Thursday, 13 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.01) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia moving forthwith a motion to disallow the amendment to the Export Control (Orders) Regulations as contained in Order 1986 No. 2, made under the Export Control Act 1982 which vests discretion (a) in the Secretary of the Department or his nominee not to provide inspection services to designated primary export industries and (b) in the Minister to direct the Secretary of the Department to make a particular decision. I have moved this motion to enable the Parliament to debate a motion to disallow an attempt by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government to run away from their responsibilities in the face of union standover tactics affecting the Australian meat industry. Mudginberri is a watershed for union power in Australia. This union-dominated Government is doing everything in its power to ensure that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is entrenched on the treasury benches of this country. It is an outrage that the Minister should seek to give himself a discretion, instead of an obligation, to satisfy the Australian Government's constitutional export powers and the responsibilities for export authority. It is a constitutional responsibility. The export powers in the Constitution are quite clear. Yet the Minister seeks to give himself a discretion, rather than an obligation, to uphold the constitutional and legislative responsibility of his portfolio. Every member of the Parliament should be aware of the dereliction of duty and the attempt to transfer the Government's authority and power to unions which are prepared to use blackmail to achieve their objectives. Four critical issues are at stake. The first is the capacity of a government to provide essential services which it must, by law, provide. The second is the capacity of a government to act independently of the commands and power of the ACTU. The third is the freedom of the individual Australian worker to negotiate his own conditions of employment outside the direct involvement of the unions. The fourth is the freedom of Australian industries to conduct their business free of government and trade union domination. Few actions taken by this Government have exposed the weak underbelly of the Hawke Labor Government more than this action has. Few actions that this Government has taken have demonstrated more the extent to which the Government has been dominated by the trade union movement since it came to office. It has virtually entrenched the ACTU and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union on the treasury benches of this country. The Minister is derelict in carrying out his duty. The Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia have indicated that the Minister had an obligation to provide Commonwealth meat inspectors at Mudginberri and that he did not exercise that obligation or duty. As a result of the Biloela debacle last month the Minister is seeking approval by this Parliament to the giving to him of a discretion rather than for him to have the obligation to carry out a constitutional and legal responsibility. I do not think there has ever been a regulation or piece of legislation before this Parliament that has exposed more the gutlessness of this Government when it comes to exercising its responsibility in government. We all know what happened at Mudginberri when Mr Pendarvis, perhaps one of the most courageous employers in this country-a courageous and fair employer-was prepared to negotiate with his employees an arrangement that was condoned by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to provide to those employees twice the amount of money, as a result of that agreement, that they could have earned under an award. Mr Wright —How many jobs were lost? Mr HUNT —There were no jobs lost. There were productivity gains. Then, of course, what happened? As soon as the dispute started, the Commonwealth meat inspectors were moved to Jabiru and then a picket was set up by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and was left in place for months. No Commonwealth export inspection service was available on the spot to carry out the legal obligation of the Government, the export inspection service and the Minister. The Minister having been derelict in his duty and the Government having been derelict in its duty, we are now witnessing an attempt to remove the obligation from the Minister by regulation. In the 17 years I have been in this Parliament I have not seen a worse attempt by a Government to remove from a Minister his legal obligation to carry out export powers and export responsibilities that are vested in the Government and the Commonwealth of Australia by the Constitution. I think it is an outrage. However the Government might try to paint the picture, there is not the slightest doubt- Mr Lionel Bowen —By way of assisting the House, I indicate that no opportunity was taken to let the Minister know that this motion was going to be moved, but we now have some knowledge of this matter and the Government will agree to the suspension of Standing Orders, so that the honourable member for Gwydir can proceed with his motion. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown —I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Motion for Disallowance Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.09) —I move: That the amendment to the Export Control (Orders) Regulations as contained in Order 1986 No. 2, made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. The events at Mudginberri are a watershed for the trade union movement in Australia. I ask honourable members to listen very carefully to the reasons why the amendment to the Export Control (Orders) Regulations should be disallowed. I believe that there is and there must be an obligation-the Opposition firmly adheres to that belief-to carry out export inspection duties in accordance with constitutional and legal requirements. At a time when Australia is facing the worst balance of trade figures on record one would have thought that the Government would have done everything in its power to facilitate the movement of goods from abattoirs, farms, mines and factories at the most expeditious rate. But this did not happen at Mudginberri. The Government and the unions have consistently ignored the fact that in this case the workers at Mudginberri entered into a negotiation with the owners of the Mudginberri abattoir which enabled those workers to earn twice as much as they would have earned under the award. That agreement was reached and given the approval of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Notwithstanding that situation, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, because it was not involved in those negotiations, decided to sabotage the agreement. It did so by setting up a picket line defying the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service in the provision of Commonwealth meat inspectors. They knew that unless Commonwealth meat inspectors were on site, there was no way that Mr Pendarvis would probably have the opportunity to export his goods. This has cost this proprietor millions of dollars. No doubt the union adopted this tactic in order to forestall any attempt by any other employer to enter into agreements outside the control, the supervision and the conduct of the union movement. It is an outrage. It indicates the extent to which this country has fallen under union power and domination. No wonder this country is in the mess that it is. No wonder we have a national debt hitting $70 billion. No wonder we have a balance of trade deficit that will probably be $14 billion this year. It is an outrageous state of affairs that the Government should have attempted to walk away from its responsibility to provide Commonwealth meat inspection officers should there be an industrial dispute at an abattoir. Day by day, we are seeing this sort of thing happening in other ways in other places. I think that it needs recording in this Parliament that Jay Pendarvis is one of the most courageous employers that this country has produced. He had the courage to offer his workers a productivity-based wages incentives scheme which has boosted enormously the output of his abattoir and, as I said earlier, had doubled his employee's earnings. A lesser man might have caved in to the meat employees union, but not Jay Pendarvis. His vindication came on 19 December when Mr Justice Bowen, Mr Justice Evatt, and Mr Justice Pincus of the Federal Court of Australia found that the director of this Government's export inspection service had not a discretion but an obligation to provide inspectors at the Mudginberri works. Of course, there was an appeal to the High Court of Australia which was dismissed or thrown out or not heard because the judges could not see any reason why it should be heard on 21 February this year. The courts have highlighted the clear lawful requirements upon the Minister for PrimaryIndustry. He must provide export inspections as sought by abattoirs. What greater outrage could there have been in the light of the clear rule of law and a crystal clear court ruling for the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service to have once again failed in its responsibilities at Biloela last month. The hard heads of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have panicked at the thought that their grip on the Australian wage fixation system is not watertight. They have delivered their orders. They have pressured the meat works. They have attempted to ensure that there is never another Mudginberri case. Mr Cobb —There will be 1,000 more. Mr HUNT —But there will be other cases as time goes on. The events at Mudginberri will be repeated. The ACTU power brokers are on notice that Australians have had a gutful of their standover tactics. It is the riding orders of the ACTU that have led to the presentation of these Export Control (Orders) Regulations before the Parliament at present. There has been no fanfare or explanation to the Parliament. More than five weeks ago, the Minister did foreshadow that the rules would probably change but he never attempted, and nor has he done so right now, to justify the changes. Mr Lloyd —How could he justify that? Mr HUNT —He could not. He was wise enough to realise that. I hope that this is not the Minister's doing. I imagine that the Minister has been so pliable in Cabinet on so many occasions that he has been stood over by those people who have only one loyalty, and that is loyalty to the union movement. These regulations are nothing more than an attempt to change the rules now that the Minister has lost the umpire's decision. He wants an out to avoid the chance of a full-blown confrontation between the law of this nation and the constitutional responsibility that he bears and the union leaders who consider themselves above the law. The Opposition is determined that the Minister will not get his cop out. Today must be the day when he stops running and stands to face his responsibilities and the responsibilities of his portfolio. The Parliament must not allow itself to crumble in the face of this ACTU attack. The Minister says that ministerial discretion is necessary to protect what he calls the national interest. On 6 February, I publicly suggested that he define what he means by public interest. I have not seen such a reply. It is nonsense to compare export inspection services with the activities of Australia Post, the railways or shipping and to claim that, because Acts covering those bodies contain ministerial discretion, the Minister should also have that discretion in relation to the EIS. The withdrawal of these services in the course of a dispute does not force the business that they serve to shut its doors immediately. But, unless there is an export inspection service available during a dispute on the floor of an abattoir, the meat that has been killed and the meat that is stored runs the risk of going bad. The Biloela exercise was a case in point. Over $100,000 worth of meat needed to be boned out following a dispute with the workers in the abattoir. But for the two days that that dispute occurred not one Commonwealth meat inspector was prepared to cross the picket line, nor do I believe that the Minister gave any instructions that they should do so. It is an outrage that this sort of thing is going on. The withdrawal of these services during a dispute can cost an abattoir and a meat processor hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. This is one of the biggest issues and one of the biggest responsibilities for the Commonwealth meat inspection service. The Minister suggests by this regulation that it is logical for abattoirs to be compelled to receive the service but for him to have the power to withdraw that service. Let us face it: The industry meets 50 per cent of the cost of this service. It is not a service that is simply provided by the taxpayers or the Government. The industry has a right to expect the Minister and the Government to live up to their obligations. It has every right to protest when the Minister seeks to give himself a discretion in providing a service for which the industry pays 50 per cent. These regulations throw the Federal Government out of step with State laws. Recently a meeting of Victorian farmers was surprised to learn from the Victorian Minister that he had powers of discretion under the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act of 1973. Pressed on the matter, his office conceded that it was not sure. The Act itself spells out the truth: The Director-General shall provide inspection services for every meat establishment licensed under the Act. The actions of the Hawke Government in trying to give itself a cop-out clause in the wake of Mudginberri cannot be excused. Every Australian has the right to ask: Who governs this nation; who is pulling the strings? Only yesterday we learned that, as I said earlier, the trade deficit is collapsing and is now running at a figure in excess of $14 billion this year. No sector of the Australian economy is more important to this nation and the standard of living of the Australian people than the export industries, and therefore there are good reasons why certain laws should be enforced to ensure that services such as those we are discussing are provided. I do not think that any incident in Australian industrial history has highlighted the seriousness of entrenched union power more than the Mudginberri abattoir incident. As I said, this action exposed the weak underbelly of the Hawke Labor Government. It is a union dominated Government. It is bound to the Australian Council of Trade Unions by the accord. The unions are running Australia. This legislation is probably the first legislation to prove that point. The Government does not have to go further than these orders to realise that it is under union control and domination. That is a frightening thought, and it should be a frightening thought for every Australian. So this Parliament must throw out these regulations. I have every confidence that they will be defeated and thrown out by the Senate because I understand that Opposition and Australian Democrat senators are horrified and shocked that the Government should have taken this action. It is incredible that the Government should have been so naive as to expose its underbelly, expose its intentions, and run away from its obligations that have been in law for some considerable time. I return to the constitutional requirement of this Government. Its constitutional requirement is very strong in the area of export powers because the fathers of the Constitution were well aware that Australia would depend substantially upon its export earning income, yet we are seeing a Minister and a government derelict in duty, running away from responsibility because they do not want to face the picket lines or the unions. The Minister does not want to have to stand up to a handful of people in the sun outside an abattoir or to provide a service for which the industry is paying 50 per cent of the cost. It is an outrageous situation and I am surprised that the Minister would have allowed himself to be the victim of an attempt by his Government to make him nothing more than a pawn of the ACTU. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.24) —I second this motion to disallow the Export Control (Orders) Regulations introduced by the Government, and I do so because this House simply must disallow these regulations. If it does not disallow the regulations it is throwing up the white flag to excessive union power and control of this country by the trade union movement, as well as control by the trade unions of the export industries of this country. If these regulations are not disallowed by this House the trade union movement will have unlimited power to decide whether inspectors go in to inspect meat or any other agricultural produce, or fish, produced within this country before it can be exported. The regulations are the last crooked act by this crooked Government in a very sorry story indeed and the Government should be ashamed of itself for having the audacity to promote them. Before the regulations are defeated in the Senate, the Government should have the good sense to withdraw them. This matter goes back some months. It must be seen as an essential part of the whole Mudginberri matter. From day one the Government has set itself against the great achievements at the Mudginberri abattoir and the great significance that those achievements symbolise. One would think that the Government, which should be concerned about encouraging industry and the export trade, would be pleased about the achievements at Mudginberri. One would think that the Government would look, as the Opposition does, at the facts of Mudginberri and say: `We should not set our face against them. We should encourage them. We should encourage exactly what has happened at Mudginberri'. What has happened at Mudginberri? In the first place some men have been able to keep their jobs. Secondly, an abattoir has been able to remain open. Thirdly, productivity had increased. Fourthly, at long last we have been able to get some more export trade in this industry. We on this side of the House and, I venture to say, the Australian people say that these are great achievements of which we should be proud and we should be encouraging them. But has the Government endorsed what has happened at Mudginberri? Of course it has not; it has set its face against it. We had the discreditable spectacle of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) saying a few months ago that this was a piddling matter; that it was a piddling dispute when men were stopped from working and pickets were put up outside the abattoir. What did the Minister's union masters, Mr Crean and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, say about it? Mr Crean said: `What you have at Mudginberri is the so-called rights of individuals'. We on this side of the House believe that individuals have rights; they have the right to negotiate with their employer; they have the right to fight to save their jobs; they have the right to negotiate with their employer to get a fair reward for their labours. We on this side of the House and the Australian people at large believe that what happened at Mudginberri is a great example of what can be achieved when free people get together and make decisions about important matters concerning their lives. However, the Government has said no to that. The Government has said: `We cannot allow what happened at Mudginberri to continue'. Why has the Government set its face against what has happened at Mudginberri? There must be some explanation. The only explanation which has any basis of fact is that the Government's union masters have told it that it must kill what happened at Mudginberri, otherwise union power in this country will be at an end. Once again we have seen this Government, from the very beginning of the Mudginberri matter and through every stage of its development, giving in and sending the white flag up the flagpole to the trade union movement, which it believes should control what happens in this country. Apparently it now believes that the union movement should control what decisions are made by the Government. That is a discreditable act of which the Government should be ashamed. We say that these regulations are discreditable and should be repealed. We say that they have come about because they are simply one more step in he Government's capitulation to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in the whole Mudginberri matter. Furthermore, what has happened? How is is that the regulations have been brought into the Parliament? What has happened is that the Government took this dispute to the Federal Court of Australia. In effect, it said to the Federal Court: `We do not think that we should be obliged to provide an export service when the union stands in our way and says that we should not'. The Government lost its case in the Federal Court. It then went to the High Court of Australia and put the same argument to try to repeal the decision of the Federal Court. What happened there? The Government lost for the second time. Having lost in the Federal Court, the Government then lost in the High Court. But the Government was not prepared to accept the decisions of the highest courts in the land. It would not accept the decisions of the highest courts in the land for the simple reason that the union would not accept them. The Government by these regulations is trying to reverse the decisions of the two highest courts in this land in the most discreditable manner and for the most discreditable reason. The only reason that the Government has been motivated to introduce these regulations is to expand union power and to give to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union the power to override decisions which the Government should make on providing export inspection services. That by itself, without any more, should encourage this House to disallow these regulations because they are simply an attempt to reverse decisions of the High Court and of the Federal Court. But it goes further than that; indeed, it is even worse. What are the powers which the Minister wants to give to himself? What are the powers that he will use to create his rathole so that he can escape from his real obligations to provide an inspection service? Let us listen to the quaint language that the Government uses by which it means: `We will capitulate and give all power in this matter to the Meat Industry Employees Union'. The regulations state that when someone applies for an inspector to go along to the abattoir, for example, the Secretary of the Department has to consider a number of things. One of the things he must consider is this: Such other considerations consistent with good management practices as he- the Secretary- thinks fit including the welfare and safety of authorised officers. That is the Government's polite way of saying that the Secretary has to have regard to what the union wants and, if the union does not want an inspection service provided because it might set the union back in its activities at Mudginberri-the union might be prevented from its campaign against free people getting jobs at Mudginberri-the union has to have the last word and the inspection service will not be provided. So when the Government says that the Secretary has to have regard to good management practices all that it means is that the Secretary has to have regard to what the union wants. That is not the way the Australian people want this country governed. The Australian people, through an Act passed in this Parliament, have given power to the Minister which he should exercise in the national interest. He is not prepared to exercise that power unless the union agrees with him. He will give way, like the craven backboneless Minister that he is, as soon as the union says boo to him. He has no responsibility or right to hold the office that he does. No confidence is left in him as far as the exporters of this country are concerned and he should resign. Secondly, the regulations go on and give to the Minister-this is very important-the power to tell the Secretary of the Department what decision he should come to. It is not simply left to the Secretary to find out what the union movement wants about this thing. The Minister has the power to control the Secretary of his own Department. I ask honourable members to listen to the shameful language in the regulations that this Government is promoting. The regulations state: Where the Minister considers that it is desirable, taking into account the national interest, that a decision which may be made by the Secretary under orders is made in a particular manner then the Minister may direct the Secretary to make that decision. In other words, under these regulations, the Minister is giving himself power to tell the Secretary of his own Department what he should do and power to make a most discreditable decision, namely, a decision that export services should not be provided to meat exporters. How the Government can hold its head up when it is putting up that backboneless sort of proposal I do not know. This is something which should give us very great concern because the Minister has already shown, through his conduct of his Department, that he has no control over the employees of his department. Meat inspectors are public servants. They should do what they are paid to do. They should do what they are told to do by the law. The Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) has made it perfectly plain that an Act passed by this Parliament states that the inspection service shall be provided. It must be provided for very good reasons so that the standard of our meat can be kept up to high standards and so that exporters can achieve what they are in business to achieve, namely, the export of meat and other products. But the Minister has shown that he has no control over those inspectors. He stood by like the craven, backboneless individual that he is when the meat inspectors refused to cross a picket line. He was not concerned whether they got paid for doing their work or not. He was not concerned about meat rotting at the abattoir because it could not be certified. He was not concerned about the men's jobs that were at stake. He was not concerned about the export trade. He was not concerned whether the abattoir company went bankrupt or not. He was concerned about one thing and one thing only-the poor trade union which had set its face against men keeping their jobs and getting paid what they thought they were worth for their jobs. When the Minister writes with his wicked hand into these regulations that he is to have regard to the national interest, I put it to the House that the whole history of the Mudginberri matter makes it perfectly plain that he has not the faintest idea what the national interest means. He knows what the union interest is. He knows that as a member of a government that is controlled by the trade union movement he must do what it tells him. That is what he means by the national interest-the union interest. We say finally, because these arguments are clear for all to see, that if the Government had its wits about it, it would admit at this stage that these regulations should not be proceeded with. It should have the wit to see that they will be defeated in the Senate. If the Minister does not want another embarrassment for this crumbling Government, he would be well advised to pull these regulations out now. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.37) —The raving display by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) says a lot more about himself and his attitude to the ordinary men and women of Australia than it does about the issue before the House. He hates, as the Liberal Party hates, people who work for a living. That is what this is all about. It is all about an attack on wage earners. He needs to encourage his own right wing fanatics in the Liberal Party because John Howard is down to 13 per cent-that is what it this is all about. Let us look at realities. It is a simple change in administrative law in accord with legislative provisions in many other areas of Commonwealth legislation where national interest grounds supersede discretionary powers in legislation. In the Federal Court decision which overturned the decision by Justice Neaves on this matter, the invitation was there for the Commonwealth Government to take this action and get it into accord with other provisions in other legislation. There were implications in that judgment for a lot of other areas of Commonwealth legislation. There was a desire by the Cabinet to put this into accord with other parts of legislation. The other matter we took into account was that if we followed the Federal Court decision to the letter and did not accept the invitation implicit in the judgment, we would be opening up the meat industry to additional cost. It is nonsense to say that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union was consulted in this, as it is nonsense to say that the Meat Inspectors Association was consulted. Let us look at other areas of legislation where we have the same provisions. There is the Building Industry Act 1985, the Telecommunications Act 1975, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, the Wool Industry Act 1972, the Wheat Marketing Act 1979, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Act 1985, and the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. The legislation in all these Acts is exactly the same as we are putting in here. What this motion is all about is not this legislation; it is all about the fact that Opposition members need to appeal to their own hard core, because they want to return to the politics of confrontation with the trade union movement-and where did that get them? What they are opposed to is orderly industrial relations. They are so opposed to the accord. What has the accord done? It has reduced real unit labour costs by 11 per cent. It has put the profit share up. It has increased investment. It has increased jobs by 608,000. Opposition members cannot live with that. They got 250,000 extra people on the dole line in one year. That is what they cannot hack. That is the problem. They want industrial disputation and confrontation. They do not want consultation. They do not want the accord, which was between the Government, business and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They cannot handle the fact that business goes along with the accord, either. What did Opposition members do when they were in government? They let it rip. They abandoned centralised wage fixation in 1981-82. What happened? Wage rates went through the roof-a 14 per cent to 17 per cent increase. What happened to farm costs? They rose by 12 per cent. They are now down to an increase of 7 per cent a year. Opposition members talk about trade, but what did they do? They ran an over-valued exchange rate to try to fight inflation. They hit the farmers and the exporters. And they talk about trade! I am not going to re-argue the Mudginberri issue and all the politics that went on with that, but the national interest thing that we were taking into account was very much on the balance of trade. We had an isolated abattoir in the Northern Territory that had three meat inspectors and 20 meat employee unionists employed there. Because the National Farmers Federation dealt into a dispute between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and Jay Pendarvis, this became a national dispute, because the NFF wanted to break down centralised wage fixation. But from the Government's point of view, when we were trying to fill the Canadian quota, when the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign in the remote areas required abattoirs to be open, and when we had a major lamb promotion with Japan, we took the national interest decision that it was nonsense, in this case, for a government to deliberately enlarge an industrial dispute. That was the decision we took. Mr Sinclair —It was a wrong decision, and you know it. Mr KERIN —It was not the wrong decision in terms of the national interest that was involved at the time. The union was in an unsupportable situation at law in terms of clause 33 of the McKenzie judgment. But that clause attacked, completely and fundamentally, the raison d'etre of the trade union movement, and that is why the ACTU put on an official picket. We had to deal with that reality. The Government was asked to take actions which would have expanded the strike. We are normally enjoined to limit strikes, not expand them. It suited Opposition members politically to expand it-but we did not take that decision, because of the national interest, the balance of trade, and the interests of the meat industry and the beef cattle industry. Because an official picket was put on, because the interest of the cattle industry was that trade continue, we did not think that 23 people in a dispute in a remote area should imperil the cattle industry, the sheep industry, our balance of trade, and the jobs of another 30,000 or 40,000 people in the meat industry. But it suited Opposition members because they are against centralised wage fixation and against the trade union movement, and they are against the accord because they cannot wear the success that is coming from it. That is what this motion is all about. It is not about a small change to regulations to bring this part of legislation into accord with other areas of legislation in this Parliament. This is what the motion is really all about. I shall just give some brief background to this matter so that we may have a few facts here to overcome some of the ideology of the opposite side-because that is what it is all about. On 19 December a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia found, on appeal, that the Department had no discretion under the export meat orders to provide inspection staff when required to do so. When Cabinet considered this matter in July 1985 it had before it advice of the Attorney-General's Department that there was a qualified duty to provide inspection staff. It was considered that the virtual certainty of widespread industrial action with significant financial implications to the meat industry was reasonable justification for not supplying inspection staff and that this provided a qualification to the orders. The Court, in a decision by Mr Justice Neaves, supported this view. Now, on appeal, the Full Bench has rejected it as a basis for not supplying staff. We required the staff to go in four times. They refused because of an official Australian Council of Trade Unions picket. We took a decision not to expand the strike. That was a political decision-the only political decision. Mr Sinclair —It shows where the real power lies, doesn't it? Mr KERIN —No, it does not at all. That is absolute nonsense. One deals with industrial reality. What did the blokes opposite do, when they were in power, about the Builders Labourers Federation? They should tell us about all the Public Service strikes they had when they were in government. I think the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was Minister for Communications when there were strikes in Telecom Australia and Australia Post. He should tell me about all of them. Did he march workers across picket lines? Was he able to get them to work when they went on strike? He had to deal with industrial reality. What did he do about it? What did the previous Government ever do about strikes? It did not even have the guts to take on the BLF. Which government has had the guts to do that? What did the previous Government do about the BLF? It caved in. Honourable members opposite should not tell us nonsense about their having any guts in the area of industrial relations. At the end of the day they, too, had to accept industrial reality. What have we done? We have provided the Department with a discretion to take the efficiency of operations and the safety of staff into consideration in deciding whether to provide inspection services. That is in accord with law right across the board in this place. We also have provided the Department with a discretion, to be exercised at the appropriate level, to take the interests of the industry into consideration in deciding whether to provide inspection services and enable the Minister to give a direction as to how the Department should exercise the discretion where Ministers consider that national interest considerations are involved. Honourable members opposite will focus on that because it is a two-edged sword. It does not put me, as Minister, or officials in the difficult situation we were in with regard to Mudginberri, where there was only a qualified obligation and where, if a decision were taken in the national interest, one did not quite know where one stood. This measure gives the Minister more powers. If honourable members opposite cannot work that out, they really do not understand administrative law. Why did we go for a discretion? First, the word `impossible' was not defined by the Federal Court. If the Court's finding was read literally it meant that we had to provide inspection services unless it was impossible to do so. The word `impossible' was undefined. If that is taken literally it means that we will have to impose many additional costs on the industry. The normal day to day running of the Export Inspection Service means that many requests are made when cattle are not available and some discretion has to be exercised by the Service. If the Service has to have a great pool of additional people, so that at all times anyone can make a demand on the Service, it will cost it at least $2.5m extra a year. Taken literally, the Full Bench decision meant that neither the Government nor the Department had any real say in the provision of services. This would have added a cost to the Export Inspection Service of some $2.5m per annum, not to mention the cost of ongoing industrial disruption. The Inspection Service is faced with quite a few local industrial disputes and rather than force the issue and spread the dispute, it relies more on negotiation and conciliation. This often holds back service while this is going on. Departmental officials should have a say in the provision of staff where efficiency of operations or staff safety are involved and the Government needs to have its policies, be they of an industrial or other nature, taken into account and, where appropriate, to issue directions when decisions involve political considerations. While this might put the Minister up front, it gets away from the criticism of the courts and the media that officials should not take political decisions. I think it is only correct that there should be provision for government involvement where the decision is political rather than administrative. Ministerial direction is preferred to review or reconsideration as it enables the Minister to become involved before the problem arises. An official does not have to actually take a decision and then have an aggrieved party ask for a review before the Minister can formally become involved. This motion today is a stunt. This regulation merely puts this part of the law in accord with many other areas of Commonwealth law and is virtually at the invitation of a Federal Court of Australia ruling. The two motivations were to get that accordance with other law so that discretion can be applied and to cut down costs to the meat industry. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hunt's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.02) —Any change to the Australian Citizenship Act immediately arouses interest in the Parliament and within the community. The community is concerned about changes in citizenship which deal with the character, identity and political and legal status of all Australians. The Government in the amendments which it has proposed continues the practices which have been used by it to bring about alterations to the nature of Australian citizenship. The Government brings a range of proposals before this Parliament without consultation with the wider Australian community, immigrants or the Opposition. As with its handling of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Government wrongly believes that it has been given a mandate to change the character of Australian citizenship. It will make those changes regardless of community or public opinion. The Opposition rejects the techniques of socialist authoritarianism. The attitude of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) reflects the prospect of a new trilogy-a lack of consistency, a lack of clarity and a lack of consultation. What does the Government propose in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill? It attempts to address four main areas: Firstly, the claims of residency based on children who were born in Australia; secondly, the situation of Australians in Israel who have lost their citizenship; thirdly, the oath and affirmation of allegiance and, finally, a number of administrative changes to the Act. The Bill seeks to remove automatic citizenship for children born in Australia of visitors, temporary entrants and prohibited non-citizens, thus closing the loophole which has allowed infants to sponsor their own parents. Also the Government considers the situation of stateless individuals. The Bill will allow appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where citizenship is denied or not granted by reason of an administrative error. The Bill proposes a number of technical amendments by replacing sexist language and the waiver of fees. The legislation meets most of the aims. The Opposition supports these proposals with the exception of clause 7 relating to those people who have inadvertently lost their citizenship. That clause requires additional clarification. I understand that the Minister has amendments. We also have amendments to that clause and also to clause 11 in relation to the oath and affirmation. For some time there has been a considerable cost, and much concern has been expressed, regarding the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in Australia. There are instances of pregnant women coming from overseas, having their child in Australia and of that child then sponsoring the parent as a permanent resident. Temporary entrants, visitors or prohibited non-citizens have been sponsored by infant children. In addition, many complicated and expensive court cases have followed where parents have not accepted the Minister's ruling regarding their claim for permanent residency. The Government's proposed amendment will close this back-door avenue of entry to those people, particularly prohibited non- citizens, who would not normally meet the requirements for Australian immigration. The investigations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure resulted in a recommendation for an alteration to this aspect of Australian citizenship law which has been in effect since 1948. The Committee confirmed that parents who were illegal immigrants would acquire residential status and resist deportation on the grounds that the child who had automatically gained Australian citizenship, needed the parents' constant attention. This is another instance in which those who have no real claim on Australia might receive considerable benefit ahead of those seeking immigrant entry through proper channels. The House will remember the shocking facts exposed by the Expenditure Committee which revealed that up to 25 per cent of illegal immigrants receive health care, social welfare, unemployment benefits or legal aid, the cost of which could amount to over $52m a year. Still nothing has been done to curb the outrageous waste of public money on those who have no rights or recognition within Australia. The Human Rights Commission has also expressed its concern about automatic child citizenship. The Commission concluded that better supervision by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would remove or substantially reduce these problems. The Human Rights Commission seemed to have more compassion for illegal immigrants than commitment to the best interests of Australians. The Human Rights Commission has used the issue to propagate its vested interests. Indeed, this Commission is the stalking horse of the proposed Bill of Rights. Its record is another reason for the Opposition's being strongly opposed to the Bill of Rights. Clause 7 of the Bill arises from the amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act which in 1984 gave the Minister the power to restore Australian citizenship lost inadvertently. These amendments caused some Australians to lose their citizenship. Up to 2,000 citizens living in Israel at that date as permanent residents lost their Australian citizenship. Under Israeli law of return every person of Jewish descent is automatically conferred with Israeli citizenship on arrival as a permanent resident unless those people realise that they need to reject the offer of citizenship within three months. The principle intention of Australians going to reside in Israel is not to acquire Israeli citizenship, nor to deny their Australian citizenship. They had either no knowledge or received poor advice on the implications of the law of return. The Bill before the House allows former citizens to make a statement to the Minister and there is a consequential ministerial discretion to reinstate citizenship. The Government's proposals are not entirely satisfactory. The Opposition does not believe that permanent residency within three years is required. That was an unconscious action which deprived Australians of their nationality and their distress and sense of alienation has been completely justified. All that is necessary is a statement of their intention to ultimately reside in Australia. The Bill also contains an inconsistency. The statement to be furnished to the Minister is based upon the person having suffered significant hardship or detriment. On the other hand, the Minister's discretion is exercised on the basis that the person suffered hardship or detriment of an economic nature. We will explore those factors when the House is at the Committee stage and comes to the point of debating the details of each clause. We will move amendments to clarify this clause. The oath or the affirmation of allegiance which is taken by a person at the citizenship ceremony is significantly changed by this Bill. The Government proposes that no person will renounce allegiance to the sovereign of any other state, nor will a person be required to state his or her name when taking the oath or affirmation. The Minister has said that the renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous and unnecessary. The Minister contends that some candidates for citizenship think that they are not merely renouncing formal ties with their former country but also renouncing their cultural heritage and traditions. The Minister is confused and incorrect in these assumptions. Renunciation is a positive step in recognition of the legal requirements and the individualism and status of the Australian identity. Allegiance is acquired through birthright, naturalisation and a feeling and declaration of identity. The principle is clear: Whilst any person should retain his own private, cultural and individual character, there is a higher and stronger national character-a public identity in which allegiance to one's chosen country is paramount. Such an allegiance implies both the benefits and the responsibilities of national duty. Australia is not alone in these things, in requiring a renunciation. I refer the House to a number of countries of similar background and status that also require renunciation. Italy, Malta, Yugoslavia, West Germany, the United States of America, Cyprus and even the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics require renunciation either on the oath or on application for citizenship in their law. In one form or another, that renunciation is required. The report of October 1982 commissioned by a previous Minister, Mr Macphee, entitled `National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship' stated that there was less unanimity in proposals, compared with other proposals, about what should be substituted as the object of allegiance. The report noted that the discussion on renunciation in the oath tended to lack clarity. The views were wide ranging. Some suggested that a renunciation was not legally binding while on the other hand it stated: It was thought highly repugnant that a person granted Australian citizenship should retain allegiance to another country or power. The general conclusion was that `it is probable that clearer wording would resolve some of the apparent disagreement'. The report declared that Australian citizenship should be clearly Australian in character. What could be more Australian than to be an individual beholden to no one except one's own country. The Minister has chosen to reject this conclusion. It is one of the most indefinite conclusions reached by that consultative process. In fact, that process finally found that there were alternative wordings, and alternative wordings were proposed that were acceptable to all as an option for the Government to take up. Yet the Government and the Minister have chosen in this area to move ahead of the recommendations of that consultation and to follow the proposal of the Human Rights Commission, which he and I both condemn. Yet he chooses to pick up one of that Commission's more weird recommendations despite recommendations in the `National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship' report. I am surprised by this process. I would have thought that in this process the concept of bipartisanship would have entered into the whole affray. That committee was divided and unsure of itself in the consultations. This House is now divided, and it has been every time that citizenship changes have been brought out, particularly with regard to the oath, by this Government. It has all occurred because there has been no consultation. I am sure that over a period an acceptable form of words for the oath, based on the suggestions in that report, could have been achieved. But that is not the case. Even in some countries which allow dual nationality such as Switzerland an applicant is required to refrain from any act which may acknowledge former citizenship, and renunciation is demanded. If the Minister is using this amendment to send out a signal that Australia is moving towards dual citizenship, it is a poor and inappropriate method by which to begin that discussion. What do we have? Such important changes demand consultation with all interested groups. To my knowledge there has been no consultation other than those in 1982. Those consultations were inconclusive and suggested changes to retain renunciation. The Minister has not consulted widely, nor has he opened debate on this question to wider public scrutiny or the accountability that he has to the public at large. We understand the continuing private bonds that some of our citizens feel for their country of origin. That needs to be said. Even though these traditions and external pressures on our citizens may be significant to those people, as a nation we cannot diminish our national identity by accommodating a wide variety of individual and sometimes conflicting obligations. The Opposition believes that a renunciation of other allegiance in the oath and affirmation does not deny a person's private cultural heritage. However, it is a most important step towards recognising one's Australian identity as the foremost ideal for the individual. From the early pioneers to the most recent arrivals, migrants have brought with them skills, investment and knowledge to contribute to this country. Consequently, the opportunities for employment and development at all levels have widened. Families have been nurtured and businesses have grown. Age and length of residence are major factors in the decision which is made to become an Australian citizen. The personal, social and financial investments made over a period influence the probability or lack of probability of a return to country of former residence. In 1983 the `Australian Values Study' found that 86 per cent of the population was proud of its country. Regardless of country of origin, commitment to Australia is alive and well. The study also found that the two largest migrant groups were even more committed to Australia than the average Australian. Those groups to which I referred are the southern Europeans and the British, 96 per cent of whom were proud of our nation. The southern Europeans, in particular, figured highly in their commitment to this country. In spite of these facts-this commitment and enthusiasm by people for a sense of nationalism and a regard for their country-the Minister wants to devalue the allegiance. All Australians share common values. This runs across political parties and background. The importance of our families, concern for our homes, individual freedom and liberty are values which unify Australia and provide a sense of purpose for individual endeavour. They enrich our own culture and improve and extend our social and political identity. Such contributions can never be too highly regarded. However, what has the present Government done? The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has established his national immigration policy by a series of Press releases. Departmental officers are concerned and demoralised by the effects of imprecise policy, backed up by interminable review processes and procrastination in resolving thousands of immigration cases. We know that the Minister-I say this in a friendly sense-would like to be Treasurer. However, let us get down to the matters of the great Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs- Mr Hurford —I am the world's best assistant Treasurer. Mr CADMAN —The Minister would be an improvement on the chap who is there now. I would like to see him do the job. It is possible for a person who has been refused permanent residency to undergo an internal review by the Department, as well as by the Immigration Review Panel. The total process will take three months for the internal review and another 12 months for the Immigration Review Panel-a total of 15 months. If litigation ensues, that person may well have been here for three or four years before a final decision is made. Perhaps the Minister is more concerned with creating activity that achievement. The new system of overseas assessment introduced last May has exacerbated delays and has placed an incredible burden on overseas officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In most posts there is a delay of four to six months before a person can be interviewed and a further delay of two to three months following the interview, in the most urgent cases, before people know the result of their applications. Usually the total period ranges from five months to one year. I draw the attention of the Minister again to the urgent requirement of nurses to be brought to Australia and my prediction some months ago that it would be May before any substantial number were here. We are at the middle of March and my prediction is coming closer every day. This process has been interfered with by the Human Rights Commission, legal aid authorities and State governments. They have exacerbated the problem. That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the Government has a problem not just in this area but in many other areas. It has a problem with its current trilogy and it is raising a new trilogy-a trilogy of lack of consistency, lack of clarity and lack of consultation. The Government has turned its new trilogy and that trilogy's philosophy on to the Australian Citizenship Act. How does the new trilogy apply to the legislation before the House? I believe that the Government has downgraded its appreciation of an individual's decision to become an Australian citizen. The ceremony that a person goes through to become an Australian citizen should be, and is in every instance I am aware of, dignified and personal. It should be an occasion on which the Australian Government, the Parliament and our people can signify their warmest regard for the new citizen and his pride in his new nation. The certificate presented on these occasions should be a physical testament to this high regard. It should be personal, individually signed and recognise the local authority involved. Its design should artistically befit the importance of our history, our achievements and our pride in them. At present the certificate can be best described as a shabby second rate document, computerised and depersonalised. It is a disgrace that such a demeaning document is used when a person takes one of the most significant steps that an individual can ever take-to give up his nationality and accept that of another country. People do not make that decision lightly. We should not treat their decision with contempt. The Opposition, on coming to government, will scrap the present printout and replace it with a personal and aesthetic document. In fact, we will take all the stocks of these documents left in departments and have a bonfire. I invite the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) to come along and share in the bonfire when we get rid of these terrible documents that do not really depict the pride that we all have in people making the decision to become Australian citizens. I know that he shares my views, and I know that he will be at that bonfire. Furthermore, the Government's proposal to delete the requirement for a person to state his name in the oath or affirmation merely decreases the personal value of his pledge. The oath cannot be applied to anyone else but the individual making that commitment. The practices of local authorities vary tremendously and though the Minister dismisses this requirement as being confusing, that is not necessarily the case. It depends on the competence of the local officers conducting the citizenship ceremony and it depends on the practices and traditions of local authorities themselves, many of which clearly require an individual to state his name in the oath without being joined by others in making that commitment, so each person has an individualised, personalised commitment to make. A solemn oath or pledge demands a legal and personal identification with the commitment being undertaken. Indeterminate commitments lack compulsion and complete acceptance of the serious concept which follows. Therefore the Opposition is opposed to the removal of an individual's name when he is making a pledge or affirmation or taking the oath. We reject the depersonalisation of this process. It is not good enough to say that it is confusing. Where is the basis for saying that? It is a statement made on some ad hoc basis at an Australian Labor Party Caucus meeting where some guy had a bright idea and said: `I was at a citizenship ceremony last week and it was a shambles because everybody got mixed up when it came time to say his name'. Why does not that Federal member-or whoever has problems of that type-exercise his proper responsibility as a Federal member and give some guidance to the local authorities as to how best they should conduct those ceremonies. It is a dignified process and we do have a responsibility. We as members go to these ceremonies and I believe that most local authorities with which I have had contact-it does not matter whether they are in the country or the city or are controlled by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the National Party; whether or not they are controlled by political parties is irrelevant-will accept the guidance of Federal members if there is confusion over the dignified administration of the oath. If the Minister pursues the claim of confusion I will offer him a whole series of suggestions, such as issuing written certificates before the ceremony and there being an opportunity for the shire or town clerk to explain to those involved precisely the processes to be gone through and what is required of them. Let us pay more attention to this matter rather than giving it the flick-pass, which is what is happening in this legislation. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, knows what I mean by `the flick-pass'. The Opposition believes that the character and quality of the individual come together to make that individual a member of a particular nation-Australia. The political status and allegiance of that person is primarily Australian. The underlying individual freedom of our society allows a person to hold his private and individual interests and endeavours, regardless of whether he was born in Australia or Malta, Italy, New Zealand or Greece. That is the freedom individuals have in our nation. Thus individual differences of heritage and tradition contribute first at the family level and then at the community level, ultimately to the development of our society. But rising above that is a public declaration of citizenship which is so highly valued, whether it is bestowed at birth or bestowed at a ceremony. As the American philosopher Libby de Brandeis said in 1915: The difference between a nation and a nationality is clear. Likeness between members is the essence of a nationality, but the members of a nation may be very different. It is the differences which add diversity and variety to our lifestyle but it is the essence of national identity which is the cohesive force to forge the nation. Nationality is a miracle of political independence. It is an independence enshrined in citizenship. Our national ideals have always sought reward for hard work and enterprise. All of us have contributed to this nation in one way or another and to these ideals, whether in our work place by hard work or by our own enterprise. Australians are justifiably proud of their country. We do not believe that any attempt at making it less significant for a new citizen to realise his rights, privileges and responsibilities as an Australian can be tolerated. John Stuart Mill said: The desire to be under the same government and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion or themselves exclusively. We can all identify publicly with this desire but maintain our contribution, individual character and heritage no matter what our origin. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.30) —The whole question of Australian citizenship has been debated in this House before. In fact it was the Labor Government which, in its first term, brought in the first series of extensive amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act in order to modernise it, to make it relevant to modern times. We should remember that fact and we should focus on the important issues concerned with citizenship. Some of the remarks of the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman)-I know he is well intentioned-were based on insufficient knowledge, in my view, of the desires of people, especially those taking the oath and affirmation at citizenship ceremonies. He did not seem to address himself to some of the more crucial aspects of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill in the way one might have expected. Let me begin by saying something about citizenship in general and the meaning of citizenship. As the shadow Minister mentioned, citizenship bestows certain obligations on those who acquire it. However, it also bestows certain basic and fundamental rights. While no one wants to detract from the obligations involved one should also equally emphasise the rights which people formally receive as a consequence of becoming Australian citizens. I use the word `formally' in that context because there is no doubt that often there are groups and individuals in the community who attempt to treat persons who have come here as migrants and who have received Australian citizenship, through citizenship ceremonies, as though they are not full-blooded Australians and as though they are not full citizens of this country. We should not underestimate the extent to which bigotry continues in a variety of forms in this nation. Let me say in this context that there are still forms of discrimination against citizens who have become Australian citizens through migrating to this country. I refer, in particular, to some of the migrant groups who have recently arrived in this country. They may go through the process of acquiring formal citizenship and they are given full rights under the law but they must still get those rights recognised in the social context of this nation, especially by certain groups and individuals. In recent times some talk has been directed towards an attack on multiculturalism and on the multicultural nature of this nation. It is encouraging the very groups and individuals who do not consider it adequate that a person who has received citizenship has full Australian rights. Such talk is simply bringing up the old pseudo-racist, or even blatantly racist, background as the basis for attacking multiculturalism. In a nation such as ours, which is based substantially on immigration, the issues of multiculturalism and the full meaning of citizenship are intertwined and fundamental. We are a nation of migrants. A huge proportion of our population is made up of people who were not born here. They have become Australian citizens. If we do not recognise the concept of multiculturalism and what it entails in terms of the right to participate in the community in the fullest sense, the right to be able to practise a diversity of cultures and, more importantly, the right to allow those cultures to contribute towards the creation of the evolving Australian culture, citizenship will remain merely a formal ceremony and not a real and substantial right for many people. In this context it is interesting that the Opposition talked about how glorious it was to achieve Australian citizenship and indeed it is. However, let me emphasise that it is members of the Opposition, and specially members of the National Party of Australia, who are constantly attacking the Human Rights Commission. Mr Hodges —Hear, hear! Dr THEOPHANOUS —Let me point out to the honourable member opposite some of the important roles of the Human Rights Commission in relation to the matter I have been talking about. I have been talking about the need to make citizenship something that gives people full rights and if that need is to be met we have to end discrimination. Where there is discrimination it is necessary for people to have channels through which they can complain and make their grievances known. Mr Hodges —Members of Parliament. Dr THEOPHANOUS —In that instance the Human Rights Commission has a very important role to play. Honourable members opposite who are very quick to denounce the Human Rights Commission are not fair dinkum in their pursuit of equal rights for all persons no matter what their cultural background. The fact of the matter is that the Human Rights Commission has played an important role. It is a nonsense for honourable members Opposite to say that it is sufficient for members of Parliament to take up all cases of discrimination. If the honourable member opposite has had as many cases of discrimination brought to his attention as have been brought to mine, he would be spending all his time examining and inquiring into those cases. So we need a body such as this Commission and we need to direct ourselves to the matter of discrimination in relation to the rights of people who have become Australian citizens through naturalisation. Let me now address some of the other concerns I have about the Bill. We have heard from the honourable member for Mitchell that the Opposition takes objection to the fact that the clause renouncing all other allegiance will be taken out of the oath or affirmation. The facts of the matter are these: First of all, many nations have no such clauses in statements relating to citizenship. Secondly, many people in ethnic communities and many people who come here as migrants are confused about the actual meaning of that statement. Many of them do not consider that by making such a statement they are renouncing their cultural heritage, that they are renouncing their ties with the country in which they were born, that they are renouncing certain rights and in some cases even their property rights which they may still retain in their country of birth, for example. Because of the confusion that has been created in people's minds we are saying that this clause ought to be taken out of the legislation. It is interesting that the conservatives are saying: `We have to keep this clause in'. Of course; this is a knee-jerk reaction which has the false concept that somehow they are more patriotic and more loyal to Australia than everyone else. This is absolute rubbish. If they were more patriotic they might put forward some more sensible ideas about what we ought to be doing at the present time in relation to the problems of the nation instead of squabbling amongst themselves about a large number of issues, not knowing which direction they are going. Member nations of the Commonwealth are in a peculiar position, especially those which have the Queen as their Head of State, for example, British citizens. On the one hand they are supposed to renounce the British Crown and on the other hand they are supposed to embrace it. What an absurd situation in which to put people! No wonder people coming from Europe and Asia who have these cultural concerns, and even people from the British Isles, will be totally confused about this clause. Obviously this is just a furphy. There is no substance to the Opposition's claims in relation to taking out this clause. It has been said that we ought to do more to strengthen the meaning of citizenship ceremonies and to strengthen the meaning of taking out Australian citizenship. I agree entirely with that. We can do more in those areas. As the shadow Minister said, Federal members in particular electorates can do more in co-operation with their councils and other groups. I am sure that any suggestions that are put up about how we might give the ceremonies more significance and meaning will be taken on board by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) who is an extremely reasonable man in these matters. There is no point in honourable members opposite getting up and saying that we need to put more meaning into this ceremony without making concrete suggestions as to what we ought to be doing. We certainly want to ensure that the ceremony-the act of citizenship-becomes a very important act, which it is for most migrants who have gone through that process, such as myself. It is a very significant and symbolic thing. No one is wanting to take away from that process at all. So any concrete suggestions about improving the meaningfulness of the ceremonies and so on will be taken on board. I address myself now to the oath and affirmation issues and wish to say something about the question of children, which was hardly referred to by the shadow Minister. The problem that has arisen is that some persons have been trying to get round the immigration laws by deliberately setting out to have children while they are in Australia as visitors or sometimes even as illegal immigrants. In that situation they have blatantly tried to get around the law. Under the present provisions if a child is born in Australia and the parents are Australian citizens or permanent residents there is no problem at all; and we are not changing that situation in any way. But there have been a few isolated cases where people have tried to get round the law by having children while they are in Australia as visitors or illegal immigrants. In those instances they have claimed that the child is an Australian citizen and they have used that as the basis for making a very substantial claim to stay in Australia. Rather than exacerbate the confusion that has been created in this area the Government has decided to legislate. I am pleased that the Opposition also supports this measure. I reiterate that no person or persons, no couples who are Australian citizens or permanent residents awaiting citizenship-no person in either category-will be affected. Their children will automatically be Australian citizens. We are talking now only of illegal immigrants and those who come to Australia as visitors who are seeking to get around the law in this way. It might be asked: Why not be totally flexible about this and allow the children to be classified as Australian citizens? As the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) said earlier this is a queue jumping problem. We do have a problem. Every year one million people apply to come to Australia. We have to have some rules and regulations as to how we process those people. Therefore, we have to recognise that there are people who come to Australia who sometimes would not even meet the criteria even if they took their place in the queue. We have to have criteria when the demand is so high and when the possibility of intake is limited. The Minister has already made his view known that he intends to extend the immigration program so that this limited capacity will be increased. But we obviously cannot take one million in a year, so we have to have procedures and we have to have some system of fairness within the rules and, therefore, we have to discourage queue jumping. That does not mean that, in certain exceptional cases, we should not be able to convert people who are on visitors visas to permanent residents. Of course we should in certain cases. But we cannot allow a situation where queue jumping becomes the rule because that would obviously undermine the whole immigration program. That is the justification for the clauses relating to the exclusion of children who are non-residents and non-Australian. The other factor that has been mentioned is a very important factor and I am surprised that more was not said about it by the Opposition. I refer to the situation where people go overseas and, for some reason or another, lose their Australian citizenship because they acquire the citizenship of another nation. Even though they had Australian citizenship they lose it because they acquire the citizenship of another nation. Under certain circumstances they will be able to apply, when they return to Australia, for the resumption of their Australian citizenship. This is a very substantial concession which will get rid of certain problems, especially for some communities in this country, such as the Jewish community, which has had problems where people have gone to Israel for a period and have lost their Australian citizenship and, on coming back to Australia, they find that they are in all kinds of difficulties. Mrs Sullivan —They do not have to come back to Australia to reacquire their citizenship. Dr THEOPHANOUS —That is true, but they have to express their intention of coming back. This legislation will make the rules much more flexible in relation to the resumption of people's citizenship. I point out that this will apply not only to Jewish people but also to a large number of people in ethnic groups who go back to their countries and acquire the citizenship of those countries. In these cases part of the acquisition of that citizenship is the renunciation of Australian citizenship. I believe that these are very progressive amendments that will assist people-after all, we are increasingly in a more international environment-and I commend the Minister for introducing them. Let me conclude with the comments I made when I began. Australian citizenship is a great privilege. We recognise that. It does bestow certain formal rights. What we as a Parliament have to do is to try to ensure that those rights become embedded in the community as a whole; that they become real rights in the community; that discrimination is ended and the multiculturalism, the diversity of cultural viewpoints and the toleration of differences becomes the norm in this country. Once we do that citizenship will acquire its full meaning. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.49) —One could never doubt the sincerity of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in speaking on this subject. However, one has to doubt the wisdom of some of the things that he chooses to talk about and has talked about this morning. At the beginning of his speech he made reference to the fact that a Labor government brought in the Bill which made substantial revisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. He said that it should never be forgotten that a Labor government made our Citizenship Act relevant to modern times. I remind the honourable member for Calwell that a Liberal government initiated the review of specified points of the act which were later followed through by a Labor government. It was a former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who in a statement to the Parliament on 6 May 1982 detailed the areas the Fraser Government wished to review. Following that statement, to which I shall refer later in my speech, a large scale process of national consultation on multiculturalism and citizenship was initiated, which resulted in a report being presented to this Parliament in October 1982. That report has been referred to both in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) and in other speeches since, and I shall be referring to it also in my speech. I shall also refer to one other parliamentary debate and set of speeches. One of the reasons I was particularly sorry to hear the honourable member for Calwell take that line on the Australian Citizenship Act is that it was the exclusive line of the Government in debate on the Act when it was substantially amended in 1984. The then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who did more to destroy bipartisanship on this important subject than anybody else in this country, made great play in his reply to the second reading debate of the fact that the Opposition had not referred in detail to substantial areas of change. Opposition members did not refer to them in detail because they agreed with them, and those changes were as a result of the actions of a Liberal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is not surprising that the debate, which was constrained in time, concentrated on those areas of difference. I might say that, in the Senate when that was pointed out early in the debate in the Senate, Government senators chose not to follow their Minister's line in that sort of attack on the Opposition. I reiterate that I regret the fact that the honourable member for Calwell has seen fit to repeat it here today. The subject of immigration and ethnic affairs, which includes the subject of citizenship of this nation, is one area of government which calls for a high degree of bipartisanship, together with such areas as foreign affairs and defence. I shall have more to say later in my speech on bipartisanship. However, I say at this stage that bipartisanship is not silent acquiescence in anything a government does. It is something a government extends to an Opposition and to which an Opposition responds in like spirit. It is a pity that that attitude has been lacking for the entire time of the Hawke Government, in contrast to the actions of previous governments, and certainly the Fraser Government. The areas I shall speak about mainly relate to the acquisition of citizenship and to the oath. The reason I confine myself to those two points is that I substantially agree with what the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is doing in other areas. The Government is proposing to change the law so that children born in this country to illegal immigrants or illegal residents do not automatically acquire citizenship. Reference has been made in this debate to the Human Rights Commission's reports on this subject. There have been two such reports which were referred to in the Minister's second reading speech. In those reports the Commission pointed out that by taking action to deport illegal immigrants who had children who were Australian citizens by virtue of being born here, the human rights of the children were being violated. However, the Commission did not recommend that the parents should be allowed to stay; their rights were not being violated. It did indeed recommend that the law should be changed along the lines suggested. However, this is not the only change that was possible. I wish to refer to the speech that was made on 6 May 1982 by the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the then honourable member for Balaclava. In that statement he supported the `Proposals for Change' to the Australian Citizenship Act which he incorporated in Hansard later in the debate. The then Minister said: If we value citizenship we should ensure that the laws and procedures which govern it strike a fair and sensible balance between the rights and the freedoms of individuals and the importance of ensuring that the status of being an Australian citizen is not open to abuse. In the present Act-- that is, the Act we are now amending, but he was referring at that time to the unamended Act- the only persons born in Australia who do not automatically acquire Australian citizenship are the children born to foreign diplomats and those born to enemy aliens occupying Australian territory in time of war. This means that a child born to a tourist who is making a visit of a few days to Australia is automatically an Australian citizen for life even though that child may leave Australia immediately and have no further contact with this country. Equally, illegal immigrants who bear children while in Australia automatically acquire Australian citizenship for those children. There have been tragic cases over recent years where such children have been exploited by their parents to circumvent the normal provision of Australia's immigration Legislation and policy. In other cases the acquisition of Australian citizenship by children in this way is sometimes an inconvenience or embarrassment when they return to another country. But whether such citizenship is wanted or not, its acquisition should not be the result of an accident of timing or the consequence of a contrivance to circumvent Australia's immigration arrangements. Rather, it should reflect a personal commitment or a significant attachment to Australia consistent with Australia's interests and laws. In view of these considerations it would be logical to confine the acquisition of citizenship by birth to children who are born in Australia to Australian citizens or legal permanent residents. A child born in Australia with neither parent in one or other of these categories would thus not have Australian citizenship. With that we agree. However, the then Minister continued: That approach, however logical, contains both humanitarian and administrative difficulties. It would mean that some children could be rendered stateless. Australia, both as a humane society and as a party to the International Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, could not condone any approach that would lead to such an outcome. Also the practical administrative difficulties of such an approach would be that evidence of birth in Australia would no longer be satisfactory proof of one's being an Australian citizen. Further documentation showing the Citizenship or resident status of one's parents would be necessary and this would impose an unreasonable burden on those Australians who for a variety of reasons are called upon from time to time to provide evidence of their citizenship. I shall refer to that point briefly in a few moments. It is an important point which is ignored by the Bill before us and ignored by the Minister's second reading speech. The then Minister continued: There is a compromise which would eliminate most of the anomalies while avoiding inconvenience to the Australian population at large. This would be to require that where a child was born in Australia to parents, neither of whom was an Australian citizen or legal permanent resident, Australian citizenship would be lost if the child left Australia within five years of birth and did not return to Australia for a total of 12 months in the five-year period following that departure. In this way children who are born in Australia to parents who subsequently secure permanent resident status and remain in this country, would be deemed to have been citizens from birth. At the same time, we would avoid automatically bestowing Australian citizenship on the significant number of children whose families have no plan to continue residence in this country and, in many cases, no wish to see Australian citizenship thrust upon their children simply because of an accident of birth. I am sorry that the present Minister has chosen to ignore that suggestion of the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There are people with children born here who return home, who then come back quite legally, subsequently become permanent residents, and maybe even citizens, whose children will be put into an ambiguous or difficult position under this amendment. It is not an insuperable problem, but if that humane suggestion of the Fraser Government Minister for Immigration had been followed it would have been a better amendment. In relation to reports which have been made on the subject, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Human Rights Commission recommended a change along the lines of this amendment. It put in a qualification that the children should not be rendered stateless. However, the Commission was not at all helpful on the other problems raised by the former Minister in his statement on the subject. For example, the Human Rights Commission August 1982 Report on the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 contained no comment on this aspect of the proposed amendment. It ignored that subject, as it did in subsequent reports on the subject of deportation of children born to aliens in this country. The report of the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship had this to say on the proposal relating to a child of a temporary resident or prohibited immigrant: This proposal was not the subject of close examination. One speaker expressed the view that citizenship by birth should be inviolable, but no-one addressed the reasons for the proposed amendment or suggested other means of resolving the problems it sought to overcome. One speaker, identified as a temporary resident of Australia, argued that, if the proposed amendment was introduced, the temporary resident parents of the child should be permitted to remain in Australia for the five years necessary for the child to have its citizenship confirmed. Of course, if the person were permitted to remain as a resident for five years, it is highly likely that he or she would be well into train of getting his permanent residency approved. That argument reveals that having a child born in Australia is a device that temporary residents and illegal immigrants have used, and it is not a line that should be pursued. The report was otherwise quite unhelpful on the subject. However, there was a report called `Who Calls Australia Home?' by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, tabled in the Parliament in November 1985, which also addressed this subject. I shall not give the full quotation, but part of it states: The Committee is aware that such a change to legislation- that is, a change along the lines being proposed in this Bill- would impose considerable administrative difficulties under the system presently operating whereby births are registered by State Registrars. These bureaucratic impediments would appear to have been overcome in other parts of the world. The Committee then went on to recommend the type of amendment that we are looking at. However, it did at least recognise that there are certain difficulties that flow from this amendment, and specifically in relation to how such a child's birth is to be registered. It should be remembered that the former Government's Minister for Immigration pointed out that it is possible for a tourist, who has absolutely no intention of remaining in Australia, to have a child while here. There ought to be some form of registration of the birth. This Minister totally ignores that. These amendments ignore that. I hope that by the end of the second reading debate, the Minister can say something fairly useful on the matter, otherwise, these amendments will lead to some confusion. Mr Hodges —He is not even here. Mrs SULLIVAN —Yes, I am aware of that, and I hope that he or someone answerable to him is taking notice of this. Mr John Brown —It is compulsory listening. Mrs SULLIVAN —The Minister at the table says that it is compulsory listening. I am sure that it is for someone. On the subject of the oath, I would agree with our shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), and what he said. In the first place, in relation to the statement of names-some comments have been made on that-the Minister said in his second reading speech that it is unnecessary for people to state their name while taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance `because the candidates have already been identified and will be identified again when called to receive their certificates'. He went on to say: . . . in many cases the requirement creates confusion and this confusion often detracts from the ceremony and distracts candidates' attention from the more important declaration of allegiance and commitment to obey the law. I have three local authorities in the electorate of Moncrieff, and there would be a large number of members of this House who would have at least that number of local authorities, and probably many more. Each one of them, the Beaudesert Shire Council, the Albert Shire Council and the Gold Coast City Council, have different citizenship ceremonies, and each has its merits. But at most that I have attended, candidates are not identified prior to taking the oath or affirmation. The Minister says that it is unnecessary to state a name because the candidates have already been identified. They might have been identified by a piece of paper, such as a birth certificate or something, but they are not identified in connection with that actual oath or affirmation, which is the critical act necessary for the taking of citizenship. As I have said, I have seen those three local authorities in my electorate handle this matter in different ways. I have also attended Brisbane City Council ceremonies, which tend to be very large. At no time has the statement of candidates names in any way detracted from the ceremony, which can be of a variable quality anyway, depending on the local authority. If there is some confusion in the candidate's mind or someone's mind, that is the responsibility of the authority, or the responsibility of the Federal member when attending to point out to the authority that perhaps the ceremony could be done in another way; the member could make a helpful suggestion. If there is confusion, the local authority would certainly be aware of it and be looking for ways to improve its ceremony to overcome it. I incline towards keeping in the statement of the name because that makes the oath or affirmation personal to the person taking it. It is not an indirect or impersonal form of words; it becomes personal to people when they state their names. So far as the matter of renouncing other allegiance is concerned, the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs certainly clarified the position when making the statement to which I have earlier referred. He said: Any change of wording to the oath and affirmation is likely to lead to debate. One option would be a rephrasing giving primary emphasis to the responsibilities of the new citizenship to Australia while clarifying that allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign is only being renounced, and not allegiance to cultural heritage. The Human Rights Commission, in its report on the subject, said: The Commission noted the Minister's announcement that the wording of the oath will be changed to stress that persons are not renouncing all cultural ties with their former country. Depending on its precise formulation, this could substantially meet the points made by the Commission. Those points, which I do not have time to read out, refer to the effect of renunciation and the fear that migrants have that they are being required to renounce their cultural heritage. At no stage has that been suggested. In fact, it was our intention in government, and we support it in opposition, that that should not be the form of renunciation. However, we still consider it important that because the significance, indeed, the gravity, of the oath or affirmation of allegiance, the critical act of consciously changing one's citizenship, the renunciation of allegiance to another power is important, and, indeed, could be very important under some circumstances. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the National Consultations in 1982 and the Human Rights Commission recommended either the clarification of the phrase or its deletion. In fact, they recommend deletion only if a wording cannot be found that clarifies the effect of renumeration. It was not an either/or situation. The report arising out of the National Consultations had this to say: Discussion on the element of renunciation in the Oath tended to be lacking in clarity . . . it was thought highly repugnant that a person granted Australian citizenship should retain allegiance to another nation or power. This concern appeared to focus on national affiliations and obligations in time of war, whereas opposition to the renunciation seemed, in the main, directed to the denial of cultural heritage or a psychological attachment to a former homeland. It is probable that a clearer wording would resolve some of the apparent disagreement. This brings me to my final point, because my time is nearly up. This is the point made by the honourable member for Mitchell. It is a great pity that the Minister has apparently, off the top of his head, come up with this particular revised wording of the affirmation or oath. No one ever suggested in all these reports that the person's name should be taken out. There were suggestions of modification in relation to renouncing allegiance. The Opposition does not support this suggested rewording. If the Minister had consulted more widely he could have achieved bipartisanship on the subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(12.08) —I must say that when I first heard the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) with regard to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986, it seemed to me that it was a very common-sense measure. Indeed, I suppose I should not be surprised that the Opposition is attempting to make this into a controversial matter. As usual, honourable members opposite are concerned about consultation, and they complain that there has not been any. I think that just points out more than anything else the lack of contact they have with the ethnic communities in this country, because I am aware that this is not seen as controversial by ethnic communities. I am aware of the record of honourable members opposite with respect to consultation. I remember very well attending a meeting in Perth at which the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) officiated when he was the Minister in charge of the immigration portfolio. Consultation is important. However, eventually someone has to make decisions with respect to these matters. This Bill is a very commonsense way of going about closing some of the loopholes and solving some of the problems that exist in this area. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. It further builds on initiatives this Government has taken to encourage those who have come to this country to take up citizenship. Measures include the decrease in the qualification time for citizenship, changes to the English language requirements and the removal of certain discriminations which previously existed. The amendments contained in the Bill are not complex or controversial. That would be the case certainly in my electorate which contains a very high percentage of migrants. Principally, the Bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 to exclude children born to visitors, temporary residents and prohibited non-citizens from automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by birth. We are all aware-it has been mentioned in this debate today-of recent decisions by the Human Rights Commission, media attention and High Court of Australia appeals which, in effect, have assisted attempts of illegal immigrants to stay in this country because of the present provision. It is a loophole which has allowed people to jump the queue, so to speak. It is only fair that this loophole should be closed. I believe that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) has taken responsible action in doing so. Fecundity in Australia should not be a determinant of whether people stay in this country. When more than a million people apply through correct channels every year to enter this country, others should not be able to slip past the queue. Honourable members are contacted in their offices on a weekly basis by constituents with respect to change of status claims. We hear elaborate stories of hardship. We are constantly beset with cases which involve, perhaps, bogus marriages. That is an aspect of the present situation which requires attention. I am sure many of us are aware that Ronald Biggs avoided extradition from Brazil by fathering a child there. We do not want that sort of a complication to become commonplace with respect to our citizenship laws. It is not appropriate for illegal immigrants to be able to stay in this country by using the provisions of the Citizenship Act. Other provisions in the legislation concern the resumption of Australian citizenship by those who have lost or forfeited it. Sometimes this comes about as a result of economic necessity on the part of those who are living in other countries. On other occasions it is caused by compulsion, or without those who are implicated recognising the consequences. Within my electorate there is a large Jewish community. The provisions with respect to travel in Israel have caused its members difficulties. It will now be possible, thanks to legislation, for those people to be able to reaffirm their commitment to Australia, thereby avoiding the difficulties which previously have beset them. We hear of all sorts of incredible cases with respect to those who have lost citizenship. I remember a case within my electorate of a person who had lived in Australia for 18 years, had had four Australian passports since he left the country, found out that he did not have Australian citizenship and had great difficulty in obtaining that citizenship. I think that common sense prevailed in that case. I hope that it prevails with respect to this legislation. The final and, it seems, the most controversial aspect of this legislation which has stirred up loathing on the other side of the House is the oath or affirmation of allegiance. It appears that honourable members opposite wish to wrap themselves in the flag. With sanctimonious bleatings of nationalism, they complain about some minor changes to the citizenship ceremony which I believe from my experience are quite necessary. Certainly I know that at the city council citizenship ceremonies which I attend-those of the Perth City Council, the Stirling City Council and the Bayswater City Council-there is identification of those who are to take their place as new citizens before the ceremony begins. It seems that there could be no more personal affirmation by those who are taking part in the ceremony than for them to use the word `I' before they take their oaths of allegiance. Subsequent to the ceremony's completion they are again identified by name and their certificates are handed to them. I do not believe that it is necessary to continue the confusing present practice whereby people taking part in the ceremony are asked to supply their names. There is often confusion and the momentum of the oath is lost. The change seems to me to be very simple and worthwhile and to detract not at all from the present procedure. The renunciation of one's previous allegiance seems to be a cause of great concern on the other side of the House. I think it is necessary to reiterate the point made by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who mentioned that one minute we ask British subjects from the United Kingdom to renounce the Queen and, in the next few seconds, we ask them to announce their allegiance to the Queen. That is confusing and unnecessary. The suggestion has come from the other side of the House that, because some countries apply the renunciation provision, we should also do so. However, equally, many countries do not apply it. The United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand are examples of countries where renunciation is not required. It seems to me that we have a great deal in common with those nations. Therefore, to suggest that we should follow a particular path because other countries do so seems to me to be quite absurd. There is a concern that, by asking people to renounce their previous allegiance, we are asking them to renounce their cultural heritage. That is not the case. It is not applied. We can avoid that confusion by doing as suggested in this legislation and not requiring the renunciation of previous allegiances. In some countries such renunciation is not even accepted when it applies. For instance, on returning to Greece, a Greek citizen who has become an Australian citizen can be drafted into the army and the renunciation of his Greek citizenship is not accepted in Greece. That is another example of the absurdity of the argument which has been put forward by those on the other side of the House. Again, many countries allow more than one citizenship. If this legislation is accepted by this place it will involve a more flexible approach. I believe that it goes to the intention of the Act. This legislation tidies up the anomalies that exist and removes a great deal of the confusion that new citizens find with respect to the citizenship ceremony. In my view, the legislation makes a lot of sense. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(12.19) —Like other members, I am very pleased with the very large degree of bipartisanship we find in this place and in our nation generally relating to citizenship and many other immigration matters. I am pleased that most honourable members, certainly all honourable members on our side of the House, have pointed out this fact. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) saw fit to introduce a contrary note in his speech. No doubt he will be judged for that. There are a number of objectives of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986. There is a provision whereby inadvertent loss of citizenship by virtue of the 1984 amendments to the principal Act is redressed. There is also a removal of automatic citizenship for children born in Australia by granting citizenship only to those with one parent who is a permanent resident or citizen of this country. There are the very controversial changes to the oath or affirmation. As one would expect in an humanitarian society, there is a provision to ensure that abandoned children do not become stateless. Certain administrative errors are redressed and I suppose in keeping with current attitudes we find that the alleged sexist language of bygone days is removed. It was interesting to hear in this debate some mention of the Human Rights Commission and its reports on various immigration matters. I suppose with the shocking record of the Human Rights Commission in so many fields where it endeavours to subvert the values which we hold so dear, one ought to treat the reports of the Human Rights Commission with some suspicion. Indeed, I believe that the people of Australia will treat reports of that Commission with suspicion. It is a body which should be abolished forthwith upon the Opposition's return to office. Notwithstanding that, the Commission has drawn to the attention of the Government and the people of Australia the predicament and plight of certain children born here to prohibited non-citizens who have been deported along with their parents. I believe that the Government's approach to this aspect in the Bill should be commended because most countries in the world do not treat citizenship in a cavalier manner and I do not believe that the people of Australia should either. Many people have endeavoured to subvert the intention of the Immigration Act. Couples have come here on holidays with the wives being very close to giving birth. When the children are born they obtain Australian citizenship for life. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government, the National Party of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia that these sorts of subterfuges should be accepted and that these sorts of situations should be permitted to continue. Therefore we applaud the Amendments in the Bill in relation to this area. Like other members on this side, including the shadow Minister, I express my concern at the changes in the wording of the oath and affirmation of allegiance. I was, however, very pleased to find that the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, is to remain because with the avowed republican tendencies of many people on the other side of the House- Mr McVeigh —All of them. Mr SLIPPER —Perhaps all of them, as the honourable member for Groom quite correctly points out. In view of that fact, I thought we may have seen in a Bill the deletion of the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty. The Australian Labor Party has in its platform that Australia should become a republic and it is interesting to note that current opinion polls show that the people of Australia support the position of the National Party and the Liberal Party, which is that the Queen should remain the Queen of Australia. We are proud to have her as our Head of State and I have no doubt that the monarchy will continue forever. Mr Cadman —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the shadow Minister for his support on this matter. The shadow Minister pointed out earlier the devaluing of the act of taking Australian citizenship which occurs when the new citizen does not have to state his or her name in the actual citizenship ceremony. While members on the Labor side have expressed the opinion that people are adequately identified without actually having to state their name in the citizenship ceremony, mistakes could be made. I have been to some very large citizenship ceremonies and I have seen up to 70 or 80 people become Australian citizens at the one ceremony. While they have to stand up at times when their name is mentioned it may be, because of the large numbers, that the person does not have to state his or her name when taking the act of citizenship and the person might be mistaken in some way, with the result that the citizenship ceremony does not apply to that person. I draw to the attention of the House the situation of the Pine Rivers Shire Council which is a very large local authority partly in my electorate of Fisher. It has monthly citizenship ceremonies and the Shire invites me, as the member for Fisher, and my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), to attend and witness the citizenship ceremonies and to say a few words-on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliament-to the people who are taking this momentous step forward. I commend the Shire and indeed all other local authorities in my electorate of Fisher because they make the act of taking Australian citizenship very meaningful and fulfilling. After the formal Pine River Shire Council citizenship ceremony, when the Shire Chairman administers the oath or affirmation, there is a practice of handing a small tree to each new citizen. The people come forward one by one to receive this tree. Hopefully they take it home and plant it and as they watch that tree grow it will remind them of the very important step taken when they became Australian citizens. It is of great concern that the Government has not considered or consulted with migrant groups and ethnic communities on the new form of the oath and affirmation of allegiance-- Mr Cadman —All Australians. Mr SLIPPER —Indeed, or all Australians, as the shadow Minister quite correctly points out. If there is to be a substantial element of bipartisanship in this matter, the onus is on the Government to make sure that the people of Australia are happy with the changes which are being introduced. As was pointed out by another member on this side, there has been no suggestion by any member, not even by the Human Rights Commission-that hopeless group-that there should be the deletion of the name of the person taking the actual oath or affirmation of allegiance. I think that the Government should reconsider this. I hope that the Senate will amend this Bill to make sure that the Government is not successful in sneaking this change through behind the backs of the people of Australia. I emphasise that we in the National Party and the Liberal Party reject absolutely the statement that the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) made when he claimed that we were taking a controversial approach on these matters. We are not taking a controversial approach at all. We are, however, quite prepared to stand up in this place and, indeed, we make no apology for doing so, to state where we disagree with the Government's attitude or approach. I think that the Australian public is quite happy for us to do that. In fact, it is our duty to point out where the Government is going wrong. The honourable member for Perth also claimed that we wrap ourselves in the flag. After seeing that pathetic piece-I do not know what one should call it-that pathetic new Australian alternative flag brought out by Ausflag yesterday, we do not apologise for wrapping ourselves in the flag. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Bill is relevant to citizenship, not the Ausflag. Mr McVeigh —It is part of it. Fair go. Mr SLIPPER —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your guidance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Did the honour- able member for Groom reflect on the Chair? Mr McVeigh —I withdraw what I said if you thought I reflected on the Chair. Mr SLIPPER —As always, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. However, I would like to point out that the flag reflects or results in national pride, and national pride is one of the characteristics of our new citizens. I was only commenting on the remark made by the honourable member for Perth who pointed out that we wrap ourselves in the flag. We make no apology for doing so because we support the Australian flag 100 per cent. People agree with us and that is the message that is coming back to me, indeed, as it is also to all members on this side of the House. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford)-it is a pity that he is not in the House-on the manner in which he deals with immigration queries. While the Minister and I have many political differences, I have found that the Minister always administers his portfolio and the matters I raise for his consideration with a caring compassion which is a real credit to him. I hope that with the continuing large numbers of immigration queries which I get on a regular basis, I will continue to receive the same caring consideration. Much has been said about this Bill. The shadow Minister has pointed out in a very effective way the approach of the Opposition parties. I endorse what he said. Along with all other members of the National Party, I welcome the broad thrust of this Bill subject, of course, to the matters we have highlighted. I hope that the Government will grab this golden opportunity to reconsider those matters with which we disagree so that once again there can be a genuine continuation of the bipartisanship which we have in this area. (Quorum formed) Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.33) —I support the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986, which was introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). Of course, he is a successor to a number of Ministers in holding that portfolio, all of whom have served the portfolio with distinction, but none more so than the late Arthur Calwell, the very first Minister for Immigration, who can be described as the architect of post-war migration to this country. It is interesting to note that Arthur Calwell's maternal grandfather was an illegal immigrant, having jumped ship in Melbourne in 1847. Obviously the social and economic conditions in this country in 1945 were vastly different, because of the impact of the Second World War, from those existing today. No other country has done as much for its migrants in the post-war era as Australia. The credit for this lies in the policies on both sides of the chamber. I give credit to those opposite who have tried to pursue a bipartisan policy. This Bill has four principal purposes. The first is to exclude children born in Australia to visitors, temporary entrants and prohibited non-citizens from automatically acquiring Australian citizenship. The second is to amend the oath and affirmation of allegiance to remove the following requirements of persons taking such oaths or affirmation: The requirement to announce one's name and the requirement to renounce all other allegiances. The third purpose is to allow resumption of citizenship for persons who lost it under section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act at any time subject to a continuing commitment to Australia. The fourth part will effect other minor and formal amendments to the Act to remove sexist language and anomalies and to make the legislation more specific. At present section 10 of the Act provides that persons born in Australia, other than children born of diplomats, consular officials and enemy aliens, automatically become Australian citizens. Clause 4 of the Bill has the effect of amending section 10 so that a person born in Australia after the amendment comes into effect will be an Australian citizen only if at the time of birth at least one of the parents is either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. The obvious effect of that change is that children of visitors, temporary entrants and prohibited non-citizens will no longer automatically acquire Australian citizenship simply because they were born in Australia. A number of speakers on both sides of the House have pointed out that this principle has resulted in queue jumping in terms of migration to Australia. However, such persons born in Australia can acquire Australian citizenship if they can prove that they have been ordinary residents for 10 years from the date of birth. A recent survey showed that Australia was one of only seven countries where children born in the country automatically acquire citizenship even though the parents are only temporary residents. Apart from Australia, the countries are the United States of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Fiji, Malaysia and Canada. The important point is that the majority of countries, including the United Kingdom, do not allow automatic citizenship on those grounds. A factor which cannot be overlooked is that for some temporary residents the birth of a child has been grounds for seeking permanent residency for themselves as parents of the child. We must bear in mind-this has been mentioned by other speakers-that about one million inquiries are received each year by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which express interest in migration to Australia. Our migrant intake is only 80,000 migrants each year. This means that many people wishing to come to Australia will be disappointed. They will not have the opportunity of attaining that desire. Hence, if people gain permanent residency on the basis of the birth of a child in Australia, some families or individuals who wish to immigrate, or are on a waiting list to come under the family reunion scheme, have to wait longer. This is unfair on those who have been accepted for migration to Australia and have gone through the legitimate process to secure their acceptance. The extent of the problem-and it is serious-can be gauged by the fact that the number of persons seeking a change of status on the basis of having an Australian-born child has increased considerably in recent years. Pre-1982-83, there was an average of 3,000 such applications. In that year, 1982-83, the number rose to 5,025 persons and subsequently rose in the following year to 7,422 persons. Whilst I have no later figures, I understand from the Department that the number of such applications still remains high. Obviously, if applications for change of status are successful, such persons can apply for the grant of citizenship in the normal manner. Whilst I sympathise with those here on a temporary visa to see relatives and who, if a child is born to the visitors during the stay, would like to remain, I have more sympathy for those waiting patiently overseas in a long queue to come to Australia, having been accepted for migration. I am very pleased to learn that there is a fair degree of bipartisanship on this issue. The Human Rights Commission, in its reports 10 and 15 recommended that the Act be amended to ensure that children born in Australia of temporary residents or prohibited non-citizens should not acquire citizenship by birth provided that as a result they do not become stateless. The important point to make is that that should apply only provided that such children do not become stateless. This matter has been attended to by amendment to section 23d. The effect of this amendment will be that a person born in Australia, neither of whose parents is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, will be registered as an Australian citizen subject to that person not being a citizen of any country and is not and has never been entitled to acquire the citizenship of a foreign country. This is a humane provision which I am sure is welcomed on both sides of the House. I am very pleased that it has been inserted in this Bill. The second purpose of this Bill is to amend the oath and affirmation of allegiance to remove the requirements to announce one's name and to renounce all other allegiance. As a Federal member, like all other members I try to attend as many citizenship ceremonies as I can in my electorate. Some of those ceremonies are quite large. