Task Force comprising shipper, shipping industry and union representatives. The Task Force was to consider, amongst other things, the United Nations Liner Code. I have recently received the report of the Task Force. The majority recommendation on the Liner Code was for Australia not to accede. I will be examining what action should be taken with respect to the Liner Code, in the light of all the Task Force's recommendations and public comment made on those recommendations. (Question No. 2955) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What was the level of funding to (a) the States and (b) organisations in 1982-83 for the purpose of transport planning and research. (2) What was the increase in real terms of such grants to (a) the States and (b) organisations, between 1982-83 and 1985-86. (3) What activities are being funded by such grants in 1985-86. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Federal Government has not provided any direct specific purpose assistance to the States for Transport planning and research since 1981 when the Transport Planning and Research Program was terminated as a result of a recommendation of the Review of Commonwealth Functions Committee. In 1982-83 and 1985-86 the Federal Government provided a total of $5,867,000 and $6,767,000 respectively to four organisations undertaking transport planning and research and related research into road safety. These organisations are: - the Australian Road Research Board, - the Australian Rail Research and Development Organisation, - the Bureau of Transport Economics - the Federal Office of Road Safety. (3) The broad areas of research activity being undertaken in 1985-86 by these organisations are as follows: Australian Road Research Board is undertaking research into road construction techniques, the management of the roads systems and assessment of road-user needs. Australian Rail Research and Development Organisation is undertaking research into marketing, strategic planning and information issues relating primarily to intersystem or joint system matters, or to issues affecting the rail systems as a whole. Bureau of Transport Economics is undertaking a wide variety of research activities covering all modes of transport. Federal Office of Road Safety is focusing its research into methods to better identify road safety problems and enable the development of cost-effective counter measures. (Question No. 2957) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What was the level of Government specific purposes assistance to the States for the purpose of enabling them to operate, coordinate, expand and upgrade public passenger transport systems in each of the years since 1973-74. (2) Under what legislation were the funds made available and which political party introduced each of these pieces of legislation and when. (3) Is any legislation in force which specifically earmarks a prescribed amount of federally provided funds for urban public transport in the States. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tables 1 and 2 show the levels of specific purpose assistance to the States for urban public transport and for transport planning and research projects. In addition some funds provided to the States under the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974 and the Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 were directed to a number of urban public transport research projects. Details of these projects are published in the Transport Planning and Research Annual Reports. All specific purpose assistance to the States for urban public transport projects and for transport planning and research was terminated in 1981 following the Review of Commonwealth Functions. To offset the cessation of this specific purpose assistance, General Revenue assistance to the States was increased by an adjustment of $50 million to the on-going tax sharing arrangements. (2) See Table 3 for details. (3) The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 provides that part of the funds available for urban arterial roads may be applied to urban public transport capital projects where such projects will reduce wear and tear on urban arterial roads and are given a priority by the State. Under administrative arrangements it has been agreed that up to 25 per cent of urban arterial road funds can be utilised in this manner. Table 1 SPECIFIC PURPOSE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO THE STATES FOR URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT CAPITAL WORKS ($m) 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 N.S.W.... 14.76 5.69 24.60 20.40 14.00 14.13 15.75 0.00 0.00 5.86 8.53 Vic.... 18.87 9.33 15.89 9.83 12.00 12.13 13.50 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.38 Qld.... 2.13 8.99 11.38 15.65 8.88 9.22 7.88 0.00 2.46 8.33 6.78 W.A. ... 2.83 0.75 1.87 0.61 2.02 1.53 1.45 1.32 0.00 1.13 2.24 S.A.... 6.08 6.76 4.42 3.79 4.11 4.00 4.31 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.29 Tas.... 0.36 2.38 0.25 0.73 0.87 1.08 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 N.T.... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total... 45.03 33.90 58.40 51.00 41.87 42.08 44.06 1.51 2.46 19.89 24.58 Notes: No payments were made to the States in 1973/74 as the enabling legislation had not been passed. The figure for payments in 1974/75 includes reimbursement of $12.3 million for expenditure in 1973/74. The Northern Territory became eligible for urban public transport assistance under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program. Two projects have been approved under the ABRD Program totalling $1.3 million. NA-not applicable. Source: 1974/75-1981/82: Budget Paper No 7 (various issues) 1982/83-1984/85: Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, Annual Report (various issues) Table 2 PAYMENTS TO THE STATES UNDER URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT (RESEARCH AND PLANNING) ACT 1974 ($m) State 1974-75 1975-76 N.S.W.... 0.10 0.00 Vic.... 0.00 0.20 Qld.... 0.00 0.00 W.A.... 0.00 0.00 S.A.... 0.13 0.00 Tas.... 0.00 0.00 Total... 0.23 0.20 Source: Derived from Budget Paper No. 7 (1975-76 to 1977-78 issues) Table 3 LEGISLATION PROVIDING FUNDS FOR URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT Legislation Introduced into Parliament Enacting Government Expenditure (1) ($m) State grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974... 11 July 1974 ALP 71.91 Urban Public Transport (Research and Planning) Act 1974... 11 July 1974 ALP 0.43 Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974... 18 July 1974 ALP NRA Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974... 17 October 1974 ALP 66.11 Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1976... 9 September 1976 L-NP 20.00 Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1977... 19 September 1977 L-NP 30.31 Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977... 27 October 1977 L-NP NRA State Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1978... 6 April 1978 L-NP 124.99 Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1970-80, 1979... 21 August 1979 L-NP 2.00 Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1980-81, 1980... 19 August 1980 L-NP 2.53 Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982... 14 October 1982 L-NP 65.00 (2) (1) NRA-not readily available. (2) Expenditure up until 30 January 1986. (Question No. 2968) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Australian Government tourist awards are awarded in recognition of excellence in the tourism industry. (2) What is the estimated value of the awards in 1985-86. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Government awards the National Tourism Awards in recognition of excellence in the tourism industry. The inaugural awards were presented in Sydney on 27 September 1984. The second annual presentation of the Awards took place in Melbourne on 19 November 1985. Awards were presented in the following categories in 1985: 1. Accommodation - International - National - Budget 2. Tourist Attraction 3. Festivals 4. Tourism Marketing 5. Tourist Services 6. Restaurants/Catering 7. Tour services and Transportation 8. Education and Training 9. Resorts 10. Tourist Shops and Souvenirs 11. Outstanding Achievement 12. Special Recognition 13. Tourism Authorities/Commissions (2) The Award winners do not receive cash payments-the real value is in the public recognition of the achievement of excellence by the recipients. The value of the National Tourism Awards is therefore considered to be inestimable. They are a major factor in drawing this extraordinarily diverse industry together and in encouraging the industry to improve the standard of its products. The Awards also act as a major public relations platform at all levels-regional, state and nation-wide-to enhance awareness amongst the general public of the importance of the industry as a rapidly expanding source of employment and a major contributor to the nation's economy. (Question No. 2985) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Does the ABC meet the minimum Australian content requirements as prescribed for commercial broadcasters by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the ABC Act 1983 the Corporation is required by section 6 (2) (a) (ii) ``to take account of . . . the standards from time to time approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services.'' The ABC is not bound by those standards. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's Australian content requirements for television and radio are addressed separately. TELEVISION (i) Overall Australian content requirements are determined by reference to a points system where the total number of points earned must not be less than the total hours of transmission. The number of points a particular program can earn depends upon the type of program, whether it is first-run or a repeat, and when it is transmitted. The ABC has informed me that it has never calculated what its points score would be, and the Corporation believes that the result of such a calculation, if attempted, would be neither useful nor appropriate. For example, many of the ABC's first-run Australian education programs are targeted to in-school audiences. They are therefore televised in school hours, and thus would earn 3 points per hour. If the programs were shown between 6.00 p.m. and midnight, they would, however, earn 10+ points, even though the primary target audience is not available. As an alternative the ABC monitors the hours of Australian content in its programs. For the year 1984-1985, 5621 total hours were transmitted of which 3381 hours were Australian content (60.1 per cent). Excluding test pattern and music, 5041 total hours were transmitted of which 2801 were Australian content. The ABC's objective is to increase Australian program content to 65 per cent by 1987/88. (ii) The ABT also requires commercial stations to transmit 104 hours of first release Australian drama annually and between the hours of 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. The ABC considers that this quantitative requirement is less relevant in the context of its particular charter. The ABC regularly screens Australian drama (produced both by the ABC and by independent producers) which may not be commercially attractive, but nevertheless is of high quality, valuable in increasing the community perceptions on various issues and/or innovative. The commercial television stations transmit drama material which is directed to attracting large and continuous audiences, such as long-running serials. For the record, the ABC transmitted approximately 51 hours in 1984/85 of first-run Australian drama during the relevant times. This figure is expected to increase in the 1985/86 reporting period. (iii) The ABT finally requires the transmission of not less than four special Australian programs of the highest quality . . . using higher than normal budgets and employing substantial numbers of Australian actors, artists or musicians. The ABC has not maintained records relating to this category. The honourable Member would be aware that the ABC maintains six full-time professional orchestras for broadcast, television and concert purposes. RADIO (i) Section 114 (2) of the Broadcasting Act (1942) as amended requires that, not less than 5 per cent of the time occupied by the programs of the Corporation . . . in the broadcasting of music shall be devoted to the broadcasting of works of composers who are Australians. The music programs of the Corporation are distributed across numerous ABC stations and several ABC radio networks. Taken together, as the Act requires, the ABC does meet the required target. Based on broadcasts from the capital cities, taken over nine months of the year, the figure for 1984/85 is 11.3 per cent. (ii) The ABT's Program Standard No. 4 requires that 20 per cent of music broadcast be by Australian performers. This standard is, however, under review. The ABC monitors Australian performance levels through the lodgement of frequent returns. Given the large number of stations and the variety of sources of supply music programming, an annual figure is not calculated. Responsibility for this matter rests with each station or network manager. Taken together, the music broadcast by the Corporation achieves at least the 20 per cent Australian performance target. No other Australian content requirements are in force. (Question No. 2994) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What is the level of funding to public broadcasting in Australia in each of the years since 1972-73. (2) What is the increase in real terms in the level of funding to public broadcasting in the 1985-86 Budget as compared to the 1982-83 Budget levels. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Portfolio assumed the function of administering grants to public broadcasters in 1981-82. Prior to this grants were made to aspirants for public broadcasting licenses by the Film Radio and Television Board in 1975 under the auspices of the Australia Council, and from 1976 to 1981 under the auspices of the Australian Film Commission. From available records it is understood that no grants were made before 1975. In 1984 responsibility for distribution of funds for public broadcasting was transferred to the Public Broadcasting Foundation, although the Minister for Communications remains responsible for Commonwealth payments to the Foundation. The Special Broadcasting Service provided subsidies to public broadcasting stations for the production and presentation of ethnic radio programs from the 1978-79 financial year. This responsibility was transferred to the Public Broadcasting Foundation from the 1985-86 financial year. Details of Commonwealth grants/subsidies paid by the Film Radio and Television Board (Australia Council and Australian Film Commission), the Special Broadcasting Service, the Department of Communications and the Public Broadcasting Foundation are outlined below: Financial Year Grant/Subsidy $ 1975-76... Grant 72,145 1976-77... Grant 86,048 1977-78... Grant 83,864 1978-79... Grant 153,523 SBS subsidies 49,979 1979-80... Grant 155,110 SBS subsidies 202,099 1980-81... Grant 188,716 SBS subsidies 398,017 1981-82... DOC grants 139,000 SBS subsidies 400,000 Total... 539,000 1982-83... DOC grants 153,000 SBS subsidies 650,000 Total... 803,000 1983-84... DOC grants 300,000 SBS subsidies 650,000 Total... 950,000 1984-85... DOC Grant to PBF 500,000 SBS Subsidies 655,000 Total... 1,155,000 1985-86... DOC Grant to PBF 1,268,000 (2) Applying Consumer Price Index figures obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics the increase in real terms in the level of funding to public broadcasting in the 1985-86 Budget compared to the 1982-83 Budget is 25.37 per cent. (Question No. 2995) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What whale products or products of other marine mammals or goods containing whale products and products of marine mammals can be imported and under what conditions. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australian conservation-orientated controls on international trade in wildlife and wildlife products are implemented under provisions of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. Under the Act, an import permit is required for any importation of live marine mammals and for the importation of the products of any marine mammal listed on Schedules 1, 2 or 3 of the Act. The marine mammals listed on the Schedules are: Cetacea-all whales, dolphins and porpoises Enhydra lutris nereis-southern sea otter or California sea otter; Lutra felina-marine otter or chungungo sea cat; Arctocephalus spp.-southern fur seals; Mirounga angustirostris-northern elephant seal; Mirounga leonina-southern elephant seal; Monachus spp-monk seals; Trichechius spp-manatees; Dugong dugong-dugong. Permits to import cetaceans and products derived from cetaceans may only be issued where: 1. it is considered that the importation would not be, or contribute to trade which may be, detrimental to the survival of any species listed in Schedules 1, 2 or 3; 2. there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the granting of a permit; 3. the importation would be for the purposes of scientific research by a bona fide scientific institution, or would be a transaction between an overseas approved zoo and an Australian approved zoo, or would involve the products of captive bred cetaceans; and 4. in the case of live cetaceans, importation would be to an organisation capable of providing suitable care and secure facilities and arrangements for transport of the animals would minimise the risk of injury or cruel treatment. The importation of other marine mammals listed in the Schedules or products derived from them is only permitted where: 1. they would be exported from their country of origin in accordance with the requirements of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; 2. it is considered that the importation would not be, or contribute to trade which may be, detrimental to the survival of any species listed in Schedules 1, 2 or 3; 3. the importation would be either (i) a transfer between two approved zoos, (ii) for the purposes of prescribed scientific research, (iii) of captive bred animals or products derived from such animals, or (iv) in the case of species listed on Schedule 2 would be of animals taken under an approved management program or would be products derived from such animals; and 4. in the case of live animals, importation would be to an organisation capable of providing suitable care and secure facilities and arrangements for transporting the animals would minimise risk of cruel treatment or injury. Permits to import all other marine mammals may be issued where arrangements for transporting the animals would minimise risk of injury or cruel treatment and where importation would be to an organisation capable of providing suitable care and secure confinement of the animals. (Question No. 2997) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Australian species are considered endangered. (2) Is the export of any endangered species permitted, if so, which species and under what conditions. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following is the official Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) list of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. This list has been compiled by a specialist working group of CONCOM which comprises biologists from each of the State, Territory and Commonwealth wildlife authorities. Scientific Name Common Name Mammalia... Marsupialia... Macropodidae... Bettongia lesueur... Burrowing Bettong (Boodie) Bettongia penicillata... Brush-tailed Bettong (Woylie) Bettongia tropica... Northern Bettong Caloprymnus campestris (1935)... Desert Rat-kangaroo Lagorchestes asomatus (1931)... Central Hare-wallaby Lagorchestes hirsutus... Rufous Hare-wallaby Lagorchestes leporides (1890)... Eastern Hare-wallaby Lagostrophus fasciatus... Banded Hare-wallaby Macropus greyi (1927)... Toolache Wallaby Onychogalea fraenata... Bridled Nailtail Wallaby Onychogalea lunata (1930)... Crescent Nailtail Wallaby Macropodidae... Petrogale persephone... Proserpine Rock-wallaby Potorous platyops (ca. 1875)... Broad-faced Potoroo Potorous longipes... Long-footed Potoroo Petauridae... Gymnobelideus leadbeateri... Leadbeater's Possum Vombatidae... Lasiorhinus krefftii... Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat Peramelidae... Chaeropus ecaudatus (1926)... Pig-footed Bandicoot Perameles bougainville... Western Barred Bandicoot Perameles eremiana (1931)... Desert Bandicoot Thylacamyidae... Macrotis lagotis... Greater Bilby (Dalgyte) Macrotis leucura... Lesser Bilby Thylacinidae... Thylacinus cynocephalus (1933)... Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) Myrmecobiidae... Myrmecobius fasciatus... Numbat Dasyuridae... Sminthopsis Longicaudata... Long-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila... Sandhill Dunnart Rodentia Muridae... Conilurus albipes (1875)... White-footed Rabbit-rat Leporillus apicalis (ca. 1840)... Lesser Stick-nest Rat Leporillus conditor... Greater Stick-nest Rat Notamys amplus (1896)... Short-tailed Hopping-mouse Notamys aquilo... Northern Hopping-mouse Notamys fuscus... Dusky Hopping-mouse Notamys longicaudatus (1906)... Long-tailed Hopping-mouse Notamys macrotis (ca. 1840)... Big-eared Hopping-mouse Notamys mordax (1840)... Darling Downs Hopping-mouse Pseudamys fieldi (1896)... Alice Springs Mouse Pseudamys praeconis... Shark Bay Mouse Xeramys myoides... False Water-rat Zyzamys pedunculatus... Central Rock-rat Cetacea... Balaenopteridae... Balaenoptera musculus... Blue Whale Megaptera novaeangliae... Humpback Whale Balaenidae... Eubalaena australis... Southern Right Whale Aves... Procellariiformes... Procellariidae... Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera... Gould's Petrel Pterodroma solandri... Providence Petrel Pelecaniformes... Sulidae... Sula abbotti... Abbott's Booby Fregatidae... Fregata andrewsi... Christmas Island Frigatebird Falconiformes... Accipitridae... Accipiter radiatus... Red Goshawk Gruiformes... Pedionamidae... Pedionamus torquatus... Plains-wanderer Rallidae... Tricholimnas sylvestris... Lord Howe Island Woodhen Rallus philippensis andrewsi... Cocos Buff-banded Rail Charadriiformes... Laridae... Anous tenuirostris... Lesser Noddy Psittaciformes... Psittacidae... Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii... Norfolk Island Parrot Psittaculirostris diophthalma coxeni... Coxen's Fig-parrot Geopsittacus occidentalis... Night Parrot Neophema Chrysogaster... Orange-bellied Parrot Pezoporus wallicus... Ground Parrot Polytelis alexandrae... Alexandra's Parrot Psittacidae... Psephotus chrysopterygius... Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus dissimilis... Hooded Parrot Psephotus pulcherrimus (1922)... Paradise Parrot Strigiformes Strigidae... Ninox novaeseelandiae royana... Norfolk Island Boobook Owl Ninox squamipila natalis... Christmas Island Hawk-owl Caprimulgiformes Caprimulgidae... Podargus ocellatus plumiferus... Plumed Frogmouth Passeriformes Atrichornithidae... Atrichornis clamosus... Noisy Scrub Bird Maluridae... Malurus coronatus... Purple-crowned Fairy-wren Amytornis dorotheae... Carpentarian Grasswren Amytornis textilis textilis... Thick-billed Grasswren Acanthizidae... Dasyornis longirostris... Western Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus... Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis broadbenti litoralis (1940)... Ruforus Bristlebird Cracticidae... Strepera graculina crissalis... Lord Howe Island Currawong Timaliidae... Psophodes nigrogularis... Western Whipbird Pardalotidae... Pardalotus quadragintus... Forty-spotted Pardalote Zosteropidae... Zosterops albogularis... Norfolk Island Silvereye Meliphagidae... Lichenostomus melanops cassidix... Helmeted Honeyeater Manorina melanotis... Black-eared Miner Muscicapidae... Drymodes superciliaris colcloughi (1915)... Northern Scrub-robin Turdus poliocephalus poliocephalus... Norfolk Island Thrush Amphibia... Anura... Leptodactylidae... Arenophryne rotunda... Round Frog Philoria frosti... Mt Baw Baw Frog Rheobatrachus silus... Platypus Frog Hylidae... Cophixalus concinnus... Elegant Microhylid Cophixalus saxatilis... Rock-dwelling Microhylid Litoria longirostrtis... Long-nosed Tree Frog Reptilia... Chelonia... Dermochelyidae... Dermochelys coriacea... Leathery Turtle Chelidae... Pseudemydura umbrina... Western Swamp Tortoise Squamata... Scincidae... Lerista lineata... Lined Burrowing Skink Ctenotus lancelini... Lancelin Island Striped Skink Pseudemoia palfreymani... Pedra Branca Skink Pygopodidae... Ophidiocephalus taeniatus... Bronzebacked Legless Lizard Aprasia parapulchella... Worm Snake Elapidae... Vermicella calonota... Black-striped Snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides... Broad-headed Snake Osteichthyes... Salmoniformes... Prototroctidae... Prototroctes maraena... Australian Grayling Percifornes Percichthyidae... Macquaria australasica... Macquarie Perch Maccullochella macquariensis... Trout Cod In addition to the agreed CONCOM list, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) has commissioned consultancy studies and surveys on endangered flora and certain invertebrate fauna. Several of these reports have been published by the ANPWS. (2) All species of the CONCOM list, except the three species of the order Cetacea, the Cocos Buff-banded Rail and the Norfolk Island Thrush, are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. Additionally all species of Cetacea are listed on Schedule 3 of the Act. The export of endangered species listed on Schedule 1 may only occur where certain conditions have been met. These conditions include: (i) That the Director, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is satisfied that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species, or any other species, and that the export would not contravene any law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory; (ii) that both the recipient and sender are zoological organisations approved under the Wildlife Protection Act, or the recipient is a recognised scientific establishment; (iii) in the case of live animals, that they will be prepared and shipped with minimal risk of injury or cruel treatment; and (iv) that both the recipient and the sender have the facilities and professional ability to properly care for and manage the live animals. However, the export of these species may currently only be permitted in accordance with the criteria applying to native Australian animals and plants. In the case of live animals, the proposed export must be for inter-zoological gardens transfer or for purposes of prescribed scientific research. In the case of endangered species included in Schedule 3, export may only occur for purposes of inter-zoological gardens transfer, or for scientific research, and there must be exceptional circumstances justifying such export. The Cocos Buff-banded Rail and the Norfolk Island Thrush, which were recently added to the CONCOM list will be included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Protection Act when next amended. Similar controls are exercised under the Act for Australian native plants and fish. In these cases, export may only be permitted where they were taken in accordance with an approved management program, or were captive bred or artificially propagated or, in the case of native plants only, for prescribed scientific research. (Question No. 2999) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action is being taken to establish a National Museums Authority for the purpose of supporting a national program for museums and collections. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have indicated my views on the value of such a body on a number of occasions including in my address to the first national conference of the Australian Museums Association held in Adelaide in October 1984. At its meeting on 29 November 1985 the Cultural Ministers' Council strongly reaffirmed its support for the establishment of such a body. Its task is seen as advising the Commonwealth on museum development generally, acting as the mechanism for the provision of assistance to the States in the conservation and exhibition of their long-standing and major collections, and for providing research on matters of common interest. In the present climate of economic restraint it has not been possible to move to the establishment of the Commission. Nevertheless, the need for such a Commission is recognised and this will be pursued as and when circumstances permit. (Question No. 3011) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What inquiries have been launched by (a) State Governments and (b) the Commonwealth Government into the timber industry since March 1983. Mr Cohen —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The instrumentalities responsible for State forestry management in each State have advised as follows: The Government of Victoria has conducted an inquiry into the Victorian timber industry during 1984-85 (Ferguson Report) and has now released for public comment a Draft Timber Industry Strategy for Victoria with a final strategy to be presented in March 1986. The Western Australian Government did not specifically conduct an enquiry into the timber industry but three enquiries have included some aspects of the timber industry: Report of Task Force on Land Resource Management (January 1984) Report of WA Timber Utilisation and Marketing Task Force (November 1984) Report of Honorary Royal Commission into the Conservation and Land Management Act (November 1984) (b) Commonwealth Government Established a Forest and Forest Products Industry Council under the aegis of the Australian Manufacturing Council with its first task to prepare a detailed assessment on the performance and prospects of the forest products industries. Established a Working Group to prepare a detailed report on Rainforest Conservation in Australia and its impact on the timber industry (September 1985). Industries Assistance Inquiries were conducted into: The thick plywood industry (27 May 1983) Imports of rougher-headed timbers (23 November 1984) and the Australian pulp and paper products industries are currently under investigation. An Environment Impact Statement (EIS) of the Tasmanian forestry operations was prepared by industry and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission preparatory to the taking of decisions by the Commonwealth on Tasmanian export woodchip operations. The EIS addressed all forestry operations in Tasmania and was not confined to operations for which export pulpwood was being derived. Environmental Impact Statements of the woodchip and associated forestry operations on the South Coast of New South Wales and in Western Australia have been instigated. (Question No. 3013) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Which State or Territory Governments are still proceeding to replace native hardwood forests with softwood plantations. (2) Does he support this action. Mr Cohen —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following reply, based on information received from the State and Territory forest services: (1) New South Wales and Victoria have policies to concentrate coniferous plantation establishment as far as possible onto substantially cleared agricultural or pastoral land acquired for this purpose. Queensland is continuing to establish plantations both on cleared lands (former pasture land) and on areas being cleared of depauperate native forest (largely `wallum' country). Western Australia has ceased replacing native hardwood forests with coniferous plantations. South Australia does not establish coniferous plantations on native forest lands. Tasmania will continue to establish coniferous plantations on native forest lands at a rate less than 1000 hectares per annum until the early 1990's at which time significant new plantings will be phased out. In the Northern Territory new plantations are no longer established by the Territory Government with expansions occurring on land owned and managed by the Aboriginal community. In the Australian Capital Territory clearing of native forests for establishment of pine plantations is no longer occurring. (2) I support the policy to stop all programs designed to replace native hardwood forests with softwood plantations. (Question No. 3023) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has the Government established an inter-departmental committee to consider centralised machinery to integrate and co-ordinate work of individual departments in the assessment of the impact of development proposals; if so, has it reported. (2) Has such centralised machinery been established in the Public Service. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 11 October 1984, I tabled a statement in parliament announcing the results of a Government review of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. This statement which outlined a number of proposed amendments to the legislation, also included a proposal to establish an interdepartmental committee (IDC) to consider and report on appropriate centralised machinery to integrate and co-ordinate the work of individual departments in the assessment of the impact of development proposals. However, the implementation of the measures proposed in my statement, including the establishment of the IDC, has been delayed pending further government consideration of alternatives for initiating action under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. I expect to be making a further statement on this matter during the current parliamentary session. (Question No. 3026) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Have funds been provided and what has been the level of increase in real terms between 1982-83 and 1985-86 for the (a) UN Environment Program, (b) South Pacific Regional Environment Program, (c) ASEAN Environment Program and (d) conservation of tropical rainforests in the ASEAN and South Pacific Regions. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) United Nations Environment Program: Yes. Provision for annual contributions has been as follows- 1982/83 $750,000 (1983 contribution) 1983/84 Nil (changeover to payment of contribution in second half of calendar year) 1984/85 $450,000 (1984 contribution) 1985/86 $450,000 (1985 contribution) In real terms the 1985/86 provision represents a 51.3% decrease on the 1982/83 provision. (b) South Pacific Regional Environment Program; Yes. Provision for annual contributions has been as follows- 1982/83 $46,130 (1983 contribution) 1983/84 $42,431 (1984 contribution) 1984/85 $71,874 (1985 contribution) 1985/86 $86,294 (1986 contribution) In real terms the 1985/86 provision represents a 51.9% increase on the 1982/83 provision. (c) ASEAN Environment Program: No. Assistance for two environmentally-related projects is currently being considered under the ASEAN-Australia Economic Co-operation Program (AAECP). (d) Conservation of tropical rainforests in the ASEAN and South Pacific regions: No, not on a regional basis, other than indirectly through Australia's support for the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, the United Nations Environment Program and other international environment organisations. On a bilateral basis, however, $200,000 was provided to Fiji in each of the years 1982/83, 1983/84 and 1984/85 for a reforestation program, and about $100,000 will be provided in 1985/86 for a major review currently being undertaken of the management of Fiji's forestry resources. In addition, a reforestation study costing about $50,000 has recently been completed and submitted to the Solomon Islands. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is responsible for determining the provision and level of funding for these four programs through the Australian aid program. (Question No. 3029) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What (a) new programs have been introduced since March 1983 and (b) funds were allocated in the 1985 budget for special educational programs for aboriginals and islanders for (i) bilingual teaching, (ii) pre-school education for aboriginal and islander children, (iii) aboriginal and islander adult education, (iv) training programs to train aboriginals and islanders as teachers and teachers' aides, (v) technical and managerial training for aboriginals and islanders, (vi) the availability of courses of study at post secondary institutions in race relations and aboriginal and islander society and (vii) educational programs to encourage aboriginal and islander communities to participate in their own education and planning services. (2) What is the increase since the 1982 budget in real terms of the Commonwealth's funding of pre-existing programs in each area. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)(a) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs supports a wide range of educational programs for Aboriginals and Islanders, relating to the area covered by the question, including: - Pre schools, - Primary and secondary school programs, including Aboriginal Community schools, - Adult education, and - Tertiary Education. No new programs have been introduced in those areas since March 1983. (1)(b) Funds allocated in the 1985 budget to DAA for special educational programs for Aboriginals and Islanders were not classified in the same manner as nominated in the question, but the estimated amounts were: (i) Bilingual education $1,057,400. (ii) Pre-school education $3,822,563. (iii) Adult education $2,286,671. (iv) Teacher and teacher aide training $519,600. (v) Technical and managerial training $5,710,000. (vi) Race relations and society NIL. (vii) Education and planning services $908,200. (2) The following table shows the allocations within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs budget for 1985/86 for the programs listed in the member's question, together with comparable 1982/83 figures and percentage increases in actual and real terms over that period. While there may be variations in the projects comprising each program, no new programs have been introduced in the period referred to in the question. 1982/83 1985/86 Actual % increase Real % increase $ $ (i) 922,335 1,057,400 14.6 -6.5 (ii) 2,796,549 3,822,564 36.7 11.5 (iii) 1,302,412 2,286,671 75.6 43.2 (iv) 274,735 519,600 89.1 54.3 (v) 4,804,000 5,710,000 18.9 -3.1 (vi) NIL - - - (vii) 624,389 908,200 45.5 18.6 (Question No. 3032) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Commonwealth and State programs exist to train Aboriginal (a) health workers and (b) doctors. (2) How many Aboriginal people were participating in the programs during (a) 1984 and (b) 1985. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) & (2) Health Workers The Commonwealth provides funding to Aboriginal organisations and some States to conduct training programs for Aboriginal health workers. The Commonwealth, through the Department of Education, also provides Aboriginal Study Grants to some students attending health worker courses. Aboriginal Organisations: Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service, New South Wales conducts a 10 months course with 20 graduates in 1984 and 8 in 1985; Koorie Kollij, Victoria conducts a 9 month course with 25 graduates in 1984 and 30 in 1985; Perth Aboriginal Medical Service, Western Australia conducts a 12 month course with 12 graduates in 1984 and 17 in 1985; Aboriginal Health Organisation, South Australia conducts a 9 month course with 14 expected to graduate in December 1985; Broome Aboriginal Medical Service, Western Australia conducts a 10 month course with 4 one week refresher courses with 10 graduates in 1984 and 8 graduates in 1985. State-run courses: Queensland Department of Health is funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for in-service training courses. In 1984 ten Aboriginal health workers attended a six-week in-service course. There was no course in 1985. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs funds the Western Australia Department of Health to operate a health worker education program. That Department employs 126 Aboriginal health workers, all of whom receive in-service and community-based training. Northern Territory Department of Health: The Northern Territory Department of Health operates a program for health workers who are employed by that Department. There are approximately 20 graduates per year. The Department employs 181 Aboriginal health workers of whom 152 hold the basic skills certificate. Doctors The Commonwealth Government, through the Department of Education Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme, has assisted three Aboriginals to graduate as doctors, two in Western Australia in 1982 and 1983 and one in New South Wales in 1984. Currently there are four Aboriginals studying medicine at the University of Newcastle. (Question No. 3078) Mr Blunt asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds will be available from all Commonwealth Government sources, including the Australian Bicentennial Authority, for Bicentennial activities in 1988. (2) What component of the funds will be (a) available for projects of a local or community-based type and (b) allocated to local government bodies. (3) How and when will these funds be distributed. (4) What Commonwealth Government funding (a) has been approved, (b) is under consideration and (c) has been refused, for local government or community based Bicentennial projects in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (5) What mechanisms exist for informing (a) local government authorities and (b) local community groups about Bicentennial activities and seeking their input and involvement. (6) Are these mechanisms operating satisfactorily; if not, is he considering improvements in information and liaison arrangements. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A total of $166m (July 1982 prices) has been allocated by the Commonwealth specifically for Bicentennial activities in 1988. Of this amount, $48m is committed to the Commonwealth/State Bicentennial Commemorative program with the remaining $118m set aside for the National Program being developed by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. (2) (a) A total of $10.2m (July 1982 prices) has been allocated within the National Program specifically for local and regional projects. (b) Under the Bicentennial Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme a total of $15.0m (July 1982 prices) is available to local government bodies throughout Australia. (3) The funding programs are advertised by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Grants are made available to successful applicants under the local and regional categories of the National Program and to local government authorities in the case of the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme. The grants are announced publicly following approval by the Authority. (4) (a) No Commonwealth funding has yet been approved for Bicentennial projects in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (b and c) Detailed information on funding applications to the Australian Bicentennial Authority according to electorates is not currently available. However, a total of $125,700 has been allocated to local government areas falling partially or completely within the Electoral Division of Richmond under the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme. The allocations are: Ballina Shire $23,700 Byron Shire $19,200 Lismore City $38,300 Tweed Shire $44,500 (5) The Australian Bicentennial Authority currently produces a quarterly newsletter, Bicentenary '88, which has a circulation of over 50,000 copies to a total of 19,400 addresses including Bicentennial Community Committees. State and Territory Offices of the Authority in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory also produce their own newsletters which are circulated to all the Bicentennial Community Committees. In addition to this general information distribution, specific programs of the Authority are advertised in the press and press statements distributed to local and regional media. Guidelines and application forms for local and regional programs are distributed to Bicentennial Community Committees and where appropriate, as in the case of the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme, local government bodies are contacted directly by the Authority. (6) These mechanisms are considered to be operating satisfactorily. (Question No. 3099) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the (a) joint recreation and sport, (b) innovative recreation, (c) assistance for sport and recreation for disabled people, and (d) innovative employee fitness and recreation scheme, in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) sum and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in New South Wales. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for each scheme. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under each scheme. (5) What specific projects were funded under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or groups applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under these schemes in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Richmond to the existence of these schemes. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so, (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: All the information requested by the honourable member is not readily accessible and it would require the allocation of an unreasonable level of Departmental staff resources to extract and provide it given other work priorities. (Question No. 3148) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has the Government determined that State committees for the International Year of Peace may not allocate grants to individuals or organisations that have projects or proposals which are in direct conflict with the Federal Government's defence and foreign policies. (2) What guidelines have been prepared which would enable potential applicants for International Year of Peace grants to ascertain whether their proposals are in conflict with Government policies. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Neither State or Territory International Year of Peace (IYP) Committees, nor the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, allocate regional or national IYP grants to individuals or organisations in the non-government sector. Both make recommendations to me. The criteria laid down for consideration of IYP projects includes: `Proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. These words appear on the IYP `Guidelines for Applications for assistance to individuals, community bodies and non-government organisations'. This two-page sheet is issued with each `Application for support for projects for the International Year of Peace'. Generally, my approach is to encourage IYP projects from the non-government sector which are well-researched, reflect a serious approach, and involve a wide cross-section of the community. (2) Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues has been widely recorded in parliamentary statements, publicised and discussed in the media, and is included in Department of Foreign Affairs publications. Applicants for IYP projects who are unsure whether their proposed project might be in direct conflict with established Government policy can seek advice on this question from the IYP Secretariat in the Department of Foreign Affairs which would refer the issue to the relevant section in the Department or, if necessary, to me. (Question Nos 3216-3243) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) What was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85. (2) What was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip. (3) What was the duration of each trip. (4) What were the countries visited during each trip. (5) How much time was spent in official meetings during each trip. (6) What was the estimated cost of each trip with the air fare component identified separately. (7) How many overseas trips have been made by officers of the Minister's Department and each statutory authority under the Minister's control in 1985-86 to 1 February 1986 and how many are planned for the remainder of 1986. (8) How many ISD phone calls were made by officers of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control in 1984-85. (9) What was the cost of the ISD calls. (10) How many overseas trips were made by officers of the Minister's Department and each statutory authority under the Minister's control in 1981-82. Mr Donald Cameron asked identical or similar questions of all other Ministers, upon notice, on the same day. Mr Willis —With the concurrence of all Ministers, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions Nos 3216-3243: (1) to (9) The details sought by the honourable member would require a substantial commitment of resources to extract and collate. Given its strong commitment to containing public expenditure and to the sensible use of resources, this Government is not prepared to authorise the expenditure which would be required to provide answers to the honourable member's questions.