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) mentioned that he attends large ones at which there are 70 people. In the city of Wanneroo, there are ceremonies which attract over 200 people and nearly 300 people on occasions. All of those people take either the oath or the affirmation. Because of the numbers of people participating in ceremonies in that city, they are brought before the mayor in groups of up to 40 persons. Of course, as is the usual procedure, they are asked to repeat the oath or affirmation. One can imagine the cacophony that occurs when 40 persons individually say their names. The removal of the requirement for a person to announce his or her name is to be commended. For many years there has been a debate in ethnic communities about the need to renounce all other allegiances. Some of the arguments were outlined, as the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) mentioned earlier, in the report on `National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship', published in August 1982 by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. On page 24 of that report, there is reference to this area. There is no doubt that there has been confusion in the area. I will read out some of the relevant points from that report: Discussion on the element of renunciation in the Oath tended to be lacking in clarity. One speaker argued against any form of renunciation as smacking of moralism. Others noted that such a renunciation was not legally binding; nevertheless, though it was a deterrent to some honest people, it failed as a restraint on unscrupulous people who would swear to anything. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate will be resumed at a later hour today when the honourable member for Moore will have the right to continue his remarks. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.46) —The proposal to build Australia's next generation of submarines in Australia at a cost of $2.5 billion is of great significance to Australian industry and to Australia as a whole. Although most States are lobbying for the project it is clear that Victoria, with its strong industrial base, is the leading contender. Unfortunately, the Victorian Government is also leading in the pork barrel stakes. This is one project that must transcend pork barrel politics. In Victoria there are now two potential submarine construction sites under consideration by the two competing consortia, due in large part to the efforts of Mr Robin Cooper, MP, the considerable efforts of the Hastings Shire, including the Shire President, Councillor Sue Wilding, and the very efficient Shire Secretary, Mr Bill Featherston and myself. One site is Corio, near Geelong-and I am very pleased to see the local member in the chamber-and the other is Western Port, which is a better site than the State Government's preferred option of Corio Bay. When the concept of building submarines was first raised publicly by Mr Cooper, the MLA for Mornington and shadow Minister for Local Government and Public Works, we were told that the Victorian Government had decided to promote Corio as the best potential construction site in Victoria. We would have expected, and did expect, that the Government would have investigated all potential sites in Victoria before making a final decision to support Corio. We did, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, do our homework. Under the Freedom of Information Act we have been able to prove that the Victorian Government gave no consideration whatsoever to any other potential site in Victoria. It has consistently pushed only Corio Bay for the construction site. By this blatant, blinkered, parochial, pork barrel attitude, it may in fact have blown any chance of obtaining the construction site for Victoria. It is putting all its eggs in one basket without considering any other industrial ports in the State. No reports were called for, nor was consideration given to Western Port-all in the face of the Government's responsibility to all Victorians, not just Australian Labor Party members in the Geelong area, to ensure that the best possible sites in Victoria were promoted to increase Victoria's chances of obtaining the pro- ject. The Victorian Government, in a letter from the relevant Minister, dated 29 January 1986 said: Until and unless the tender firms show a definite interest in pursuing and evaluating further the new Western Port sites, the Government is not prepared to make any commitment in relation to support for the Western Port alternative to Corio. This is a blinkered attitude which is not prepared to evaluate objectively all available ports and promote them with equal vigour to the tender firms. As an aside, I note that on the Victorian Government's own criteria Western Port qualifies for its support as both consortia have shown a definite interest in Western Port and, I might add, to the embarrassment of the State Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to stand here today and knock the Corio site, as first and foremost I believe that there are sufficient economic reasons to justify the project coming to Victoria. However, on any independent point by point assessment of Corio Bay versus Western Port it is clear that Western Port wins hands down. That is the basis upon which I raise the issue of pork barrelling, which is the one factor which could lose this project for Western Port. Let me state clearly: The submarine project is a national one and should be judged on national criteria and not whether the particular State or local member is a Liberal or a Labor member. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), after attacking Mr Cooper and me publicly for actively promoting Western Port, has claimed that he has been quietly working in the background promoting Western Port. It is not for me to doubt his interests but he and I, as local members of parliament, and others in the area, should work together in a sense of co-operation. I encourage the honourable member not to knock this campaign but to join in and publicly help promote our area's claims. As was said recently by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), the Australian submarine project has to be located in an area where it can be successfully and economically constructed for the benefit of all Australians. Western Port is one of the few sites in Australia that meets those requirements. It is one of Australia's finest deep water ports, located south-east of Melbourne, lying partly within the Melbourne metropolitan area. Western Port provides a natural deep water anchorage and access channel to the open sea. Access to the proposed construction site at Crib Point is not restricted by either the draught of the vessels or the tides and is certainly not restricted by the possibility of bad weather, which occasionally has closed Port Phillip Bay. Furthermore, sufficient area of deep and relatively sheltered water exists to allow proper sea trials, including preliminary test runs and submergence trials to take place close to base in Western Port Bay itself. There are several Western Port sites, either privately-owned or State-owned, available for the project with the prime one having ample space, good soil and ready access to deep water. Local heavy industry is already established in the Hastings area. In particular, and of importance to a shipbuilding project, is the existence of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd's coated products steel plant-formerly Lysaghts-which is one of the most modern rolling mills in the world. It is capable of rolling steel plate up to 1.5 inches thick. We would assume that, unless the Government's eventual choice of site for the building is either Whyalla or Newcastle, the steel plate used would undoubtedly come from the BHP plant and that would have cost advantages to the project. In addition to that plant, there are a number of other local facilities, including HMAS Cerberus. Whilst civilians would be involved in the construction project, I believe that the proximity of naval resources and personnel would facilitate the project. Western Port also has the Esso refractionation plant. In addition, a number of engineering works provide immediate back-up resources to these major industrial plants. In the greater Melbourne-Port Phillip Bay area, the majority of supporting heavy and light industry is concentrated in the Dandenong and Clayton areas and hence is readily accessible from a site on Western Port Bay. It is understood that one of the attractions of the Corio Bay site is the financial incentive that the State Government is prepared to offer the successful tenderer to undertake the works at Corio Bay. I now call on the Victorian Government to state unequivocally that the same financial incentives already available to Corio will be offered to the tenderers if they decide that Western Port is the preferred site in Victoria. Another of Western Port's characteristics and attractions is the fact that the centres of Frankston and Dandenong have ample supplies of labour and first class management services available. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not believe in pork barrel politics but I do believe in the people in the State of Victoria and particularly the people in my electorate of Flinders, especially those who are unemployed. The Mornington Peninsula with 6,967 persons unemployed as at June 1985 ranks as the third highest unemployment area in Australia, exceeded only by Bondi with 8,972 and Cabramatta with 7,851 persons registered for unemployment benefit. Whilst clearly absolute numbers of unemployment are not necessarily a major consideration, when all other things are equal I believe that they are a factor which becomes worthy of consideration. I am not talking about jobs for the Labor Party boys here, such as trade commission posts in Canada, but jobs for the ordinary unemployed people whereby they can contribute to their own well-being and the advancement and security of our nation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently hit an all-time high in the pork barrelling stakes in Western Australia over the fertiliser bounty issue. That was so blatant that even Blind Freddie could see he was attempting to buy the rural vote. I wonder whether the submarine construction project is going to receive similar treatment from this Prime Minister, or whether he will genuinely consider the national interests before his own or that of his Labor colleagues. Western Port is an eminently suitable site from a location, engineering, infrastructure, administrative and work force supply point of view. Accordingly, I believe it should be selected as the site for the construction of Australia's next generation of submarines. All I ask for is for a fair go for Western Port Bay. I ask that the State Government give an assurance that it will offer the same financial package as it is offering to Corio to whatever site is selected. I ask the Federal Government to ensure that, when it makes the final decision in 12 to 18 months, instead of applying affirmative action to the demands of the pork barrelling Victorian State Government, it holds fast to the principle that the site be chosen on its merits. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.56) —In the International Year of Peace it is important for all those people who are dedicated to peace and disarmament, and particularly to nuclear disarmament, to speak out. It is for this reason that I am speaking in the grievance debate today although I have no doubt that my motives for speaking will be misrepresented by some members of the Opposition and the conservative forces they represent. In January of this year, the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, proposed a step by step program leading to the diminution of nuclear weapons by the end of the century. In the first stage, within the next five to eight years, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America would reduce by one-half those nuclear arms which can reach each other's territory and of the remaining delivery vehicles each side would retain no more than 6,000 warheads. In the second stage, to start no later than 1990 and to last for five to seven years, the other nuclear powers would begin to engage in nuclear disarmament by freezing all their nuclear arms and to withdraw them from the territories of other countries. During this period Russia and America would carry out reductions agreed upon during the first stage and also carry out further measures designed to eliminate their medium range nuclear weapons and freeze their tactical nuclear systems. Following the completion by the USSR and America of the 50 per cent reduction in their relevant arms at the second stage, all nuclear powers would eliminate their tactical nuclear arms, namely those weapons having a range or radius of action of up to 1,000 kilometres. At the same time, the Soviet-American accord on the prohibition of space strike weapons will become multilateral with the mandatory participation of the major industrial powers. Together with all these initiatives by the two super-powers, all the nuclear powers would stop their nuclear weapons tests. The Soviet leader also proposed a ban on the development of non-nuclear weapons based on new technology involving a destructive capacity close to that of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. A final stage, beginning no later than 1995, would see the elimination of all remaining nuclear weapons by the end of 1999. The year 2000 will be celebrated by drawing up a universal accord banning nuclear weapons for ever. The Soviet leader emphasised that the nuclear weapons elimination program was dependent upon Russia and America mutually renouncing the development, testing and development of small strike weapons. It must also be borne in mind that this radical program was proposed by the USSR despite the rejection by America of the extension by the Soviet Union of its nuclear test moratorium. President Reagan's initial response to the proposed nuclear weapons elimination program was quite warm until his military advisers got to him. There is no doubt that President Reagan's support for the strategic defence initiative-better known as the Star Wars program-will continue to provide a major stumbling block to any real progress in arms reductions. Mr Gorbachev has said that the development of a space based missile defence system by the United States could lead to strategic chaos and a new uncontrollable round in the arms race. Serious questions must be asked about the reasons behind President Reagan's support for Star Wars. Almost certainly, his advisers are supporting the views of the military and industrial business leaders that Star Wars is necessary. Major corporations like General Dynamics, General Electric and Westinghouse stand to gain very profitable contracts from the Star Wars weapons development programs. So much is at stake that the same companies are prepared to take out full page advertisements in newspapers in order to frighten the American public about the Russian threat and to gain taxpayers' support for these highly profitable weapons systems. No one should forget that it was President Eisenhower who warned the American people of the potential power of the military-industrial complex in his farewell speech of 17 January 1961. He said: In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the destructive use of misplaced power exists and will persist . . . Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machine of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. So said President Eisenhower, and in today's climate his warning is even more relevant than it was when it was first made. President Reagan's fiscal budget for 1987 is expected to propose an increase in Defense Department spending by nearly 40 per cent over five years while cutting back spending in the areas of housing, education, health and transport. If the Soviet Union is ahead of America in strategic defence initiatives as some American military advisers claim, then one thing is certain and that is that it is aware of the huge and accelerating costs involved in developing such a program. In the visits I have made to both America and Russia it was very clear that the peoples of both countries want peace. Moreover, the Soviet people suffered the terrible loss of life and desecration of property which total war can bring. Their calls for peace are borne out of the frightening experiences of invasion and occupation which, mercifully, people living in the United States, have never had to face. More importantly though, the Soviet people are demanding a substantial improvement in their standard of living. The Soviet leadership cannot provide more consumer goods for their people while at the same time meeting the astronomical costs of the military expenditure necessary to provide Star Wars fighting capability. It should be obvious to any person with a grain of common sense that it is because of these pressures that the Soviet leadership is calling for arms reductions. They just cannot afford to match the prodigious military spending program proposed by President Reagan. Nor, indeed, can the American people afford such a program although big business will always be willing to prosper at the expense of the poor. Budget documents show that the American Defense Department outlays will be $258.4 billion in the 1986 fiscal year, rising to $356.6 billion in 1991. It is interesting to compare these figures with the $250 billion each year that it is estimated that United States companies will earn from their commercial activities in the developing countries of the Third World. The overall effect is that the Third World countries are virtually paying for the defence budget of the United States. In 1986, the International Year of Peace, it is time for the people of the world to speak out against this massive military overspending. On social economic grounds alone we need this money to combat economic backwardness, hunger and disease throughout the world. The human race is at a crucial stage of its development. The advances we are making in technological fields and space exploration and the ability we now have to split the atom and the creation of weapons of mass destruction do not sit comfortably with a Stone Age mentality. To believe that military superiority comes with a bigger stick or a heavier stone should have died with the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All peoples of the world need to recognise this fact and act accordingly. The peace proposals put forward by the Soviet Union must be seen as progressive in the light of the nuclear age and should be supported by all the countries of the world. Before I conclude my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important to make some comment about the United States bases in Australia as they can be used for both defensive and offensive purposes. When considering the future of the United States bases it must be remembered that our Government has stated-it was announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in August 1984 and reaffirmed by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in February 1986-that it would re-evaluate these installations if it was found that they could be used for a nuclear first strike. I understand that the North West Cape joint defence facility now falls into the nuclear first strike category. The United States Defense Secretary, Mr Weinberger, recently told the United States Senate that it was official naval strategy to attack Soviet nuclear-carrying submarines at the outset of a nuclear conflict and in certain circumstances even in a conventional war. The North West Cape facility can be used for such purposes and it is disturbing that the Parliament is not sufficiently informed on these matters. It is vital, in my view, that the Australian public should be more informed about the operations of these bases. The bases are constantly being upgraded and improved and yet the Government does not appear, on the face of it, to wish to seek out the information about the constant upgrading of the capacity of the bases and their purpose. Members of the United States Congress are given an annual update of information on the United States bases in Australia which amounts to several hundreds of pages of information. Why are we members of the House of Representatives, who represent the people of Australia, not given such information? For the sake of world peace it is essential that there is less secrecy about all military organisations. I cannot understand why successive Australian governments refuse to provide information about American bases in this country which is readily available in the United States. In this respect I have noticed on today's Notice Paper a series of questions to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the operations of the joint Australia-United States defence facilities. I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) for his initiative in putting these vital questions to the Minister. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to provide frank answers to the questions that the honourable member has put to him as there are quite a number of members on this side of the House who are becoming increasingly frustrated at the fact that we have to seek information about the joint defence facilities from sources in the United States. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.06) —I rise in this grievance debate because the year 1986 is, in fact, the year in which South Australia celebrates its sesquicentenary. It is 150 years since the charting of the coast of South Australia by Matthew Flinders and the subsequent pioneering of the River Murray by Charles Sturt and Captain Barker who was determined to set up the free State of South Australia under principles and theories espoused by the man after whom my seat is named, Edward Gibbon Wakefield. it was determined that South Australia would, indeed, be a different State-that South Australia would, unlike its eastern State counterparts, be settled as a free State without convict labour. Some have observed that South Australia decided that they could do very well simply by breeding their own. Into this free State there came people of German extraction and Polish extraction, who were fleeing from oppression and who were coming to a State that offered them the opportunity to settle and espouse the things in which they believed. It was not easy either 150 years ago in South Australia or almost 200 years ago at Sydney Cove to be a new settler. Fire, flood and drought beleaguered these people just as all new settlers have faced this sort of dilemma and all pioneers have had to face difficult odds. The facts are that in spite of the uncertain climate, in spite of the well-intentioned land clearance that in some cases resulted in soil erosion, our forefathers forged a community, the financial difficulties of which were largely solved by the discovery of copper at Burra in my electorate. I think it is worth noting that things do not change, in that it was, in fact, the then world demand for copper that made it possible for South Australia to be financially viable and it was the subsequent fall in the world price that threw the State into difficulty. The point that I want to make in this grievance debate is that in spite of the prejudices and bigotry that these early settlers brought with them, they were so obsessed with enterprise and purpose, and they so believed in the future of the new colony, that they were successful. We, the people of South Australia and the people of this nation, look back on an inheritance which is little more than the length of two lifetimes but which has seen this nation change from a place that was unknown on the face of the earth, and a place that supported a few nomadic tribes, into a nation that now has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is self-sufficient in food and clothing. It offers its citizens a stable community life. It has inherited a tradition of equality before the law, in which all constituents have the rare privilege of the right to change their democratically elected government. We, as South Australians and Australians, enjoy freedoms known only to a minority of people on the globe-freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to travel where we choose, and freedom to change occupations as we choose. And all of this achieved in the span of little more than two lifetimes. So my contention in this grievance debate is that our celebrations for South Australia's Jubilee 150 and in preparation for Australia's Bicentenary, ought to be marked by two sentiments: Pride and gratitude. I fear that in Australia in 1986 these two sentiments are sadly lacking. I find instead that there is a pervading sense of apprehension, cynicism, and uncertainty about the Australian community. Whether we are celebrating Jubilee 150 in South Australia or the bicentenary of our nation, we seem to be sadly without a vision and without a sense of purpose. Nowhere is this more clearly expressed than in the opinions of our young people, and that is simply astonishing. Australia's young people are endowed by world standards with unlimited opportunity. But from the surveys they quite obviously lack confidence in the nation we govern for them and intend to pass on to them. I quote the opening paragraphs of an article in the Age of 7 February: Sixty per cent of young people in a survey for the Youth Affairs Council of Australia have agreed with the proposition that `the future is so uncertain, it is best to live from day to day'. The executive director of the Council, Mr Michael Clohesy, said this was basically the pragmatic response of a generation which was uncertain about the future and the institutions which were meant to safeguard it. I fear that the young people of Australia are obsessed with destruction and my contention in March 1986 is that in a society such as ours, in a nation such as ours, which is by world standards both wealthy and just, we find people who are as cynical and divided as ever they have been. The irony, I put it to this chamber, is that this division has emerged under the leadership of a man and a government who were elected on a platform of consensus and on a platform of drawing Australia together. It is regrettable that both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government have been much more divisive than they intended simply because it is in the nature of the man to be divisive as is more than adequately illustrated in the book by Blanche d'Alpuget in a quote from Paul Munro. Paul Munro, commenting about the Prime Minister, said: And it was a bluff. But it was a bluff made possible by his aggression. You see, he dropped it suddenly, unexpectedly and with extraordinary aggression-shouting something like, `If you don't settle we'll bloody-well withdrew the local officers' claims!'-and was the aggression that carried, people responded to his anger and were unable to think rationally. After a couple of minutes the Administration buckled and said, `All right, we'll deal with the territorial allowances'. It is sad that this chamber, which should be the very chamber of the most elevated debate in the land, the chamber to which the people of Australia look for direction, the chamber from which the people of Australia gather a sense of purpose, has become a chamber of scorn and derision. I found it sobering to discover, and I am indebted to the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) for these figures, that it is now apparently believed that little more than 9,200 Australians regularly listen to Question Time-the most listened to time in the House-compared with almost 50,000 in the days of the Whitlam Administration. What ought to be in this chamber debate that determines the future of the nation has been largely reduced to an exercise of rubber stamping and this Government, which has so proudly lauded before Australia a Bill of Rights, continues to refuse and deny its members a fundamental human right-the right to cross the floor and vote as one's conscience dictates. This nation, under this Government, flounders and is seeking direction when in its Jubilee 150 in the case of South Australia, and bicentennial in the case of Australia, it ought in fact to be a nation both purposeful and united. Even the symbol of our nationhood, even our flag, is under attack. This morning, Mr Scruby of the Ausflag association was interviewed on the Wendy Wicks show. Wendy Wicks commented to him: And the Prime Minister doesn't seem to be particularly keen to change the flag. He went so far as to say in Parliament yesterday that he had no intention of doing so. That, one would have thought, would be reassuring to a nation but what did Mr Scruby reply? He said: Oh, give that a bit of time. I've got a letter that might say the opposite. How can we expect the nation to have confidence in a government that is as uncertain and politically pragmatic as this? We have in fact on both sides of the House made the mistake of leading the Australian people to believe that we had here some sort of wisdom that could solve their problems. We, in fact, have made the mistake on both sides, but particularly on the side of the Government, of promising the poor a new deal when after three years we have the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) saying that the poor are as badly off as ever. We promised the majority middle class of Australia relief from the tax burden but they continue to be burdened by taxes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.16) —I enter this grievance debate to raise a matter which for the last two years has caused hardship and trauma and significant financial loss to hundreds of Australian consumers. I refer to the rip-offs and the rorts that have occurred in the video sales and rental industry, particularly in the States of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. These video victims have come from all walks of life but the vast majority have been the low income battler families who could least afford to get trapped in these schemes that have cost them between $3,000 and $5,000 apiece. It is a sad fact that most of these schemes would not have got off the ground had it not been for the role played by some of the most reputable finance companies in our nation, these companies that have backed these video promoters. I want to refer particularly to Custom Credit-`the good sports with money'. The relationship between Custom Credit and these video firms is a black mark on the credit industry. The management of Custom Credit should hang its head in shame for the hardship that it has been party to and that it has caused by the indiscriminate backing of these rip-off rogues in the video industry. I do not believe Custom Credit should have ever supported these different firms, because it saw in other States that these types of video companies were failing. Despite the fact that it witnessed the failure of these video companies in other States it continued to support them. For instance, a company called Electronic Sales and Rentals went into liquidation in Victoria in April 1985, but in Queensland in May and June of 1985 Custom Credit was still backing a firm known as Electronic Sales and Rentals with its credit arrangements through promissory notes. The background is that throughout 1983, 1984 and 1985 a number of video sales and rental firms came on the scene-Video Vision, Electronic Sales and Rentals, Statewide Video Sales and Rental, Video Sam and Dollar Video, just to name a few. They heavily advertised on radio and television and in the newspapers, and sometimes they were able to use prominent media personalities in their advertisements. Their spiel was simple: Rent or buy a video in your home tonight. Thousands of people throughout the nation called up the various firms and asked them to come to their homes. The prospective customer would ring and a representative would appear at the door virtually within the hour. The pressure was, however, not on the customer to rent but to buy. On paper the deals sounded great. In fact, they sounded really good if people paid in cash because of the additional bits and pieces that they got. One contract that I have here is for a Toshiba video machine. Purchasers received two movies, three blank tapes, 300 movie exchanges, that in themselves were worth probably $1,000 to $1,500, and an agreement to get 75 per cent discount on all future exchanges or swaps-all this, including the video machine, for $1,981. But it was a different story for those who decided to purchase on the monthly payment plan. That $1,981 suddenly blew out to $3,264. Another contract I have here for $2,900 blew out to $5,000. The payments varied from $60 a month to $115 a month. The interest rates varied from 16 per cent flat to 18 per cent flat. For those honourable members who do not have a calculator with them, that is 31 per cent or 33 per cent. I have nothing against finance companies being involved in consumer transactions but I am totally opposed to those that are using sneak tactics. They use all sorts of tactics to cover up their involvements. Only one of more than 200 victims in Queensland knew that Custom Credit was behind the finance arrangements of Video Vision or Electronic Sales and Rentals. Not one of the consumers was told that he had signed promissory notes. Not one was told of the consequences of signing a promissory note as against entering a hire purchase contract. Not one was advised of his rights under the door to door sales Act. Not one was told of the interest rate applicable. And very few were given the opportunity to work out what the final cost would be. We all understand the pressure when people have a sales person sitting with them in the lounge-room saying how great the deal is, throwing figures before them. Many of the contracts were not even completed. They were simply set down as 48 payments at so much a month and the consumers who said they would like to pay cash were discouraged from doing so. There were no credit checks by Custom Credit. Instead, Custom Credit relied on the decisions of the various video firms. So actually it let them act as its agents. Even after the companies failed, Custom Credit refused to reduce the interest component for those who wanted to pay out their debt. So those who suddenly realised they were up for in some cases $2,000 extra, went along and said `Look, I want to pay it out', but Custom Credit said: `No'. In Queensland, Custom Credit is refusing to negotiate with the Caxton Street Legal Service and other consumer groups. Compare this with Victoria where Mr Spyker, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, intervened and the finance companies renegotiated the account. The consumers there have to pay only for the video hardware. An allowance or a deduction has been given for the 300 video swaps or exchanges that were supposed to be available but were not. I suggest that Custom Credit is fast losing its reputation as `good sports with money' and I would call upon John Newcombe to cut his ties with Custom Credit and its advertising campaign until these problems have been resolved. I also call on the National Bank to intervene because the reputation of the National Bank can be affected-I intend to make sure it is-if it does not do something about it. I compare the role played by the Custom Credit group and other finance groups with that of the ANZ Bank and the failure of the aerobic and health fitness centres which I raised in this House some months ago. There are similarities between ANZ and Custom Credit's involvement. People were not told of the interest rates. In the case of the aerobics group, people were not aware of bankcard commitments. With the videos, people did not know of the promissory note commitments. The ANZ, because of public pressure and because of speeches made here and the threat of the Federal Government to act, was forced to back off retrieving the debts. An amount of something like $3m has been forgone by the ANZ banks for thousands-something like 15,000 people-caught up in the aerobics rip-offs. I now call on the Custom Credit group and the National Bank to follow suit. These contracts should be renegotiated. The people should have to pay at the very least only for the video hardware. The promissory notes should be replaced by hire purchase agreements. I also believe that the interest component should we waived. Finance companies and banks should not be profiteering and profiting from the demise of these firms and they should not be getting benefit out of the resulting financial hardship of consumers. These cases back up the need for this Federal Government's move to bring in the linked credit provider legislation that has been introduced by the Federal Labor Government and is before the Senate. It demonstrates the need also for a higher minded approach by banks and finance companies in the market-place, to end the immorality that has existed, that has been shown by ANZ and by Custom Credit and many other finance groups. In the few moments I have left in which to speak I want to comment on the announcement by the National Party State Cabinet in Queensland and by the Premier that they are issuing writs on the Leader of the Opposition, Nev Warburton, on the Deputy Leader, Tom Burns, on the shadow Minister, Bob Gibbs, on Keith De Lacy, the member for Cairns, on Peter Beattie, the Australian Labor Party State Secretary and on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have been informed that this decision to issue these writs was originally made at a Cabinet meeting in Babinda in North Queensland. The people of Queensland are going to pay for this exercise. They are going to pay the legal costs. Regardless of what costs Bjelke-Petersen should bear, it will be the people of Queensland paying from the public purse. I believe it is a misuse of public funds. It is a desperate attempt to stop public comment about corruption in that State. It is a desperate attempt to stop the Opposition talking about the situation that exists there. It is a desperate attempt to hide the misuse of funds in the State of Queensland. I would urge the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of this nation to consider the legal and financial ramifications of this move by Bjelke-Petersen and his Cabinet cronies. The Queensland Government has salted away hundreds of millions of dollars and it should be remembered just what put away and what it is now using the money for when the State and Commonwealth financial arrangements are under discussion later this year. I question the legal right of the National Party to use State funds to pursue legal quarrels. Mr Humphreys —They are trying to gag debate there. Mr WRIGHT —Of course they are trying to gag debate. They are trying to stop discussion about the corruption and the activities of the National Party Government in Queensland and it is another reason for the people of Queensland to remove the National Party from the treasury bench of Queensland. It is not the first time it has happened. It happened against John Sinclair on the Fraser Island issue. John Sinclair took on the Premier and he used public funds, State funds, to fight him. When he lost his first case, he appealed again using State funds and took him to the Supreme Court. I suggest that the people of Queensland ought to look beyond this activity, this action, this strategy and this tactic and look at the fact that Queensland has the highest number of bankruptcies in the nation; that Queensland has the highest unemployment in the nation and that it has the lowest income per capita in the nation; and that we spend in Queensland the lowest amount of money on education, health and welfare. They ought to realise that this move is only to cover up the corruption and the rorts that have been pulled by the National Party Government in the State of Queensland. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(1.26) —Mr Deputy Speaker, if your ears have cleared after that bullhorn of a speech we just had from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), which, of course, we understand is a lot of noise and out of tune, we can go on with the grievance debate. Australia's standard of living, which was once around the highest in the world, has for some years been falling and poverty is on the increase because our exports are suffering and greatly affecting our economic performance. The agricultural and mining industries contribute greatly to the economy through exports and downturns are mirrored elsewhere in the nation. There is a crisis in rural Australia. Admittedly, within commodity groups effects differ markedly, as can happen in other sections of the industry. Whilst average farm income does not apply equally to all producers, it is, nonetheless, an indicator that in relative terms, things down on the farm are not well. Unfortunately, few urban dwellers understand the importance of mining and agriculture to their economic well-being. Professor Geoffrey Blainey, a noted historian, had this to say about mining: A democracy which does not understand the economics of its main export industry is likely, in good faith, to make occasional decisions of crippling stupidity. This could, of course, be applied equally to agriculture. I believe that while the Federal Government cannot manipulate world markets, it has made decisions of crippling stupidity which have been to the detriment of the rural sector by adding to the cost squeeze, removing concessions, and increasing or imposing new taxes. On behalf of the agricultural industry, I call on this Government to start encouraging agriculture instead of exploiting it as though it will survive regardless of how it is treated. Knowing there was a crisis in existence, this Government imposed unreasonable new taxes. For those who are prepared to take a risk and invest in productive ventures, we have seen a capital gains tax proposed. We have seen the quarantining of farm losses. What an example of woolly-headed thinking that was. I doubt that it will catch the smart money and this money will most surely move into those sectors where this impost in not in effect. It will certainly hurt the genuine farmer, perhaps one with a working wife who is also supplementing income off farm to keep the enterprise going, or even the young farmer attempting to become established. Because conditions in the rural areas do not compare favourably with suburbia, it has been standard practice for mining companies and rural producers to provide low cost housing and other incentives to attract the work force. To turn around and tax this benefit seriously prejudices the tenure of employment of many, especially those employed in agriculture. It is clear that farm job opportunities will diminish at a time when rural unemployment is already well above the national average. The removal of immediate deductibility for water conservation or the conveying of water has presented enormous problems to horticulturalists in my electorate of Hinkler. The T-tape trickle system is the most commonly used irrigation tubing because of its comparatively cheaper cost against the more permanent system because of crop rotation that is used in that area. It has a disadvantage though in that its life cycle is only 12 months. I am sure that honourable members can appreciate the need for 100 per cent tax deductibility in the year of expenditure rather than by instalment over three years. The timing of payments of provisional tax each quarter would also seem to run counter to the seasonality of farm income as opposed to the relatively steady nature of income in most other industries. I believe that it is essential that this Government follows the National and Liberal parties in giving a clear-cut statement of support for our rural producers and that it desist in its ambiguous, uncertain, equivocating and almost bumbling attitude towards it. I wait with interest, but with dubious hope, for the 15 April aid package which has been promised. We have a big spending Government in power, one which has increased spending by some $20 billion in three years. Despite warnings from within its ranks and from without, it relied heavily on the petrol pump to be its tax collector to finance a substantial amount of its pipe dreams. The Treasurer, when in opposition and shadow Minister for minerals and resources, said in a Press statement in October 1979: The great petrol rip-off must be curbed. Only Labor will stop this pernicious tax by stealth. A year later he said: Mr Fraser refuses to pass up the option to go on squeezing Australian motorists irrespective of any continued fall in international oil prices. Five and a half years later we have the same honourable member, now Treasurer, saying: After consideration of all options open to it, the Government has decided that part of the revenue lost as a result of the reduction in IPP is to be offset by increases in excise payable on petroleum products. If there is one thing hypocrites hate it is hypocrisy. Somerset Maugham said: Hypocrisy cannot, like adultery, or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a whole-time job. Certainly it must be, for the Treasurer, a cause of some concern that for every $1 borrowed 93c is paying interest on existing and old debts. A solution to our economic woes is to address our balance of trade by decreasing our imports and/or increasing our exports. The J-curve is not operating as predicted. We have been troughing around in the J. To repeat one of the Treasurer's quaint descriptive terms, to `claw' ourselves back out of the red, perhaps our exporters should be encouraged and not penalised. It has become painfully obvious to farmers over the years that muscle prevails over talk. This line of thinking has precipitated a rural revolt. The Queensland cane train and the farmers rally at the tax summit are now seen as legitimate weapons against an uncaring government. At the Bureau of Agricultural Economics National Agricultural Outlook Conference this year the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said of the dairy industry: In a couple of months, Pat Rowley learnt what I came to know over the previous two years and what the bureaucrats have known since about 1935-you'll never get the States and the State dairy industries to agree. You can only ever come close. For a while we were under the impression that the Minister and the Victorian Premier obtained agreement for the Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan on the eve of the Victorian State election. In a Press release on 1 March 1985, the Minister lauded Mr Cain by saying that agreement on the central elements of the ADIC plan had been reached by the Victorian Premier's intervention. After all that politically inspired propaganda was disseminated this Government's Primary Industry Minister reneged on that agreement. The Australian dollar has been propped up by this Government through an oppressive monetary policy, sending interest rates soaring and struggling primary producers and others to the brink. This Government's monetary policy has hurt the farmer and many others. This Government's so-called tax reform has hurt the farmer and this Government's actions ranging from the emasculation of the income equalisation deposits scheme to the virtual elimination of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme have all hurt the farmer. May 1985 saw an 8c a litre increase for fuel for many farmers and they will not forget it. At the BAE Conference the Minister said of sugar growers: . . . agreement on only the innocuous in the interests of the status quo is all you can get with the sugar industry where some people believe policies formulated in 1915 are sacrosanct. Growers apparently have to agree to deregulation of the industry before the Minister will honour his price support promises which he gave back in 1983. It is a pity the labour market was not viewed in a similar light by this Government. The chief reason for the delay in reaching any agreement on price support for the sugar industry is this Government's near psychopathic hatred of Queensland, which was illustrated by the former speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia, who certainly gets worked up when it comes to speaking on matters of Queensland. If woolly-headed academics or socialists on the other side of the chamber should see a deadly taipan and an angry farmer, I would warn them not to take their eye off the farmer. I am proud to represent the electorate of Hinkler in which there are many rural people and many urban dwellers whose prosperity is directly linked to land. I will spare no effort to reverse the flow of resources away from our mining and agricultural sectors to the cities where this faction-ridden government has its base. It should heed what Edward Gibbon wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: `All taxes must, at last, fall upon agriculture'. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(1.36) —I would like today to address my remarks to the proposition that my colleagues and I from the western suburbs feel is justified, and that is the establishment of a new university for Sydney's western suburbs. Over the last few months there has been a groundswell of support for the establishment of a new university. I would like to point out to the House that if we miss the boat on this issue-that is, the establishment of a university in the west-it will be a long time before anything ever will be done about it. The people of the western suburbs will have once again missed the opportunity to have the facilities made available to them that are available to the rest of Sydney. My colleagues and I welcomed the release of the Parry report-the `Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney'. It is a positive step in the right direction. At least we have the ball rolling. The people of the western suburbs and the south-western suburbs are unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to higher education, and in particular university education. Sure, there may not be a great retention rate in these two regions compared with that of, say, the inner suburbs, the North Shore or the eastern suburbs. Those three regions all have university campuses within close proximity and a vast transport network available to them. This is something that is not available to the western and south-western students, or should I say even potential students. Education has become over the last 30 years a very powerful tool. Higher education in general and universities in particular remain socially elite institutions. Those from the high socio-economic background have been over-represented for many years while those from the low socio-economic background have remained under-represented. It provides a stepping stone for those to move up the social ladder. There are a number of salient points in favour of the establishment of a multi-campus university in south-west Sydney. Let us look for a moment at the large demographic region of Sydney's west and south-west. Travelling time to, say, Macquarie University in indeed long. The cost incurred is also large. If someone living in my electorate of Fowler, say, in Endensor Park, was going to university, the timetable would be to leave home about 7.30 a.m. and, travelling by train and bus, eventually arrive at Macquarie University at 9.37 a.m. for a 10.30 a.m. lecture. If we take into account travelling back in the evening, that is four hours travel each way, at a very conservative cost of around $25 per week. I would say that the same applies to constituents of my colleagues in adjoining electorates. As I previously pointed out, those with the high socio-economic background that may be lucky enough to have a car while those in my electorate of low socio-economic background may have to go to the expense of a car and hire purchase and therefore work part time, which affects their education. I now turn to the very heart of the debate. Those who have opposed the establishment of a new university I feel are not completely knowledgeable about why we feel there is a great need for a university in the west. There is no way that some students who attend colleges of advanced education and who study for, say, a Bachelor of Education at the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education will gain the same level of accreditation and the same recognition as someone who attends Sydney University. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some figures that are a comparison between the different course data and the level of marks required for entry. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Estimated quota or enrolment target 1985 Minimum selection aggregate for entry in 1982 1983 1984 Pattern of attendance Minimum duration (years) NEPEAN COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION Bachelor of Business (Westmead)... 90 255 273 293 F 3 Bachelor of Business (Westmead)... 160 290 285 295 P 5 Bachelor of Business (Kingswood)... 40 250 260 276 F 3 Bachelor of Business (Kingswood)... 90 272 265 267 P 5 Associate Diploma in Secretarial Studies... 30 235 253 255 F 2 Bachelor of Education/Diploma in Teaching (General Primary)... 90 250 250 252 F 3/4 Bachelor of Education/Diploma in Teaching (Home Economics)... 60 245 245 250 F 3/4 Bachelor of Arts (Visual Arts) 70 220 220 n.a. F 3 Bachelor of Arts (Theatre) Associate Diploma in Performing Arts (Music)... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. F 2 Associate Diploma in Arts (Graphic Design/Photography)... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. F 2 Bachelor of Applied Science (Transfer Programme)1... 35 n.a. 250 253 F 3 Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical/Production) (Transfer Programme)2... 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. Sandwich 6 Bachelor of Engineering (Structural/Civil) (Transfer Programme)... 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. Sandwich 6 Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) (Transfer Programme)2... 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. Sandwich 6 Diploma in Nursing... 300 n.a. n.a. n.a. F 3 1. At the successful completion of one year full-time study at Nepean C.A.E., students will be granted enrolment with advanced standing in a specified programme at the NSW Institute of Technology. 2. Subject to approval for 1985. CUMBERLAND COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES Bachelor of Applied Science in Occupational Therapy... 130 290 310 330 F 3 1/2 Bachelor of Applied Science in Physiotherapy... 170 353 359 372 F 3 1/2 Bachelor of Applied Science in Speech Pathology... 60 330 339 351 F 3 1/2 Bachelor of Applied Science in Medical Record Administration... 40 271 270 295 F 3 Diploma of Applied Science in Nursing... 100 271 270 325 F 3 Diploma of Applied Science in Orthoptics... 20 271 270 295 F 3 Associate Diploma in Rehabilitation Counselling... 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. F 2 Associate Diploma in Diversional Therapy... 40 . . . . . . F+P 1+2* * Subject to approval by Higher Education Board. MACARTHUR INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts1... 50 . . . . . . F 3 Bachelor of Arts1... 40 . . . . . . F 6 Bachelor of Business1... 50 . . . . . . F 3 Bachelor of Business1... 50 . . . . . . P 6 Bachelor of Education (Primary)2... 70 225 240 240 F 3+2 Bachelor of Arts (Interpreting and Translating)1... 40 . . . . . . F 3 Bachelor of Welfare Studies... 50 . . 250 250 F 3 Bachelor of Welfare Studies... 30 . . 250 260 P 6 Diploma in Applied Science (Nursing)1... 300 . . . . . . F 3 Associate Diploma in Arts... 50 215 220 220 F 2 Associate Diploma in Arts... 40 215 220 220 P 4 Associate Diploma in Business... 40 . . 235 235 F 2 Associate Diploma in Business... 40 . . @#% @#% P 4 Associate Diploma in Community Languages (Languages Specialisation)... 20 . . 235 220 F 2 Associate Diploma in Community Languages (Languages Specialisation)... 20 . . 235 220 P 4 Associate Diploma in Community Languages (Interpreting and Translating)... 15 . . 235 220 F 2 Associate Diploma in Community Languages (Interpreting and Translating)... 15 . . 235 220 P 4 Associate Diploma in Social Welfare... 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. F 2 Associate Diploma in Social Welfare... 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. P 4 1. Subject to approval for 1985. 2. Bachelor of Education involves three years full-time study followed by two years part-time study. MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY Bachelor of Arts... 500 262 284 300 F 3 Bachelor of Arts... 460 262 284 300 P 5 Bachelor of Science, Diploma of Chemistry in Industry... . . . . . . F 4 Bachelor of Arts... 100 262 284 300 Ext 6 Bachelor of Arts and Diploma in Education 270 262 284 300 F/P 4/7 Bachelor of Science and Diploma in Education Bachelor of Economics... 300 . . 284 337 F 3 Bachelor of Economics... 150 . . 284 337 P 5 Bachelor of Economics and Diploma in Education... 10 . . 284 337 F/P 4/7 Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Laws 150 360 372 376 F 5 Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Laws Bachelor of Science... 400 262 284 300 F/P 3/5 Bachelor of Science... 100 262 284 300 Ext 6 UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Engineering in Applied Science and 190 297 301 318 F/P 4/6 Bachelor of Science (Technology) in Applied Science Bachelor of Engineering in Chemical Engineering... 70 . . . . . . F/P 4/7 Bachelor of Architecture... . . . . . . . . 5 Bachelor of Science (Design Studies)... 110 308 314 350 F 3 Bachelor of Building... 50 300 319 340 F 4 Bachelor of Landscape Architecture... 30 340 328 334 F 4 Bachelor of Town Planning... 30 290 300 328 F 51 Bachelor of Arts... 3 Bachelor of Arts-Diploma in Education... 630 263 281 305 F 4 Bachelor of Science... 4 Bachelor of Commerce... 405 314 332 349 F/P 3/6 Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering)... 140 297 323 354 F/P 4/7 Bachelor of Engineering (Aero. Indust. Mech. Naval Arch.)... 130 297 323 352 F/P 4/6 Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical)... 160 345 369 400 F/P 4/6 Bachelor of Surveying, Bachelor of Surveying Science... 70 270 291 307 F/Sand 4/7 Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Laws Bachelor of Jurisprudence, Bachelor of Laws 170 381 391 392 F 5 Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Laws Bachelor of Jurisprudence Bachelor of Laws (Graduates only)... 30 n.a. n.a. n.a. F 3 Bachelor of Laws (not direct from HSC)... 30 n.a. n.a. n.a. P 6 Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery... 210 407 409 420 F 5 Bachelor of Science/Diploma in Education... 35 270 280 301 F 4 Bachelor of Social Work... 80 294 287 320 F 4 Bachelor of Health Administration... 15 285 320 336 F 3 Bachelor of Health Administration... 95 n.a. n.a. n.a. P/Ext 6/8 Bachelor of Science (Science and Mathematics and Pure and Applied Chemistry)... 320 270 300 322 F/P 3 & 7/6 Bachelor of Science (Computing Science)... 60 . . 397 407 F 3 Bachelor of Optometry... 40 360 354 377 F 4 Bachelor of Science in Psychology... 40 340 355 350 F 4 1. Including 1 year of practical experience. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY Bachelor of Science in Agriculture 110 270 280 303 F 4 Bachelor of Agricultural Economics Bachelor of Science (Architecture)... 75 335 332 352 F 3 Bachelor of Arts... 1150 283 293 313 F/P 3 Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws... 2101 395 407 406 F 5 Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Studies... 20 365 349 381 F 5 Bachelor of Dental Surgery... 100 375 373 388 F 5 Bachelor of Economics... 320 322 334 348 F/P 3 Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Laws... 2101 395 407 408 F 5 Bachelor of Education... 110 310 314 324 F 4 Bachelor of Engineering... 320 335 352 369 F 4 Bachelor of Laws... 105 379 385 387 F 42 Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery... 240 425 425 439 F 5 Bachelor of Music... 10 350 330 320 F 3 Bachelor of Pharmacy... 125 358 355 366 F 3 Bachelor of Science... 690 270 286 317 F/P 3 Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Laws... 2101 395 407 406 F 5 Bachelor of Social Studies (not direct from H.S.C.)... 60 340 322 333 F/P3 4 Bachelor of Veterinary Science... 80 391 392 399 F 5 Note: Quotas are for 1984; quotas for 1985 will be determined late in 1984. FOOTNOTES: 1. Combined quota for Arts/Law, Economics/Law and Science/Law. 2. 3-year course for graduates. 3. Arts courses may be taken part-time. Mr GRACE —I thank the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can see the aggregate marks required to study at CAEs are lower than those required by someone who wishes to study at a university. I am fully aware and grateful to this Government for the way in which it has increased funding for CAEs in the west and south-western region of Sydney, but this will be only a short term solution to the problem; the problem being the lack of student places available, especially in the western suburbs. As we approach the year 2000, the west and south-west regions will have a population in the magnitude of 2 million. This will mean that this region will be larger than the total population of some States of Australia. There will be a definite need for more educational facilities in the pre-school and primary and secondary school areas and, of course, a new university if the Government wishes to keep to its commitment of allowing young, or for that matter, middle-aged Australians the opportunity for advancement. A further point that needs to be made is that a new university is formed via a split campus system. But two very important points need to be kept in mind. First, we must choose very carefully where the new campus is to be placed. To this effect we must look to where the growth is now occurring and in what areas in future years growth will occur. We would be defeating ourselves if we placed the campus where growth has petered out and the only change that was occurring was the natural turnover of the population. Do we place a new campus in areas that will hopefully, at the beginning of its establishment, draw students who are not in Sydney's western region and then, after its establishment, draw on the population that it was meant to service in the first place? I think not. Secondly, the need for easy access to campuses by transport-rail or bus-is extremely important in relation to where the campus should be sited. I have already pointed out the time and cost involved in travelling. It puts further pressure on the student which, at a time of transition to adulthood, is totally unwarranted. I turn briefly to the Parry report. As I have already stated, my colleagues and I welcome the report but I feel there are a few very important points that the report has failed to address. Throughout my speech I have used the term western Sydney and south-western Sydney, the latter not having been included in the report. As the member for Fowler, which is in Sydney's south-western region, it troubles me that the south-western region is to suffer the humiliation of not being included as an area from where a new university would draw its population. In this report the area of Baulkham Hills has been included. The areas of Liverpool, Milperra, Fairfield and Campbelltown were not included and why those areas were not included leaves me somewhat bewildered. Figures provided show that Macquarie University had enrolled twice the number of students for 1985 from Baulkham Hills shire enrolled by the Nepean CAE. Macquarie University, Sydney University and the New South Wales Institute of Technology combined enrolled more than three times the number of students from the Baulkham Hills shire enrolled by the Nepean CAE and the Hawkesbury CAE together. Mr Deputy Speaker, as my time in which to speak draws to an end I reiterate that I would like to see a multi-campus university in Sydney's west and south-western region. The upgrading of Nepean and Macarthur CAEs is just the beginning. We will continue to fight to have a university placed in the regions mentioned for the betterment of all the people whom my colleagues and I represent. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.44) —Surely the Commonwealth and State governments have enough problems with unfunded and underfunded superannuation schemes for public servants and academics without saddling consumers and taxpayers with another, even bigger, superannuation burden. Let there be no doubt that this is what this country faces under this Australian Council of Trade Unions dominated government. Somewhere down the track the outcome of the backroom deal between the socialist conspirators in the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU will become a burden on taxpayers. There should be little, if any, doubt that the considerable sums to be collected will be nowhere near sufficient to meet anything more than the most meagre retirement benefits, even if the vast funds to be controlled by the unions, are administered and invested wisely. Equally, there should be absolutely no doubt that the sleazy superannuation deal between the ACTU and the Hawke Government is more about the acquisition of even greater political power for the ACTU than about superannuation benefits for working men and women. This will be achieved at the expense of none other than Australian consumers; that is, all Australians in the first instance and ultimately a combination of consumers and taxpayers. Everyone should be aware and remember that the cost of the superannuation conspiracy will find its way into the prices of all goods and services that we as Australians will be buying, including the necessities of life. The scheme to be rammed down the throat of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will impost heavily on our present generation and even more heavily on future generations. What is to be the basis of, the catalyst for, if you like, this impost? It is to be a so-called productivity increase of 3 per cent. One fascinating aspect of the productivity saga will be whether this is to be another example of the rubber stamp role to which the Arbitration Commission has been accustomed so far under this Government. This deal was stitched together solely between the ACTU and the Government. No representative of business, big or small, was consulted. Nor was any farmer or representative farmer organisation consulted. Nor was any attempt made to consider the views of individual employees or independent contractors. The Government and the ACTU are both insisting that productivity increases should be given in the form of employer funded superannuation `equivalent to a wage increase of 3 per cent'. The proposal provides for progressive implementation over a two-year period commencing 1 July 1986. However, we all know that major industries, such as the transport and building industries, have largely acquiesced, rendering that two-year period less relevant than it might otherwise seem. The argument to be mounted by the ACTU to justify its claim that productivity has increased at all, let alone by 3 per cent, will be very interesting indeed. The 3 per cent being bandied about has all the hallmarks of a guesstimate and not a very good one at that. Let me assure the House that it is no more than a stab in the dark. Estimates made during 1985 by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Melbourne based Labour Research Centre, provide classic examples of the difficulties in measuring productivity growth. In July last year the CAI's industrial review argued that productivity actually fell between March 1983 and March 1985 by 0.4 of one per cent. On the other hand, a couple of months ago Melbourne's Labour Research Centre provided figures based on original data prepared by Dr Owen Covick of Flinders University that purport to show that productivity has risen by 10.5 per cent. There we have it; that is the range. Depending on what methodology is adopted for measuring national output, hours worked and what time periods are chosen, one can come up with a figure for productivity movements per mean hour over the past two years ranging from minus 0.9 per cent to plus 10.5 per cent. What is worse, a study undertaken by Noble Lowndes Australia Ltd on behalf of the Metal Trades Industry Association has raised very serious questions about the whole issue. The study claims that there is a `considerable lack of understanding of the complexities and implications' of the superannuation guidelines and raises serious doubts about existing costings. Of additional interest is the question of just what this 3 per cent will provide. Frankly, the figure has absolutely no validity in superannuation terms. Noble Lowndes estimates that the cost of a reasonable benefit at age 65 would be between 10.5 and 12.7 per cent of payroll-far removed, far in excess, of the 3 per cent starting point claim. This calculation is based on what is needed for a male aged 42, with imputed salary growth of 8 per cent and an investment yield on funds invested of 9 per cent, to receive a reasonable benefit of some 50 per cent of final earnings payable from age 65. Let it be clear, lest it be misunderstood, that I remain committed to encouragement of superannuation schemes which allow for self-provision for retirement. Indeed the Liberal and National parties in coalition government extended the concessions available for personal superannuation schemes. That is not what we are talking about. Self-provision and encouragement for it should not be confused with this issue because there are a number of key points of concern about the operation of the proposed scheme itself as distinct from the power politics which are its genesis. The operating standards so far released specify that interest credited to employee contributions be reasonable having regard to earnings and administrative costs of the fund. But what does reasonable mean in a situation, for example, where the assets of the fund consist of a portfolio of individual investments or units in a pooled fund operated by an insurance company or professional investment manager? The investment return may well fluctuate greatly from year to year and could be made up of capital growth, interest and dividends. What will be done about employees who leave a fund after only a short period of service? If their benefits are preserved for periods that could exceed 30 years, this will greatly add to fund administration costs and become and administrative nightmare. Where the 3 per cent is paid into a defined benefits scheme, what certification procedure will be implemented to ensure that the benefits granted conform to the requirements of any award? Similar question marks hang over non-award stuff. Will part of their benefit have to be vested and preserved. The list goes on and on and I commend the study to which I have referred. Will competition, for example, for members be allowed between those under this proposed scheme and those in the private funds? Will the same operating standards be applied to this scheme as those applied to the private funds? How will interest additions to contributions be calculated? Is the safety net to the taxpayer subsidised? Overseas experience provides an important warning. Governments are always keen to transfer the burden of such schemes to future generations yet one of the main rationales of such schemes is supposedly to reduce the call on government resources at a later date. That will not happen in this case. Remember Medicare and the gold-plated assurance that a one per cent levy on personal incomes would cover the extra cost of it. What is probable, what is most likely, is that funds compulsorily acquired ostensibly for the future welfare of working men and women will be merely the tool by which the ACTU advances its aims of corporate socialism, at the same time further enhancing the power and privilege of a few union leaders. Even though the Commission's deliberations have been pre-empted by an unprecedented ACTU propaganda campaign, openly supported by the Hawke Government, the Commission has a unique opportunity to weigh the arguments to be put before it and insist that the ACTU prove its productivity cum universal superannuation case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(1.54) —I rise in this grievance debate to defend the 1985 statement of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace entitled `Working for a Just Peace'. In fact, I wish to do more than defend the Commission; I wish to congratulate it and the majority of Catholic Bishops of Australia who have supported it for having the courage to publish a forthright statement which raises many important questions. From the time of the statement's publication last August it has been surrounded by controversy, a controversy which continues to this very day. This, of course, is simply an indication of just how important and timely are the questions raised by the Commission. I must, however, admit to being somewhat surprised that the controversy has been so heated and hysterical. My first impression on reading `Working for a Just Peace' was that its overall approach was quite mild. The statement makes no outlandish claims, rather it seeks to raise much the same questions that have been raised in many other circles, both within Australia and beyond, including the Catholic hierarchies of the United States of America, Germany and France. What the statement does is present a calm and logically argued case based on the teachings of the Bible and the social teachings of the Catholic Church for Australians to have a hard look at the arms race and our part in it. In particular, it suggests that Australians need to look at the details of the alliance between Australia and the United States, not to repudiate or weaken it, but to examine it in the light of our national commitment to work for nuclear disarmament. There is, of course, another reason for examining the alliance. We have on our shores a number of American bases and we are visited by American warships and warplanes. Quite rightly, the Commission asks the same questions that many other Australians are asking, namely: Does the very presence of these bases, ships and planes make us a prime nuclear target should war ever break out between the United States and the Soviet Union? There is perhaps no more important question facing our nation and to avoid asking it is to retire into cloud cuckoo land. Why then has `Working for a Just Peace' provoked such a hostile and hysterical reaction? I would suggest that this reaction is due in no small way to the fact that from the viewpoint of the Bible and the Catholic Church's social teaching, `Working for a Just Peace' is such a logical and developed application of these teaching that it simply cannot be attacked on these grounds and, indeed, it has not been. For these reasons its opponents, who lack the intellectual honesty and plain guts to face up to the highly necessary questions raised by the statement, are forced to fall back on their usual tactics of name calling, distortions and half truths. For example, they say that the statement calls for unilateral disarmament and then attack it accordingly, when, in fact, what the Commission calls for is progressive bilateral disarmament. Being unable to attack the statement directly, its critics, for the most part, are intent on shifting their attack to the hip pocket question of the funding connection between Australian Catholic Relief, Project Compassion, that is the Church's Lent and appeal funding, and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. I see in today's Australian that even an Opposition senator has now joined the fray. Even here, the critics of `Working for a Just Peace' find themselves on very uneasy ground in order to attack the long standing practice of Australian Catholic Relief in Project Compassion funding for the Commission. They are forced to ignore recent social teachings of the Catholic Church and its Popes including John Paul II, Paul VI and Pope John XXIII, all of whom have constantly reiterated the theme: If you want peace then work for justice. We live in a world where we are faced with a scandal that far more is spent on waging war than on waging peace. It is a world, too, in which far more is spent on the propaganda of lies, distortions and half truths, all aimed at creating a climate of international tension and fear, than is spent on searching for ways to build up international understanding and harmony. The people who suffer most are the poor, especially the poor of the Third World countries. This is what the arms race comes down to: It costs as much to arm and train one soldier as it does to educate 80 children. It costs as much to build one bomber as it does to wipe out smallpox over a 10-year period. It costs as much to build one submarine equipped with nuclear missiles as it does to build half a million modest homes. For every 100,000 people in the world, there are 556 soldiers but only 85 doctors. Just 20 per cent of what the world presently spends on arms expenditure would be sufficient to abolish world hunger by the year 2000. The developing countries of the world each year spend 20 times as much on military purposes as they provide in economic aid to the Third World. Thus, in 1982 the world spent $500 billion on the arms race and only $25 billion on economic aid. Finally, world military expenditure has doubled between 1960 and 1983 to the extent that in the latter year, $800 billion was spent on waging war. The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace questions the morality of spending- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —On Tuesday, I informed the House that, as respondents to the relevant industrial award, the Presiding Officers and the Public Service Board had lodged with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission formal notification of an industrial dispute within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. The matter was listed for hearing this morning before Mr Commissioner Caesar. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Commissioner Caesar issued a statement and order as follows: On the basis of the undertakings given to me by Mr Banks and Mr Barry of the FLAIEU that they would take all necessary steps to have industrial action cease I order the parties to this dispute into conference, the subject matter of that conference to embrace all matters of concern to the members of the FLAIEU. The conference to be held as a matter of urgency and a report on the progress of the conference to be made to me at an appropriate time. I request the Union to accept the responsibility of notifying me when such a report would be appropriate and in any event before any further industrial action is taken in pursuance of their claims. I have been advised that, at a subsequent meeting of catering staff who are members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union, it was resolved to lift all bans in line with the order given by the Commission. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, might you table in the House any final settlement agreed on or any final decision taken by the Commissioner in this matter? Obviously all honourable members are affected by the disruption that has occurred in the parliamentary dining room and it would be an advantage to members of this place to know of any resolution that might follow the determination of the Commissioner concerned in the matter. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the National Party. I will take his request on board. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) —I advise the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will not be present during Question Time today. They are in Adelaide for the official farewell to Her Majesty the Queen at the conclusion of the royal visit to Australia. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Treasurer. As unemployment has now gone up by 40,000, or by 16,000 seasonally adjusted, to 8 per cent, does the Treasurer still stand by his claim made on the Sunday television program on 2 March that unemployment will not rise again, or does he now admit that this promise has already been broken and that he now agrees with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that unemployment will increase this year? As employment has now dropped by 7,000, will the Australian Labor Party now withdraw its misleading advertisement on employment before the thieving magpie becomes the lying magpie? Mr KEATING —I thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said at his Press conference that we cannot take any notice of one month's figures. If that is the case, what is the point of his question? The fact is that employment this financial year has grown by 195,000 jobs, which is already 15,000 ahead of the Budget forecast for the year. It is absolutely absurd for the Opposition to raise the issue in these terms when what we are seeing is a small reduction in February following a very large January employment figure of 60,000. The fact is that the participation rate is now higher than it has been for eight or nine years, maybe longer. At present it is at 61.6 per cent, which means that it is about one per cent higher than the participation rate at this time last year. That implies that about 120,000 instances of hidden unemployment have been dealt with by employment growth. In other words, while we are seeing the measured rate climb from 7.8 to 8 per cent-it has been hovering in that range for some time-the fact is that in the face of very strong employment growth we have been reducing hidden unemployment. I would have thought that the Opposition was as much interested in hidden unemployment as registered unemployment. In any upswing of an economy out of a recession there is always a higher participation rate. We on this side of the House are pleased that many thousands of people who were not registered as unemployed have found jobs. The fact of the matter is that the Government has had just on 9 per cent employment growth in its three years in office. That 600,000 jobs contrasts with the quarter of a million jobs lost in the last year of the coalition Government. I find it amusing that the Leader of the Opposition has run around lately saying that in their first four years they created so many thousand jobs but he forgets to say that in the last year they blew it all out the door by putting 250,000 or 300,000 people out of work. If it were not sad, it would be comical. The principal commitment this Government gave during the campaign in 1983 and on taking office in that year was to deal with the disastrous rise in unemployment. Not only have we checked it; we have brought it down from 10.3 per cent to 8 per cent. We have given 600,000 jobs to Australians; we have clawed 600,000 families out of the tyranny of poverty, through our policies, and we can lay claim to having honoured absolutely both the spirit and the letter of the 1983 campaign promise of creating 500,000 jobs within our first three years. We have exceeded that 500,000 jobs by at least 100,000. I would have thought that members of the coalition, looking at their dismal record of failure, could at least think for one moment about the cast of policy on this side of the House and it might just enter their minds that may be they have the wrong cast of policy and that the party on this side of the House is the only one of the major parties that is capable of running the country. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question, to the Minister for Communications, concerns many people in my electorate and in other electorates. Is the Minister aware of the recent disturbing growth in unsolicited telephone selling? Is he also aware that in certain instances such telephone selling is associated with fraudulent marketing schemes? Can the Minister advise the House as to whether the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on this matter have been adopted and, finally, is the Minister able to take any other action to deal with difficulties associated with telephone selling? Mr DUFFY —I am aware of the problem adverted to by the honourable member for Stirling. Unfortunately the powers of the Australian Telecommunications Commission in relation to this matter are limited. The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission are currently under examination. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to Senator Walsh's statement yesterday that the trilogy only commits the Government to not increasing tax as a proportion of gross domestic product during the term of this Parliament; that is, over a three-year period. Does the Treasurer recall that pages 59 and 382 of Budget Paper No. 1, which he himself circulated, make it unequivocally clear that the trilogy also commits the Government to not increasing tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86? Why has the Government broken yet another promise by junking this part of the trilogy in order to collect even more tax in the current financial year? Mr KEATING —The Government is breaking no promise and is making no adjustment to its policy. What the Government said in the course of the 1984 election campaign was that there had been no semblance of any decency in fiscal policy under the coalition Government. It indicates that the progress the Government had made would be continued over the life of the current Parliament and that tax receipts, as a proportion of gross domestic product, would not rise over the 1984-85 base. I reaffirm the statement in the Budget Papers which the Leader of the Opposition talked about. Of course it is correct. In 1985-86 the Government has budgeted for a receipts figure which will be within the trilogy ceiling. Mr Howard —You budgeted for it. Mr KEATING —We budgeted for it. There are other influences on the economy including the depreciation of the exchange rate which has listed the Australian dollar price of oil over the year. This will mean that receipts from the higher volumes and higher prices of oil will be up. However, it has yet to be determined what GDP will be or whether the trilogy ceiling will be breached. Even if it is breached the Government will not be aware of it with any precision until at least well into the next financial year, in which case we will adjust receipts in the course of the Parliament so that receipts will be no higher than the 1984-85 base-QED. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims made by the Australian Medical Association in Western Australia that West Australians suffer a disadvantage under Medicare when compared with other Australians? Will the Minister inform the House of the true situation? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the newspaper report. I must point out, although probably most honourable members are aware, that the medical benefits schedule of fees is different in each State, and that is based on historical factors that have been in operation over the last 15 years. However, generally, patients in those States which have lower schedules of fees face lower charges from their doctors. For instance, Medicare refunds in New South Wales are higher only because the fees charged in New South Wales are correspondingly higher. This means that patients in New South Wales who are charged the schedule fee, even after their refund from Medicare, are somewhat more out of pocket than those in Western Australia. As I have said, the fee schedule is based on historical grounds. It started in 1970 when it was agreed between the Government and the medical profession that the fees would be based on the most common fee in each State. A State by State survey was done of doctors' billing procedures and the common fee was based on the average for each individual State. Western Australian fees were lower than those of some other States, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, and that was because doctors in Western Australia charged less than doctors in those States. For most of the next 15 years the Australian Medical Association always opposed the notion of uniform fees and supported the continuation of this historic difference between the States. Recently, the AMA has changed its policy. It has decided that there should now be a move towards uniformity across all States. The Government has indicated to the AMA that it agrees with this in principle but it believes that there should be a gradual move within the Medicare budget. For instance, the AMA is arguing that all fees should move up to the higher New South Wales standard. This would cost the taxpayer another $100m a year and it is the Government's view that it would be irresponsible simply to make that jump. The AMA is quite aware of the Government's position and its preparedness to negotiate a uniform fee within the overall Medicare budget. However, simply to accept an increase right across the board to bring all fees up to the New South Wales standard would disadvantage consumers and taxpayers who have to pay the bill. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. On Tuesday he told us that the current account deficit in 1985-86, as a percentage of gross domestic product, would be in the order of 5 per cent, implying a massive improvement in the next four months. I also remind him that yesterday Senator Button told the Senate that the Government did not expect any major improvement in the current account deficit this month, next month or the month after. I remind the Treasurer that yesterday the Prime Minister told us that `evidence is starting to emerge of the turnaround we have been looking for, for some time now'. I ask the Treasurer: Apart from increased unemployment, what is the Government expecting today? Mr KEATING —Yesterday's figures show some clear J effect in the current account figures-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —It is always nice to have the so-called free marketeers show the agnosticism about the free market and free market forces. We have had a 30 per cent price change on the exchange rate but the free marketeers say that that will make no difference to the pattern of imports and exports and investment decisions. That is a very novel position for a so-called free enterprise party to hold. I am sure that a lot of people in Australian business are trying to weigh up some of the Opposition's crazy views in this respect. The figures released yesterday revealed a number of extraneous factors. About $73m related to a 767 aircraft which is part of a re-equipment program and about $260m related to oil export revenues which fell sharply. However, import costs had not, at that stage, had time to fall and be reflected in the figures. About $100m represented seasonal factors. The underlying trend in imports was significantly down and, hence, that was quite encouraging. As the Prime Minister said yesterday that was consistent with the kinds of outcomes which the Government expected. As I have often said in the House, we will not see Australian manufacturing decimated as it was by the coalition, an exchange rate dramatically out of line, a wages policy giving outcomes which no industry can live with, a $39 a week wage increase-which was the case in 1981-82-an inflation rate running to double digits, massive retrenchments and closures in business and yet find that overnight the exchange rate is falling and there is a major reinvestment program. Of course this will always come with a lag, but it will come when business is convinced that the policy settings of the Government are appropriate, when the accord is holding and when all of the other factors affecting Australia's new-found competitiveness will be a permanent feature of the landscape. The fall in the exchange rate is now over a year old-it started a year ago-and business has had a chance to assess the policy settings, to assess the shape of the 1985-86 Budget and to assess the fact that a discount will operate for the April wage case and that that will secure depreciation benefits. We are now seeing producer goods revealed in the import figures. Those producer goods will underpin a better import competing performance for Australia. The exchange rate has been labouring to do this job despite a dramatic deterioration in the terms of trade since last August which alone would cost the current account about $750m. That new competitiveness and a slowing in demand which the Government has induced into the economy is forecast to be reflected in trade volumes. I confirm absolutely what the Prime Minister said. However, it really amuses me that the so-called free marketeers of the Liberal Party of Australia believe that the Australian private sector is so moribund, and Australian entrepreneurship so dead that despite a 30 per cent change in the exchange rate and a massive increase in the profitability of the traded goods sector of the economy there will not be any investment. They think that Australian business is so hopeless and so moribund that this massive price and profit opportunity in the traded goods sector of the economy will not be taken up, that the market system is jammed and that the market will not work. That is where the Liberal Party is in 1986. Is it any wonder that the Business Council of Australia showed it the door on 3 February? Mrs KELLY —Will the Minister for Territories explain some of the difficulties which have been responsible for the increase in the waiting list for elective surgery in Australian Capital Territory hospitals? Mr Hodgman —When are you having your operation? Mr SCHOLES —I can only say to the honourable member for Denison that, if ever he has to have brain surgery, it will have to be done by a carpenter. Mr Howard —How long have you been working on that one? Mr SCHOLES —For about as long as the honourable member has been trying to get a credible economic policy together. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will ignore the interjections and answer the question. Mr SCHOLES —Canberra, like all areas of Australia, has a problem with a shortage of nurses. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr SCHOLES —It is a serious subject but I know that health is a joke to the honourable gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Canberra, like all areas of Australia, has been experiencing problems in recruiting sufficient nurses in order to provide a full service in its hospitals. As the Minister for Health pointed out yesterday, one of the reasons for this is the manner in which the previous Government completely ignored the needs of Australia in respect of trained nurses and professional nursing care. There are some problems in all the Canberra hospitals in respect of elective surgery. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority has had discussions with some sections of the medical profession and is planning further discussions in this area in order to work out solutions to these problems. However, I think I should inform the House that one of the solutions that the Government will not be looking at nor accepting is the one which the Opposition is continually putting forward in this House; that is, turning the availability of medicine into a market forces arrangement whereby those people who are not able to pay the exorbitant fees which are being sought by some sections of the medical profession will be denied surgery. That is the solution that honourable members opposite are putting forward for reducing the waiting list. They are pricing medical treatment out of the reach of people and making health a commercial commodity available to the rich but not to the poor. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will be aware that a Party colleague, the Premier of Victoria, last Tuesday cast doubt as to whether Victorian public servants would get the 3 per cent national productivity wage rise in the form of superannuation settled in a private deal between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Commonwealth. Bearing in mind the impact that this superannuation deal with have on Victoria's finances, will the Minister now admit that it is fundamentally unjust to force this heavy cost on the crisis-ridden rural sector and on embattled small business when they too, clearly, have no capacity to pay it? Mr WILLIS —I am not aware of the statement by the Premier of Victoria, but, in relation to the thrust of the question, the productivity case is a case which the Government supports. We believe that there is scope for a 3 per cent productivity increase to apply in the way in which the ACTU-Government agreement says it should be applied; that is, over a two-year period. Of course, that is quite different from any other increase that would ever have been awarded by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the history of this country. There has never been an occasion when the Commission has made a decision which has been phased in over a two-year period. The phasing in of that increase will be on a basis which is subject to discussion between the Government, the ACTU and the Commission, assuming that the Commission finds in favour of the ACTU-Government proposal. The Leader of the National Party of Australia raised the position of the rural sector. It is, of course, very much in our minds that the rural sector is going through hard times and it would therefore be very appropriate that the rural sector be at the end of that queue; that is, that a productivity increase which applied in the way in which it is being proposed would apply to the rural sector towards the end of that period rather than now or in a few months time when, quite clearly, that sector would still be in difficult times. This superannuation increase has to be looked at in the light of the level of the wage increases which have been occurring under the accord, what has happened to real labour costs in this country, which have been reduced to levels well below those applying under the previous Government, and the fact that our competitiveness has been greatly increase as a result of the wages policy pursued by this Government, supported further by the devaluation. The situation for the nation is that the 3 per cent increase can be applied in a way which will not impair our competitiveness. It will be unique in the sense that it is to be applied over a two-year period. The concerns of the rural sector can be addressed in the way that I have mentioned; that is, they will most likely not have to face this increase in labour costs until some two years from now. Mr MARTIN —Is the Minister for Primary Industry concerned that lives are in danger as a result of the forestry conflict at Farmhouse Creek in Tasmania? Will the Minister be considering ways and means of resolving the conflict? Why is the Minister not putting in place positive action as a result of this conflict, particularly following the Government's decision of 16 December 1985 on Tasmanian export licences? Can the Minister reassure the Parliament that the Government's decision will be implemented? Mr KERIN —All honourable members in this House will be pleased to know that there has been some cooling down of what was a very serious situation late last week and earlier this week. I am sure that all honourable members have been very concerned about the possibility that that conflict would lead to physical injury. I am most concerned that this conflict has the capacity to create a situation where decisions are taken by the Tasmanian Government that do not take full account of the overall community interest. This is particularly so in the forestry area, where a conflict between production and preservation is one on which I am sure every Australian will have a view. On 16 December last year the Government took a decision on the Tasmanian woodchips issue that was directed at allowing utilisation of the forests in Tasmania but imposing significant controls to ensure that the community could be satisfied that the operations were as environmentally sensitive as possible. As a preliminary to that decision the Commonwealth had insisted that an environmental impact study be conducted across the breadth of forestry in Tasmania. There was some two years of consideration and even after the draft environmental impact statement came out there were 450 submissions placed in the consideration process. The Commonwealth's decision, as a result, effectively encompassed the totality of forest operations in Tasmania and sought a mechanism to ensure that Commonwealth objectives on environmental protection as well as employment and industry security were achieved. Since then we have been negotiating an agreement with the State Government to implement that mechanism. The Premier has gone public on the issue, which is yet to be settled between us. The Farmhouse Creek situation is a roads proposal at this stage to get saw logs, which is a domestic operation. It is a roads proposal about which the public has known since 1983. It is not concerned with woodchips at all. The woodchip licences that are in a place at present go through to 31 December 1987. What we are talking about is whether or not the agreement that we are seeking to get in terms of that 16 December decision would have avoided a situation such as that which we have at Farmhouse Creek. I believe that, by and large, if we did have that agreement-the Tasmanian Government should realise this-we could get a much more rational solution to these sorts of conflicts. The Tasmanian Premier has said that I am backtracking on an understanding we had previously reached and that I am now seeking to have the Commonwealth dictate to the State on the management of its domestic logging operations. This is nonsense. Neither of the allegations is correct. However, I am concerned to ensure that the State does take full account of the values of national estate areas whether they are logged for export or domestic purposes. The Commonwealth will not back away from that position. The honourable member for Franklin has been interjecting to the effect that statements are being made that are not factual. I would join with him on that, because we have heard all sorts of claims. One is that it is world heritage-it is not; that it is wilderness-it is not. The movement put out a statement saying that it is highly sensitive wilderness. It is not. It is not rainforest. This area is State forest going back to 1925 and 1933, but it is also part of the national estate. We have to try to reconcile environmental values with the question of jobs. The Government and the public have been aware of Tasmania's intention to construct a road as part of the summer roading program across Farmhouse Creek since 1983 when the Forestry Commission publicised this in its management plan for the area. This Government's decision on woodchip licences allowed for those operations to proceed provided a sufficient buffer was left to protect the South West National Park. So it is not about wilderness. The timber is the same on both sides of the creek. It is about a wilderness buffer. The proposed road is consistent with this decision and does not compromise the Commonwealth's position in respect of its decision on the Tasmanian licences. The conservationist attachment to Farmhouse Creek as a boundary for logging is purely arbitrary. As I said, there is no difference in the quality of the forest between one side of the creek and the other. Both sides are registered national estate areas and as such logging should be managed so as to minimise adverse effects on their registered values. The specific area is not registered for wilderness value, as the conservationists would have the public believe. The Farmhouse Creek general area of national estate values can be summarised as old growth forest habitat, which is not unique, as Dr Bob Brown has conceded, the Mount Picton alpine area, and there are no trees there, and within the viewfield of the Hartz Mountains National Park. One cannot take that one into account otherwise one would wipe out the whole Huon Valley. More responsible elements in the conservation movement are on record as supporting limited forestry activity in the Farmhouse Creek area, providing that it did not extend too far up the creek catchment nor too far from the Picton River south of Farmhouse Creek. Reports to that effect were put forward by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust in 1980 and the Australian Conservation Foundation in 1983. It is those suggestions that have formed part of the basis of this Government's consideration of what would be an appropriate buffer for the wilderness area in the South West National Park. Finally, I remind all honourable members that national estate status for an area is not identical to national park status. The Act passed by this Parliament imposes an obligation upon Ministers, both Mr Cohen and myself, to ensure that where there is no alternative all measures which can reasonably be taken to minimise the adverse effect will be taken. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to table the document from which he has just been reading. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a public document? Mr Kerin —No. Madam SPEAKER —Then there is no necessity for it to be tabled. Mr ALDRED —Is the Treasurer aware that during January and February 1986 the top 10 Holden dealers in Melbourne suffered a drastic drop of 40 per cent in new car sales when compared to January and February 1985? Is the Treasurer also aware that other major new car dealers in all States have experienced a similar sharp reduction in sales over the past six months, which could result in 25,000 jobs being lost in this industry. In view of these gravely disturbing facts, will the Treasurer now abandon the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles as originally detailed in his statement of 19 September last year? Mr KEATING —If the honourable member for Bruce is the new chairman of the Liberal Party economic policy committee, he will need to do a lot better in drawing economic conclusions from facts than we saw in that question. It should be well known to the honourable member that in this period unleaded vehicles were brought to the market. They came at a higher price, and of course, not unreasonably, many firms ordered vehicles before the more expensive unleaded vehicles arrived at the market place. Further, discounts are being offered, and a lot of market-sensitive people made investment decisions ahead of the new model. Mr MILTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services. Has his attention been drawn to a report which appeared in the Age on Monday 10 March, which stated that several State youth housing projects have been shelved because of delays to joint grants from the Victorian and Federal governments which were to have been announced on 17 January? Will he inform the House when an announcement will be made and what steps have been taken to ensure that delays like this do not occur again? Mr HOWE —I am aware of the present delay in announcing new approvals under the joint Commonwealth and State funded supported accommodation systems program as reported in the Age newspaper on 10 March. Recommendations for the allocation of some of the new funds were forwarded by the Victorian Minister for Community Services, Mrs Hogg, at the end of January. As the package was incomplete, the original intention was to await the balance of the recommendations before approving the package as a whole. Since the additional recommendations have still not been received, the Commonwealth Department is preparing recommendations for me in my capacity as Acting Minister for Community Services for approval of two new services, one for youth and one for women as recommended by Mrs Hogg. I expect to have this submission later today or early tomorrow and will be advising Mrs Hogg early next week. No commitment to advise approvals by 1 January-I think the honourable member said 17 January-was ever given. Arrangements are being made between offices of the Commonwealth and State community services departments regarding the streamlining of recommendations and the approval process in Victoria. I believe that this action will avoid the present situation recurring. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question and refer him to the answer he gave to the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Is the queuing process for the productivity case, in which he referred to the position of rural industry-that dispensation for rural industry-based on a belief that there has been no productivity gain, or is it based on grounds of hardship? Also, can the Minister say whether a similar dispensation will be given to small businesses which manifestly are unable to pay? Mr WILLIS —The process by which particular industries take part in the superannuation increase which will come from the productivity case of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, if so decided, will be worked out over time. This is something that will come up following any decision and will require the parties to be in a position to be able to put forward a proposition which will mean that an increase can apply. In other words, there has to be a fund; a process must exist whereby superannuation payments can be made. In many industries that simply would not be the case. It will take a long time for a situation to develop where there will be a possibility for any productivity outcome taken by way of superannuation to apply. There can be no clarity on this matter at this stage. Obviously, some industries have a capacity to go ahead as soon as the Commission makes any decision, although, of course, under the accord mark 2 agreement, nothing should start until 1 July. But after that date there will be others that will come on stream at a later time; that is, they will get their superannuation scheme sorted out some time after 1 July, and some will take a considerable time after that. The process by which there is an ordering of awards is one that will have to be sorted out in the next few months. Mr Howard —Is that based on hardship? Mr WILLIS —What I said before was that in the Government's view- Mr Sinclair —On hardship? Mr Howard —Hardship. Mr WILLIS —Does the honourable gentleman want me to answer this or not? Mr Howard —We want a proper answer. Mr WILLIS —I will answer it then-in my own words, if the honourable gentleman does not mind. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will wait for the answer. Mr Howard —He ought to stick to the question. Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, in the Government's view the rural industries, which are going through hard times, ought to be towards the end of that queue. The reality is, anyway, that because that industry is highly unlikely to be in a position to participate early in the superannuation scheme, because of the factors I mentioned earlier, it would be well towards the end of the process. Small business was also mentioned. It is not possible to segment out small or big business from any particular industry. Industries cover small and big business, and it is therefore inappropriate and, I should have thought, impossible to single out small business from larger business. It would be a physical impossibility. However, small business and big business have in general fared very well under this Government. Because of the accord, they have had a growth of the economy which is unparalleled in this nation's history. There has been a strong increase in profitability, which is not confined to large business but which spills over into all sectors of corporate and non-corporate business areas and means that, the rural sector aside-where special factors obviously apply-small business has done very well while this Government has been in office. It is a nonsense to argue that small business as a whole is doing badly while big business is doing well. There is no evidence to that effect, and I defy the Opposition to come up with any that shows that small business generally is faring badly. It is part of a corporate and business sector which is faring very well and which never fared so well under the previous Government. Ms FATIN —I ask the Minister for Science: Is there any concern about the return of the Nella Dan from the Antarctic to Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Brand for her question. I am pleased to report that after the worst season in living memory in the Antarctic, things are going very well. As honourable members will appreciate, it is getting very late in the season. Nella Dan was caught briefly in the ice off Davis after having picked up the summer expeditioners who had been at the new temporary base at Edgeworth-David. They were ultimately relieved by helicopter, picked up from Davis, and then Nella Dan was caught in the ice for a couple of days. The ship is now in open water, I am glad to say, and because the configuration of the ice is different, as honourable members would know, outside the Mawson base, it is expected that they will have no difficulty in getting away from Mawson. The honourable member for Brand, as a member for Western Australia, will be glad to know that we are going to use Albany as a back-up port for our Antarctic operations. Albany is actually due north of the most easterly of our bases, Casey. Most of our bases are more in the Indian Ocean area than they are in the Pacific zone. The other piece of information I should gratuitously pass on to the House is that I am glad to say the Icebird has now been repaired. Our expectation was that the Icebird would be leaving at 12 noon Tasmanian time to go down to pick up the remaining expeditioners from the summer period who need to be relieved. We have gone through a long period of potentially high hazard and we have gone through it very well. There have been two losses of life this season, which is appalling, but the situation could have been far worse. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I refer to the Minister's personal explanation on Tuesday in which he stated that the grants to Tilley Devine's and the Wyuna Co-operative Housing Project were made as a result of recommendations by the Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee. I ask the Minister: Who were the members of that Committee while he was the Minister for Territories and who appointed them? Will the Minister table all the documentation relating to the appointment of Committee members? Will the Minister table the letter to him of 23 November 1983, which he referred to on Tuesday, recommending approval for the funding of Commonwealth employment projects? Finally, who sponsored or recommended the community employment program grant to the Women's Centre? Mr UREN —I will answer the last part of the question first. The Women's Centre Incorporated sponsored the proposal before the Advisory Committee in Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee was made up of five women and five men. The Committee was considered to be the most imaginative and, productive community employment program committee in the whole of Australia. Of course, honourable members opposite have never really been too supportive of CEP. It was their Government that created so much unemployment in this country. At least the CEP, which has been well debated in this House, certainly has proved itself a worthy program to support. I am asked who made the recommendation of the 10 people on the Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee. That recommendation was made jointly by myself and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The two authors of the article, Richard Farmer and Dean Banks, are businessmen here in Canberra. They obtained the letter through public information and if it is made available through public information I am sure the Minister for Territories will make it available to membership in this House. It is not within my authority to do so, but I am quite sure that the Minister will make it available. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the National Aboriginal Education Committee on the philosophy, aims and policy guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.49) —I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Perhaps I can have your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to say, as I have unfortunately had to say on other occasions, that there is a statement accompanying this report and we do not know who made this statement or what status it has. We have been given no notice of that statement, and normally statements would have to be made after the Minister has asked for leave. We are becoming a bit exasperated with the practice, which is happening with increasing frequency and about which all honourable members should be concerned, of reports being tabled accompanied by statements but with no explanation being made as to where the statement has come from or the circumstances in which it was made. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker: This practice was started by the coalition Government. The fact is that this report relates to a portfolio the Minister of which is in the Senate. The statement was made in the Senate at the time the report was tabled in the Senate. So, it is not as if it is a matter of any great mystery. It is, however, important that the statement made by the Minister in another place also be available to this House, which, of course, it now is. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 46 (3) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council for 1984-85. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SLIPPER —I certainly do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SLIPPER —Today in the Sydney Morning Herald, in a column by Rod Frail entitled `From the Gallery', there is a claim that I have `a curious habit in the Parliamentary dining room of refusing to accept food served on plates bearing the words Australian Parliament'. The present Government's action in replacing crockery marked `Commonwealth Parliament' with that marked `Australian Parliament' clearly indicates Labor's complete contempt for our federal system. Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is not a personal explanation. The honourable member should get on to where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr SLIPPER —Unlike many Australian Labor Party members who always frequent expensive restaurants, and Senator Elstob, who considers-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is not a personal explanation, either. The honourable member will show the House how he has been personally misrepresented. Mr SLIPPER —Unlike Senator Elstob, who considers that the meals served in the Parliamentary Dining Room would kill a brown dog, I eat from time to time in the Dining Room. There is absolutely no truth whatsoever in the assertion that I refuse to accept food on plates bearing the words `Australian Parliament'. I therefore wanted to correct the record. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will now resume his seat. I remind the House that personal explanations are made with the indulgence of the Chair. That indulgence is starting to run out. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mrs Darling,Mr Hollis,Mr Hurford,Mr Kent,Mr Maher and Mr Ruddock. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Cobb,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Jull,Mr Hicks and Mr Ruddock. 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 per cent 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 Robert Brown,Mr Cowan,Mr Lee and Mr Allan Morris. 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 immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew,Mr Shack and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos 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 and Mr Webster. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result 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 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 humble Petition of undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- The area between Cheltenham and Frankston is lacking any C.E.S., Social Security or Medicare Offices, despite the clear need for such offices. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that An Australian Government Centre containing a C.E.S., Social Security, Medicare and other appropriate Government Offices be established in the Mordialloc-Chelsea area as soon as practicable. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office Agency at South Dubbo be closed. The Post Office Agency serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect a registered letter. Many of us are pensioners and even the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To 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 in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petitioners 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 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 Africa 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. 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 T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We object to the proposed relocation of the Army Training Facilities to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales where they shall cause interference with the access, environment and resources of the Macquarie River, its tributaries and the catchment of Burrendong Dam. We respectfully request that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled, will ensure the immediate cessation of all investigations, studies and proposals in the Central Tablelands area which include the Macquarie River, its tributaries and catchment for Military purposes and that the Macquarie river, its environs, recreational resources, historical significance and access along the entire length of the river will be preserved for present and future generations. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. 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 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 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 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 every pray. by Mr Staples. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that the killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound 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 is 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 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 practice many of the principles that they have convenanted 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 Andrew and Mr Bilney. 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: 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 (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 Australians 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass on to 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia respectfully showeth: 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 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 Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The ever increasing conflict and confusion in the Hawke Government over its economic policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(2.59) —Today's unemployment figures are very bad news for the Australian people. They show that unemployment, seasonally adjusted, has risen once again to 8 per cent. Along with the disastrous slump in the housing and motor manufacturing industries, they signal that the business cycle has peaked, the period of economic recovery is drawing to a close and Australia faces more difficult times ahead. At this critical point in the management of the Australian economy we need a government that is united and determined, well prepared and steady, and able to guide us through the period of difficulty to better times ahead. We need sound policies and effective execution of those policies. Unfortunately for Australia, as the portents of gloom crowd in upon us we have the spectacle of a government that has squandered its opportunities, depleted the national larder and in internal disarray over how to deal with its economic predicament. Let us first examine the background to our present difficulties. Since the Government came to office it has had a wonderful opportunity to establish a sound economic base for Australia during a period of economic recovery. It had the good fortune to come to office just as the business cycle was beginning to turn up. In 1982 and 1983 Australia had suffered a severe economic recession brought about by three principal factors: Firstly, a sharp downturn in the economies of the developed world; secondly, a series of disastrous droughts in Australia over a number of years; and thirdly, a massive and unearned rise in real wage costs arising from widespread strikes and other forms of industrial action supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and also by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who was shadow Minister for Industrial Relations at the time. Indeed, we are reminded in that respect of the contribution the same man made as President of the Australian Labor Party and as President of the ACTU to the previous major breakout on wages and costs in the Australian community, 1974-75. Not long after the Labor Government came to office in 1983 it had the benefit of a world economic recovery, the breaking of the drought and a wage pause initiated by a the coalition Government. Needless to say, the incoming government grossly exaggerated difficulties it was facing. It claimed that the Budget deficit for 1983-84 would be $9.6 billion or more under the Fraser Government's policies, yet after the Hawke Government has increased government spending by an outrageous 7.3 per cent in real terms in that financial year, its deficit came out at only $8 billion. That was after increasing spending by 7.3 per cent in real terms. If the Hawke Government had held its spending increases to the average of the Fraser years, the deficit would have been $2.7 billion less in 1983-84 and there would have been a surplus of $380m this financial year instead of a deficit of over $5 billion. That would have occurred if it had had the same fiscal responsibility on average as the Fraser Government had over seven years, one of which included an economic recession. The Government has also exaggerated its record on employment. Unemployment was high when it took over in the depths of the economic recession, and not surprisingly. Now, after three years of economic recovery, unemployment is still higher than it was for all but the last four months of the 86 months of the Fraser Government, and even the Government admits that there will be no improvement in the performance this year. Today's figures show that unemployment is at 8 per cent. In other words, after three years of economic recovery, the best this Government can do is to reduce the unemployment figures by just over two percentage points, leaving them at a very high 8 per cent, and youth unemployment is still well over 20 per cent and showing no sign of changing. Mr White —The period of unemployment has doubled. Mr CARLTON —As my colleague the honourable member for McPherson correctly points out, the period during which people are unemployed is increasing disastrously. Mr N.A. Brown —From 39 to 52 weeks. Mr CARLTON —From 39 to 52 weeks, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out. That is the increase in the length of unemployment of those unemployed under this Government. I raise these matters in advance as the Treasurer (Mr Keating), if he comes in to reply to my remarks, usually tries to raise false spectres of the past in these debates. But as time moves on, his rewriting of history becomes more transparent and less possible. The fact is that this Government had the good fortune to come into office at the beginning of an upswing in the business cycle. It had the opportunity to use that period of economic growth prudently and productively. It had the duty to husband the nation's resources for more difficult times. Yet what has it done? It has squandered its opportunities. It has frittered away the fruits of the economic recovery in irresponsible spending programs. In its first two Budgets it increased government spending by over 30 per cent and taxes by 28 1/2 per cent. Over its three years of office it has run up Budget deficits totalling $19.6 billion, compared with total deficits under the seven years of the Fraser Government of $17.6 billion. So in three years of economic recovery the Government has run up more debt than the Fraser Government did in seven years, which included a period of recession when one would expect a bit more government borrowing. Instead of putting money aside for a rainy day-maybe in Australian terms I should say for a drought-the Government has been squandering our resources and putting us into hock. The Hawke Government has turned Australia into a major debtor nation. Our total overseas debt now stands at $70 billion, compared with $25 billion three years ago. In the same period, the Government's overseas debt has risen from $9 billion to $26.5 billion. This year we are spending over 40c in each dollar we earn in export income on servicing our overseas debt. It is going to cost us $6.7 billion in interest charges alone on Federal Government debt this financial year-more than we spend as a nation on health, education or, heaven help us, our national defence. What of the other indicators of economic performance? What of interest rates and inflation? Despite the promises of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer before the 1984 election that interest rates would fall in 1985, they reached the highest real rates since the early 1930s-the Great Depression-and they are still high. They are still putting farmers and small businessmen out of business and they are still putting up the costs on home mortgages. Our inflation rate is now 8.2 per cent and rising. It is twice the rate of our major trading partners, at a time when their inflation rates are falling. The economy is at a critical point. The housing industry and the motor industry-two leading indicators of economic activity-tell us that we are heading towards a decline. Today's unemployment figures tell us that unemployment has begun to rise again from the high base of 7.8 per cent, which I point out to the House is two percentage points higher than the base rate at the end of the Fraser economic recovery. In other words, when we had had over two years of economic recovery, we finished up with an unemployment rate two percentage points lower than this Government has been able to achieve after a period of three years of economic recovery. When one, hopefully, has built up employment during a rise in the business cycle and a rise in economic activity, one expects the unemployment rate to be considerably lower than it is now. At this critical turning point in the economy, after the long period of economic growth, do we stand well prepared for leaner times? Of course we do not. We have overspent, over borrowed, over inflated and over charged, but we have under invested. Business investment is at pitifully low rates and the Treasurer's pathetic words today during Question Time, hoping like Macawber for a turn up in business investment, were ridiculous, and certainly will not be met under any current indications. Just when we need a cool head and a steady hand at the tiller, we have total confusion in the ranks of the Government. If ever we needed cohesion and, dare I say it, consensus in the Government, it is now. Yet what do we have? Ministers cannot even agree on the interpretation of the figures. Let us take the balance of payments, which is a critical indicator of economic performance, as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) pointed out in his statement yesterday. On Tuesday the Treasurer said that he expected the balance of payments deficit for 1985-86 to be about 5 per cent of gross domestic product. That would require a fall of the monthly deficit in coming months to about half the present figure of over a billion dollars a month. In other words, to meet what the Treasurer said on Tuesday, we would have to halve the current account deficit over the next few months. On Wednesday we received the monthly figure and it was over $1 billion, higher than the previous month. We asked the Prime Minister about that in the House yesterday, and what did he say? He thought the figures were good. Yesterday, he said: We believe that evidence is starting to emerge of the turnaround we have been looking for for some time now. He said earlier the same thing about the dollar, interest rates and now about the current account deficit. In the Senate, also yesterday, Senator Button was not so sure. Honourable members might recall that he is the Leader of the Government in the Senate and ought to know what he is talking about. He said: We do not expect any dramatic turnaround in that current account problem this month, next month or the month after. All I can say is that if the Government cannot even agree on what the balance of payments figures mean, Lord help it and Lord help us. Today the Treasurer was asked about this discrepancy between the various interpretations of the figures and he said that he saw the sign of a clear J effect. He refers to his theory of the J curve which he has been waiting to turn up for the last months. Mr Hodgman —Is not a jay a magpie? Mr CARLTON —My friend, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), asks whether the jay is a magpie. This particular J is a popinjay. The reference to the magpie is well taken because the theme of the Australian Labor Party's recovery is the tune the Thieving Magpie. It is in its advertisement on television in the mid-term campaign leading into the election-La Guzza Ladra. I hope I have used a reasonable form of Italian to indicate what I mean to those in the audience who might understand that language. It is very clear in English and Italian that this Government is typified and will be labelled as the thieving magpie Government. This Treasurer will be labelled as the thieving magpie Treasurer. Let us consider the equally serious matter of the Government's objectives, one of which is the trilogy. Quite simply, the trilogy is this commitment by the Government: There will be no increase in tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; Government expenditure will not increase as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; and the Budget deficit will be reduced in money terms in 1985-86 and reduced as a proportion of GDP over the life of the Parliament. That is not a very demanding commitment but at least we thought that we had it clear. After all, it is written in black ink on page 382 of the Budget Statement. So last week, when one of the Government Ministers leaked a confidential Cabinet submission on the 1986-87 Budget strategy to the Sydney Morning Herald, we noted that according to the Government's own figures, tax revenues for this financial year will exceed the trilogy figure. That is another broken promise. Naturally, we asked Ministers about this in Question Time. We asked: `Is it true that the trilogy commitment on taxes will not be met?' The Treasurer at least agreed that the leaked document was genuine. Indeed, he threatened, if not to crucify the Minister responsible, at least to expel him from the Labor Party. Senator Walsh in the Senate declined to acknowledge the truth of the document. The Prime Minister said unequivocally in this House on Tuesday: . . . we will adhere to the terms of the trilogy. That is well and good, except for the query about the truthfulness of the Treasurer's Cabinet paper. Yesterday I asked the Treasurer about the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's remarks and the Cabinet paper. He replied, inter a lot of alia: I am not in any position at this stage to be able to say with any precision just precisely where receipts will finish over the course of the year. The fact is that the trilogy is a commitment for the Parliament and the trilogy commitment will be met. Those opposite do not even understand what are their objectives. They are leaking, disagreeing with each other and the head of their back bench committee on industry questions their industry policy. They are in total disarray. How can they guide us through this extremely difficult period? They ought to give it up. They are hopelessly incompetent and will not be able to get through this period. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr ROBERT BROWN —The ovation that I am receiving from the Opposition benches is one of the greatest ovations that I have received at any time in my life. I thank those opposite for it. I do not suppose that it will come as any surprise at all to either the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) or the Opposition generally that the Government absolutely rejects this matter of public importance. I thought that it was particularly interesting that in presenting this matter of public importance two of the first matters to which the honourable member referred were that of employment and housing commencements because if we need any evidence to indicate the appalling nature of the economic policies that were pursued by the Fraser-Howard Government and the devastating results of those policies, we need look no further than at those two matters. We had an employment situation when those opposite were in government in which unemployment increased from less than 300,000-representing 4.6 per cent of the labour force-to over 730,000-representing 10.4 per cent of the labour force. The honourable member for Mackellar, the shadow Treasurer, referred to employment as one of the grounds upon which he believed he could base the matter of public importance despite the fact that on a similar occasion yesterday I mentioned that prior to March 1983 when the present Government was elected an undertaking was given to the Australian people to pursue the creation of half a million new jobs in the first three years of the Hawke Government. Mr Simmons —They laughed at us. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Calare reminds me, the Opposition laughed at us. Mr Ronald Edwards —They said that it could not be done. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the sterling member for Stirling indicates, the Opposition said that it could not be done. That response from the Opposition was not surprising. Could it have been surprising from a coalition of political parties which during their last year in government brought about an increase in unemployment of a quarter of a million? The second matter to which the honourable member for Mackellar referred was that of housing commencements. Despite the appalling lack of housing that existed and continues to exist in Australia the number of housing commencements during the Opposition's last year was 105,000. Almost immediately the Hawke Government brought about a situation where the number of housing commencements increased to, and averaged over two years, between 140,000 and 150,000 new homes every year. Even this year, when the Opposition is trying to suggest that the situation in the housing industry has reached a crisis the number of housing commencements will be 137,000. That compares with the 105,000 in its last year. Those opposite have suggested that the present Government's economic policy has been confused and inconsistent. One thing I can say about them and their economic policy is that a number of aspects are remarkably consistent; first in the grossly inadequate degree of expertise and concern which they brought to economic management; and secondly, they consistently maintained, as part of their economic strategy, an overvalued Australian dollar as one of the chief devices against inflation. In the process they decimated Australian secondary industry. During their seven years, as those opposite well know, secondary industry in Australia almost ground to a halt. There were liquidations and bankruptcies and company closures and factories closing their gates and doors became the order of the day. The reason is that those opposite had no answer to the great problems which confronted the Australian people during those years. The aspirations of the Australian people with all the magnificent human and natural resources which provided this nation with the type of potential that should have been harnessed and directed towards the well-being of people and the development of this nation were absolutely dissipated during those seven disastrous years. They were absolutely dissipated during those seven disastrous years, yet they come in here and suggest that there has been some inconsistency or inadequacy on the part of this Government-a government which, more than any other government in the history of the Commonwealth, has brought about magnificent results. Of course, those results are applauded not only within this nation and on the part of those 600,000 people in Australia who are in employment today as a result of these successes of this Government's policy but also in other countries of a similar kind. In fact, I remind the House and the Australian people that the Treasurer, on an occasion of great modesty, said that, if Australia's economic revival had been achieved in western Europe, the people of western Europe would have been lighting candles in every cathedral of every country. I am pleased to see that endorsed so positively and so overwhelmingly from all of the people on this side of the chamber. (Quorum formed) It is quite apparent that, while Opposition members are happy to raise a matter of public importance, they are not very happy to debate it. They have tried to reduce the amount of time available to me. The person who raised this matter of public importance today was the honourable member for Mackellar, the shadow Treasurer. I refer the House to a copy of today's Age with a headline `Backbenchers rebuff shadow treasurer'. Mr Lee —Who is the shadow Treasurer? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Dobell asks me to remind the House who is the shadow Treasurer. I will tell the House. The shadow Treasurer is the honourable member for Mackellar. Do honourable members know how he was rebuffed by his back bench? First of all, he got on the phone and tried to solicit support for Dr David Watson, the honourable member for Forde, to become chairman of the back bench treasury committee. What happened was that the Opposition members of that committee repudiated that approach, abandoned the shadow Treasurer and-wait for this; honourable members will not believe this-instead voted in as chairman of their treasury committee no other than the honourable member for Bruce, Mr Ken Aldred. Government members-Oh! Mr ROBERT BROWN —I know honourable members cannot believe it but that is according to today's Age , and I do not think it has been denied. As I have said, Opposition members have expressed concern about the consistency of the Hawke Government's economic policy. I said that, if the Opposition had shown any consistency in its economic policy, it was in a number of directions, First of all, it showed its consistent inadequacy in economic policy. Secondly, as I have said, it maintained an overvalued dollar which decimated Australian manufacturing industry. It also consistently failed to allow room in its budget plans to make it possible for any economic growth to take place in Australia. Every year when it introduced a Budget, it would first of all determine what it expected the level of inflation to be. If it expected the level of inflation to be, for example, 10 per cent, it set its monetary targets at 10 per cent. What that meant was that, while its monetary growth target allowed capacity to accommodate that inflation, no capacity was allowed for any type of real economic growth. What happened during the last three years of the Fraser Government as a result of its adopting that sort of approach was that in terms of real economic growth, in 1980-81, the figure was 3.3 per cent; in 1981-82, it was 2.8 per cent; and, in 1982-83, it was minus 0.6 per cent. As I have said, as a result of that decline-to the point that economic growth became negative-in the last year of the Fraser Government unemployment was increasing every day by 750 people. Mr Martin —Who was the Treasurer? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Macarthur asks me to remind the House that the Treasurer at that time was none other than the person who leads the Opposition today, the honourable member for Bennelong, Mr John Howard. He was the chief architect of those economic policies which brought this nation to its economic knees. But we have had such a remarkable transformation, such a remarkable turnaround. As I said earlier, there are now in Australia 600,000 people who have the dignity associated with employment-people who are now in jobs who would not have been in jobs had it not been for the fact that the Australian people showed their magnificent perception and judgment in March of 1983, and repeated it. Of course, we have been concerned about the attitude which has been adopted by the Opposition. The Opposition has shown itself, not only in government, to be incompetent and incapable of determining solutions to all of the great issues that confronted the Australian people. It has also shown itself in opposition to be completely incapable of presenting any alternative strategy. Opposition members have learned nothing from their gross, continuing and destructive results while in government. They have been repudiated by us. They have been repudiated by the community, and the Opposition front bench is now in the process of being repudiated by the back bench. The honourable member for Mackellar also referred to the issue of investment. For three consecutive years while the Opposition was in government, real investment in Australian fell by 15 per cent. This year it is expected to rise by over 20 per cent and next financial year by a further 27 per cent. The great achievements that have been brought about as a result of the enlightened policies of this Government-a government which has shown itself capable of understanding the essential problems this nation faces and devising the sorts of policies that are necessary to overcome those problems-are all attributes of this Government that are showing themselves to be effective. Across this nation, the Australian people have rejoiced in the great achievements of this Government because the Australian people have shared in the fruits of those policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.30) —For the first time in memory the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has failed to attend this chamber to defend his economic record. It is also the first time in memory that a Treasurer has failed to do so during the period of any government. The matter of public importance reads as follows: The ever-increasing conflict and confusion in the Hawke Government over its economic policies. Lucifer glides in here in his patent leather shoes, without a sound, and in his black double-breasted suits, without a crease, when he wants to bucket people. The only time we ever see the Treasurer of this nation become excited or passionate about an issue is when he is directing a well-aimed kick at someone's head. I have never in my three years in this place heard the Treasurer speak strongly about the unemployed, the underprivileged, the farmers, small businessmen or any other disaffected sector of our society. The Treasurer is a shallow, disinterested man who has displayed today an utter contempt for the Parliament. He stands condemned. Every person listening to Parliament this afternoon ought to understand that the Treasurer has not attended the chamber to defend his record or that of his Government. I suggest that he be given leave of absence to sort himself out because there is no doubt at all that under the strain of the impending reckoning day, which so many members of the Government know will occur later this year, he is cracking. The Treasurer's cracking is symptomatic of what we have been witnessing for the past few weeks. There has been the most extraordinary internal brawling in the Australian Labor Party since the Taxation Summit fiasco, and that is really saying something. The divisions at present within the Government are more deep-rooted and bitter because at stake is not just one aspect of policy-that is, taxation-but the whole economic strategy of the Government. The divisions have left back bench members jumpy and nervous and Ministers distrustful of each other, some of them having shown a propensity to leak confidential Cabinet documents. I refer to the paper of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) which stated that employment opportunities have stagnated and it is likely that unemployment will worsen, and the Treasurer's paper which argued for a reduction in Government spending. It is a vicious and personalised dispute within the Government. The punch-up-there is no other word for it-in Caucus last Monday has left many members embittered. As one of them said to me, the dummy spitter let his ego run wild again. There are no prizes at all for guessing who the dummy spitter is-it is the Treasurer. I hasten to add that the Government member who so accurately described the events of last Monday is not one of your garden-type prepackaged left wingers; for that matter, he is not one of your ordinary automation right wing backbenchers. He is a factional leader. Dr Charlesworth —Graeme Campbell! Mr McGAURAN —He is a numbers cruncher. As members of the Government ridicule their own colleagues, I hasten to add that the member I am referring to resides in another place. The immediate cause of the problem last Monday was the debate on whether to have an inquiry into the takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd. The Treasurer carried the day, as we know, even though the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been publicly uncertain and equivocating. The conflict and confusion within the Government ranks over economic management is epidemic. The whole sorry mess which the Government finds itself in is entirely of its own making. There are three arms of economic policy-monetary policy, incomes policy and fiscal policy. Of those, only one has the broad support of Caucus-the incomes policy in the shape and form of the prices and incomes accord. All that can be said about monetary and fiscal policies is that confusion and conflict reign supreme. The existing situation is that the Government has a large external constraint, that is, the size of the current account deficit. We know that in February 1986 the current account deficit was $1 billion, ensuring that the predicted $13 billion to $14 billion trading deficit will, sadly, be met at the end of June 1986. It is likely that, on the present course, we will in the near future for the first time ever have a trading deficit with Japan. To correct the deficit the Government should allow the exchange rate to depreciate. However, an exchange rate depreciation will add to the inflation rate and this is where the incomes policy comes into play. Of course the accord indexes wages according to the consumer price index. Any reduction in indexed wages to allow for depreciation is excluded specifically in the accord. In other words, because of the accord the Government cannot bring about a real depreciation. What can the Government do, since it has locked itself into this position? How will it overcome its subservient relationship with the Australian Council of Trade Unions? The Government must turn to either monetary or fiscal policy, and this is where we have members of the Government tearing at each other's throats as each seeks to protect his specific interests and to ensure, as one of those spending Ministers has said, that his constituency knows that he is in there battling very hard for them. The Government has relied on monetary policy to try to tackle the large current account deficit by tightening the money supply. This policy pushes up interest rates, thereby creating a differential between interest rates in Australia and in other countries. It is true to say that the Government hopes to encourage Australians to borrow off-shore and to encourage foreign investment in Australia. Both these things will keep up the exchange rate, and the Government needs to keep up the exchange rate so that pressure is not placed on the accord. Rises in interest rates, a deliberate policy of this Government, have obvious adverse effects on the domestic economy-on farmers, small businessmen and home owners. Mr Hawker —All exporters. Mr McGAURAN —Not to mention, of course, exporters. This high interest policy squeezes the economy, especially private investment. I was interested to see that today's Australian reported that the Treasurer, when addressing the ACTU, advised the union movement of a necessary cut in Government expenditure because of fundamental weakness in the economy caused by a lack of private sector investment. The Treasurer knows that he has gone as far as he can with monetary policy. He cannot squeeze it any further; he must turn to fiscal policy and restrain Government expenditure. Of course there are just too many people within his own Party at both Cabinet and back bench level who will not allow him to do so. All they say is that the deficit should be increased. Not one of them has specified how the deficit can be funded. We on this side of the House know that it will be funded firstly by higher taxes and secondly by higher Government borrowings. That is the only way to satisfy the left wing's demands. I point out that Senator Graham Richardson, a well-known organiser for the right wing in New South Wales has criticised the Treasurer, too; so this conflict crosses factional lines. When one reads today's Australian Financial Review the problems of the Government can be seen in a nutshell. On the front page is a story of how exports have performed so poorly but on the second page we have the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) calling for higher protection and quotas. The honourable member for Calwell is supposed to be the intellectual guru of the Left, and he has called for higher protection and quotas. As every first year commerce student knows, increases in protection do not increase aggregate employment. All it does is reshuffle employment. It may assist employment in specific industries but it would be at the expense of employment elsewhere. The honourable member for Calwell is simply reflecting the line of the metal trade industry unions; he is simply doing their bidding. There is conflict and confusion within the Government; there are highly personalised bitter disputes which nobody on this side would lose any sleep about except that all Australians are suffering. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.41) —We have just heard from the anti-privatisation, agrarian socialists of the National Party of Australia who basically want to underwrite publicly everything in this economy. They do not want to hear anything that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says about privatisation. They do not want to know about that. They want to make sure that they underwrite everything in the economy, but they have not really worked out what policies they want to pursue, whether it be a wages policy, a fiscal policy or a monetary policy. All we know from the history of the National Party is that it underwrites everything. When we turn to other sectors of the Liberal Party of Australia we hear different voices sounding. Some of those voices are sounding a little softer about privatisation because suddenly that issue is off the boil. The Opposition has taken a beating in two State elections because privatisation became the out word. It did not know whether it should put all its election material through the shredder or whether it should put the leaders of the Opposition through the shredder. Clearly, judging from the opinion polls, the Leader of the Opposition in this place has been put through the shredder. We have to understand that the Opposition is divided. The interesting thing is that the community knows it. While we have the cacophony of voices from the pro-South Africa National Party, the agrarian socialists, in one corner, we also have the privatisation group clustered around the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I understand that the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), who is leading the Opposition's economics committee, is a bit soft on privatisation. So we have another position to which we have to react. The only thing the Government can say-the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has expressed it all-is that the Australian public does not have to worry about privatisation because Opposition members are just voices in the wilderness and they will stay there because their record is appalling. The interesting thing is that the community knows their record is appalling. What I find staggering is the fact that suddenly we have a Leader of the Opposition whom the Opposition is trying to make out as new. The thing the Opposition forgets is that the Australian community remembers the Leader of the Opposition's performance when he was Treasurer under big Mal. It was not good. The honourable member for Charlton spelt it out in terms of figures. People felt the impact on their lives. When a quarter of a million people are unemployed in a year people know it, and they rejected the former Government. As the honourable member for Charlton has said, housing commencements fell to 105,000 a year-a 20-year low-and the people knew it. Honourable members opposite even said that people in Australia would have to learn to live without housing. What a disgraceful proposition! What a disgraceful situation! Clearly, as the honourable member for Charlton and Labor Ministers for housing have said, we have got people back into houses in this country and our record has been outstanding. We are looking at an average performance of 140,000 to 150,000 housing commencements over two years, as the honourable member for Charlton has said. Our record is there. We know all about that and the community knows about it. Let us look at the appalling housing record of the Opposition. Fancy getting to a situation in Australia where we have a group such as honourable members opposite saying: `People will have to learn to live without housing in this country'! What a disgraceful proposition! That is what the Opposition came up with. Mr Robert Brown —It is absolutely disgraceful. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is absolutely disgraceful, as my colleague says, and the community knows it. The Opposition's record on unemployment is also quite staggering, given the way it put masses of people on the dole. As has been said repeatedly by honourable members on this side, the Opposition's record is appalling. Let us look at the Government's record. Some 600,000 jobs have been created in the three-year period it has been in office. As the honourable member for Charlton said, we thought that a figure of 500,000 new jobs would be difficult to attain. Not only have we attained it but we have gone well beyond it and people recognise that. These days a lot more people are in jobs than there were when the Opposition was in government and people recognise that. The Opposition's record is not good and it cannot remake itself because the cracks would show through. People know that very well. The other issue we have to address is economic growth. What the Opposition never really understood and what it never really came to terms with was that if it kept talking down the economy, as it did when it was in government, after a while people, no matter how reluctantly, would begin to believe it and then the economy would begin to go through the floor. That is what happened under the former government. It takes a while for people to come to terms with the fact that the Opposition's economic performance was pretty shonkey but they believed it when it was in government and they paid the price. Businesses collapsed left, right and centre. We had a record number of bankruptcies. We had not seen so many bankruptcies in this country since the Depression. We have achieved economic growth and recovery and people in business have recognised that. Also, as the Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have pointed out repeatedly, what we have is a situation where the profit share of gross domestic product has recovered. That is matched by the figures for private fixed capital investment. People are prepared to put their money where their mouth is because they recognise that the Australian economy is on the move. Certainly, if one listened to the rhetoric of honourable members opposite one would think that we were in the midst of great doom and gloom. But the Opposition has always been the same. If it cannot get some scare going on the foreign policy front it will try to talk down the economy. Those are the two options. It is the same old strategy of the decrepit conservatives of this country. If they cannot get something going on the foreign affairs front, they will talk down the economy. Yesterday the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) tried to get something of a vicious racist kind going about people in the Philippines. That is typical of the strategy of honourable members opposite and it is an absolutely discredited position. Those strategies are old hat and people recognise that. They understand very well that they will not sell any more. The Opposition cannot talk down the economy because people recognise very clearly what is happening, and it cannot beat up some foreign affairs issue. It was probably a source of great discontent to all honourable members opposite that the people of the Philippines managed a peaceful transition. We recognise that and we are supporting them. I am pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition quickly declared himself on that issue but I wonder where some National Party members stand on that issue. We are never really sure. Let us now turn to industrial relations. We have been waiting for a wages policy from honourable members opposite but we have not got one. We are not sure whether it is opting out, opting in or going under the waves. We are not sure what strategy the Opposition wants to pursue. What does the Opposition suggest? Would it have an opting out system? Would it have centralised wage fixation? We do not know which voice to listen to. The only thing I can say is that there are plenty of voices of discontent opposite willing to talk to members of the Government on a regular basis and tell us what their real thoughts are. Those thoughts cannot be projected in the Party room because the clique that has control is narrow and unrepresentative of the Australian community. Interestingly, the Australian community understands that. One does not have to be a member of this Parliament to understand that. The Australian community understands that control of the Opposition is in the hands of a narrow, unrepresentative clique which talks about things that are discredited. Mr Simmons —The Western Australian Liberal Party. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Calare says, the Western Australian Liberal Party was shown to be unrepresentative, as was the South Australian Liberal Party. We have these groups which do not understand what is happening in the community. What the Opposition is saying on industrial relations simply is not believed by the people. We have an accord which has worked. A couple of times the Opposition has said: `The accord will not work; it cannot possibly work. How can you have a sensible, mature agreement between unions, employers and government? You cannot do that. You have to treat people in this community as though they are not responsible'. We treat people in this community as though they are responsible. The record is on the board. The number of industrial disputes has dropped to the lowest level since 1969. We are experiencing the lowest amount of working time lost since 1969. If one talks to people in the community one hears that they are happy with the way industrial relations are going. We do not have the knock-down, drag-out brawls that honourable members opposite seem to want all the time. An industrial dispute is exactly the sort of tune that rings in their ears. What we are talking about is getting the economy going, getting things moving, deregulating the economy, getting people into the economy and bringing in new financial institutions. If one looks at employment growth in the economy on a sector by sector basis one sees that our performance, particularly in the finance area, has been quite outstanding. We have had a regeneration of the economy. The Government has said to people in the finance industry: `We challenge you to perform. We challenge you to show that you are capable of performing as a sophisticated, economic sector'. What was the economy like under the Opposition? The Opposition wanted to keep the lid on everything and close down everything. Again, we had the agrarian socialists of the National Party calling the tune and the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition, could not bring about changes. The Opposition had a discredited economic policy. The honourable member for Charlton has said a great deal in support of the Government's position. He said that we would reject the terms of the matter of public importance; of course we do. The Australian community rejects it. There is no need for the Treasurer to deal with the B-graders opposite. The record speaks very loudly and the incredible thing is that the Australian community understands that record. It is there for all to see. In conclusion, if we reflect on the economic growth and the employment performance that we have seen over the last three years we see that the record speaks very loudly indeed and the Australian community well understands that. We on this side of the House reject the Opposition's matter of public importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the discussion has expired. Debate resumed. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(3.51) —Before the debate was interrupted I was discussing how there had been this debate in ethnic communities concerning the need to renounce or not to renounce all other allegiances and I was quoting from the report entitled `National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship', which was published in October 1982. Mr Ronald Edwards —And they were comprehensive consultations. Mr BLANCHARD —As my good friend the honourable member for Stirling has indicated, they were comprehensive consultations. The report states: It was suggested that it was insulting to ask a person to renounce all former allegiances. The renunciation was also said to give the Oath too negative a character. Speakers testified that it was psychologically impossible to renounce their backgrounds. On the other hand, it was thought highly repugnant that a person granted Australian citizenship should retain allegiance to another nation or power. This concern appeared to focus on national affiliations and obligations in time of war, whereas opposition to the renunciation seemed, in the main, directed to the denial of cultural heritage or a psychological attachment to a former homeland. . . . . . . . . . It is probable that a clearer wording would resolve some of the apparent disagreement. I certainly agree with the comments of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) when she said that there were obvious discussions which led to differing opinions when these consultations took place. Despite the fears of the Opposition I do not think the proposed new wording for the oath and the affirmation will create the same divisions as the present wording does. I turn to another matter which concerns the position where, at the moment, a person loses Australian citizenship upon acquisition of foreign citizenship. Under the present Act, a child of a parent who loses citizenship will also lose citizenship. Section 23aa of the Act allows a resumption of citizenship if a person can show that he or she would have suffered significant hardship-this has been raised in debate by honourable members on the opposite side of the House-if he or she did not acquire foreign citizenship or did not know that he or she would lose Australian citizenship on acquisition of foreign citizenship. This only applies to acts done after 22 November 1984. The present Bill extends section 23aa to include all persons who have lost citizenship under section 17 at any time. So the time barrier that existed before will be removed by the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. To apply for a resumption of citizenship under the new proposals persons must have been lawfully resident in Australia for at least two years and they must show that they intend to return to Australia to live permanently within three years. I think this is a generous concession. I think it is a realistic concession and one that meets the wishes of many of the ethnic communities to whom I have spoken. It is pleasing to see that the Bill proposes that a child who lost citizenship under sub-section 23 (1) of the Act will be able to resume citizenship upon registration of a declaration lodged by the parents under section 23aa in which the child is included, provided the child is under 18 years of age. There are other elements of the Bill on which I would like to have commented but time prevents this. I would like to say that I fully support the Bill and I hope that it has a speedy passage through the House. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(3.55) —Debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill has been proceeding now for more than two hours and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) has been absent from the chamber for the total time of the debate. I think it is contemptuous of this Parliament that the Minister, who would have responsibility for no more than perhaps two or three Bills a year under his portfolio, should be absent. I recognise that he has other responsibilities as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. It may be that, because the nation is in such dire straits now in terms of its economic condition, that is where the Minister is. But I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he ought to ensure that his Ministers are in the chamber when legislation is being debated so that they at least can hear the views not only of the Government members but also of the Opposition. Clause 11 of the Bill deletes the renunciation phrase and the requirement that candidates state their names when taking the oath or making the affirmation of allegiance. I want to direct some comments to this aspect of the Bill. The Minister in his second reading speech stated: Renunciation is ambiguous and unnecessary. Some candidates think that it requires them to renounce not only other allegiances but also their cultural background and all other ties with their country of origin. I respond to that simply by saying that a small percentage of people might have that view but surely, soon after, they will come to realise that this is not the case. I believe that, if explicit written instructions are given to the candidates and if explicit written instructions are given to those persons who are conducting citizenship ceremonies-in the main they are mayors, chairmen of councils around the nation and certain departmental officers-there is no need for any deletion of the renunciation or a deletion of the individual's name. The Minister then went on to say: In many cases renunciation does not affect the previous nationality or citizenship of candidates because the nationality laws of many countries permit their nationals to have more than one citizenship. I respond to that simply by saying that what other countries do relevant to citizenship, whether they allow dual citizenship or multi-citizenship, is entirely their position. We, as a nation, cannot change laws of other countries. We do not support the concept of dual citizenship. People who take the oath or make the affirmation of allegiance must, in my view, continue to renounce previous allegiances. If their previous country of citizenship or country of birth continues to bestow certain rights and privileges on them, so be it. We cannot change that. In my view, it is essential that they belong in every sense to this country. Surely they take out citizenship to belong to and to be an integral part of this country. I point out to the House that citizenship in Australian is not compulsory. There are people who have spent a large part of their lives in this country who have never bothered to take out citizenship. That is their decision; there is no compulsion on them so to do. No doubt in the future some people will continue to do this but I would hope-I am sure that everybody on both sides of this House would hope-that all people who come to make Australia their permanent home would indeed take out citizenship. There are certain advantages in citizenship. People must be Australian citizens in order to be able to register to vote. The Commonwealth Public Service and some State Public Services require individuals to be Australian citizens before they can be employed. One has to be an Australian citizen before one can enlist in the armed services. I say to those people who may commit any serious crimes that there have been many instances in this nation in the past where non-citizens have faced the prospect of being deported, whereas citizens cannot be deported. I say, in summary, that there were no compelling reasons put forward in the national consultations on the Australian Citizenship Act to delete the renunciation of previous allegiances. Likewise, in my view the Minister has failed to place before this Parliament any compelling reasons for deleting the renunciation of all other allegiances. I mention the consultations because my predecessor in that office, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, instituted the consultations that were held in eight capital cities in Australia. I attended all those consultations and one could detect no unanimity of view. Many views were expressed and they were put by very sincere people. I do not for a moment want to detract from the sincerity of the ethnic affairs task force chairman, Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, who compiled the report for the Department at that stage, because I believe he did so in good faith. He also attended all those meetings, but I repeat that there was no unanimity of view that one could detect from those eight consultations, which involved about 1,000 people right around the nations. That is not a very large percentage of people in an Australian population of 15.8 million. Finally, on that issue I would point out that there is no compulsion on a government to accept any views, whether they be majority of minority views. The decision is finally up to the government of the day. There is no compulsion on any government to accept them, and I reject this aspect in clause 11 of the Bill. I would ask the Minister if he were present-and he has been absent for the whole of this debate-why he should meddle with a system that has served us well for years? There has been no overwhelming pressure in the past to make such a change and I know of no such pressure not to do so. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: Some Commonwealth citizens find renunciation confusing because the Queen of Australia is also the head of state in their country of origin. Once again, the person confering citizenship could explain this point in some detail. I do not recall one person from another Commonwealth country raising this matter with me personally. Common sense surely prevails in such a situation. The argument for deletion of renunciation is nonsense and I reject it completely. I would point out that in the bipartisan approach we in government adopted on matters concerning immigration and ethnic affairs I, as Minister, invited the shadow Minister, now the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), to accompany me on those consultations right around Australia. He did accompany me to a number of those eight meetings. I suggest to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and indeed to the Government, that if we are to delete the person's name as provided in this Bill we, as members of this place and senators in another place, when taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance in this Parliament should delete our names as we stand around the table at the beginning of each Parliament. I turn to the question of applications for Australian citizenship received in any one year and granted. An examination of the last report of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs entitled `Review '85' reveals that 20,031 more applications were received for citizenship than in fact were granted in that year. In the previous year 1983-84 the figure was 5,197; in 1982-83, 12,450; in 1981-82, 17,275; in 1980-81, 1,249; and in 1979-80, 134. That makes it clear to me that in the last financial year 1984-85 there has been something wrong with the system, because the actual number of people who applied was not all that great compared with previous years. I suggest that the Minister should look within the Department to see whether that backlog can be reduced. Those 20,000 people who applied for citizenship were residentially qualified to apply, having been here for a period of two years. A delay of that sort is a discouragement to people to take out citizenship. I would have thought that we want all the approximately one million people with resident status to take out citizenship and become more a part of this nation. Table 1 on page 128 of the review clearly sets out the number of persons from those countries who at this stage have not taken out citizenship. One sees from that table that 43 per cent of people who are eligible have not taken out citizenship. One also sees from that table that most of the persons from Communist regimes are well down in the 4 to 8 per cent area, whereas person from countries such as Britain and the Republic of Ireland stand at 62 per cent. The figure for Turkey is 77 per cent, Spain 49 per cent, New Zealand 68 per cent, Malta 57 per cent and Canada 61 per cent. I have quoted those figures which are over the average of 43 per cent. I sincerely trust that the Minister and the Government will give every encouragement to those people. The Government must bear in mind the frustration experienced by those people who are applying for citizenship and whose cases are not being brought forward. I recognise that the mayors and chairmen of shires who are responsible for the final conferring of citizenship may in some cases be responsible for the delays. However, I and, I am sure, other members of this House would want to express our appreciation for the fine job that is done right around the nation by almost 900 elected representatives in their capacity as mayors of cities or chairmen of shires. They do a fine job in conferring Australian citizenship on the vast majority of people who come to this country to live. Once again, I point out that I hoped that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would be present for this debate. I want to raise a matter relating to the migration to this country of persons from Central and South America. I wish to point to the figures from 1979-80 to 1984-85 of permanent settlers, visaed migrants, to this country from central and southern America and to relate them to the total migrant intake. In the year 1979-80 to 1982-83 the total intake was 2.2 per cent, 1.2 per cent, 1.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent. Yet in 1983-84, the first full year of the Hawke Government, that figure as a percentage of total intake rose to 2.9 per cent, and it has risen to a staggering 4.7 per cent of total intake or 3,689 persons in 1984-85. Mr Cadman —That is as many as from Vietnam. Mr HODGES —Almost as many as from Vietnam, as my colleague the shadow Minister reminds me. To me those figures are quite alarming. When I was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, a very senior officer in the Department visited those areas and on his return recommended strongly against the encouragement of migration from Central and South America. He did that for a number of good reasons, some of which I will outline to the House. I am not aware of where this decision has come from-whether from somewhere in the Department or as a result of ministerial direction. As Minister, a deal of pressure was put upon me from left wing members and senators of the Australian Labor Party to allow more people to come in from those areas. The report I got back from that senior officer was that, to start with, most of the people in those areas did not even know where Australia was. They were not even aware of where we were or what sort of a society we had. They related to Central America, if they were in southern America, and they certainly related to northern America if they were in southern America or in Central America. Many of them did not speak English or spoke very little English. Most of them were poor and unskilled. They did not even know- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to relevance. This is a wide ranging debate, but he might relate his comments on migration from Central America and South America to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. It is not a Bill about the immigration program as such. Mr HODGES —In all deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the citizenship of this country depends on the people from around the world whom we bring to this country, and I suggest to you that my reference to the immigration program and to the people we bring here-hopefully, to confer citizenship upon them eventually-is very much involved and very much intertwined with the total program of migration and, finally, of resident status and citizenship in this country. Let me return to discussing the people who have come from that area. The final and very important point is that their settlement prospects here were not good. That was the assessment and the report that came to me. I suggest to the House that there is something a little unusual about this, something a little fishy about it. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to answer certain questions that I pose to him. I would be the last person to suggest that there is some conspiracy within the Department, because I could not detect such a thing when I was the Minister. I think that there are some very fine officers within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, so I am not suggesting for a moment that there is a conspiracy there. However, it is very unusual that we have had this quite massive increase, both in numbers and in percentage terms, in the total intake from Central America and South America. I am highly suspicious that the increase from Central America and southern America has something to do with a political left wing bias. I would hope that there is a balance in that program, but the Minister ought to answer some of the questions relative to it. Among the questions that I would put to him are: Has immigration from Central America and South America increased as a result of a recommendation from the Minister's Department? Has it increased as a result of a recommendation or, indeed, an approach from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Has it increased as a result of ministerial direction? From what countries have these people come, and have detailed character checks been carried out on all migrants from the region? This is a very serious matter. Have any of the migrants a known political activist background, and, if so, in what political groups have they been involved? Those are questions that this Parliament ought to have answered. They are questions on which the Minister should respond to the Parliament or, indeed, to me personally. All of the recommendations to me when I was Minister were against an increase in the intake of people from that area. There may well be a good answer to this and good reasons for it, but I should like to know what they are, because it certainly was not the situation about four or five years ago. I am not in a position to answer the questions; the Minister is in such a position. I suggest that he provide an answer to the Parliament, because, as I say, it is a quite dramatic increase in numbers, and it involves a quite serious aspect in terms of our total immigration program. Numbers from that part of the world have consistently been fairly low over many years, and yet we find this quite dramatic increase in numbers. The least that we can expect from the Minister is a full explanation of where the nation stands. Frankly, if the same situation arises in any other part of the world and if there are good and sound reasons for the program being increased for a particular part, I believe that the Parliament ought to be told, because certain patterns have been set with our immigration program over many years. There have often been good reasons why a program has been decreased for a particular country. Indeed, in parts of southern Europe over more recent years, because of an increased affluence in some countries, there has been less desire on the part of people from some of those traditional source countries for migration to Australia. But those reasons are stated. I would like to know the reasons for any dramatic increase or decrease in intake from any part of the world. A very important part of our program concerns citizenship. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.15) —Earlier the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) complained that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) had left the chamber or was not in the chamber. I suggest to the honourable member that earlier in the debate the Minister was in the chamber, and that the only complaint the honourable member may have about being left out is about being left out of his shadow Cabinet. The most disappointing contribution of the honourable member was his maligning of those people coming from Central America and South America. I have met some of these people, through my responsibility as a Federal member of Parliament, in my electorate office and I am more than happy to say that they are taking out Australian citizenship. They are a very fine body of people. As to the aspersions cast by the honourable member for Petrie against Central American and South American Australians, if he wants to throw aspersions around about the quality of people coming from particular countries-- Mr Hodges —You speak the truth. Mr PRICE —I am speaking the truth. I have quoted the honourable member, who is slurring Central American and South American people coming to Australia, imputing all sorts of motives to their being brought here. Anyway, let us talk about the Australian Citizenship Act, which was introduced in 1948. Its main aims were to set down guidelines for Australian citizenship by birth, adoption or descent and by grant to those who migrate to Australia. It also covers such areas as loss and renunciation of citizenship. The original Act, introduced some years ago, was last amended in 1984. Citizenship is a very important issue as it goes to the heart of democracy. I am pleased to see the Government updating the legislation and making it relevant to the 1980s and 1990s. I give my full support to the citizenship by birth amendment. Under the current Act, people born in Australia, excluding children of diplomats, consular representatives and enemy aliens, automatically become Australian citizens. Unfortunately, this was often used as a ploy for visitors and illegal immigrants to achieve residence in Australia. This is totally unacceptable as well as being unfair to those who go about obtaining Australian citizenship in the correct way. The Act is to be amended so that a person born in Australia after the Bill comes into effect will become an Australian citizen only if at the time of birth at least one of the parents was an Australian citizen and a permanent resident. I believe that this is a fair and proper way to deal with the problem, considering the fact that Australia is one of the few remaining countries which have retained that provision. By the same token, the Government will fulfil its obligation to ensure that children born in Australia do not become stateless. To ensure this, a child born in Australia who is not eligible to acquire Australian citizenship by birth becomes an Australian citizen provided that the child will not be, and has never been, eligible to acquire the citizenship of a foreign country. Another amendment the Bill introduces concerns loss of Australian citizenship due to the acquisition of citizenship of another country. The Act was previously amended in 1984 and the Minister was thus empowered to approve the resumption of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. These circumstances were: If former Australians lost citizenship because they acquired citizenship in another country under some form of compulsion, through economic necessity or without realising the consequences of their action, they were able to have it restored. However, this applied only to those who had lost Australian citizenship after 22 November 1984. The major problem with this amendment was that those who had lost citizenship prior to 22 November 1984 were not included and consequently wished to be included. The amendment is that this provision should apply to any former Australian citizen, subject to certain commonsense recommendations. Such people must show a commitment to Australia by having had two years' lawful residence in Australia at any time and satisfy the Minister that they intend to return to Australia within three years to live permanently and that they have maintained a close and continuing relationship with Australia. The amendment will also permit a child who has lost citizenship to resume it with his or her parents. This amendment brings about no drastic changes to the Act but is merely a commonsense alteration that is more practical and definitely more simplified for former Australian citizens. I also want to talk about the oaths and affirmations of allegiance amendment. In the Blacktown and Penrith local government areas, which are in my electorate of Chifley, some 2,000 people each year seek to obtain, and are granted, citizenship. I could not discuss citizenship without congratulating Alderman Leo Kelly, the Mayor of Blacktown, and Alderman Brian King, the Mayor of Penrith, on the manner in which they conduct their citizenship ceremonies. Penrith City Council provides a very formal ceremony which often involves only small numbers, whereas the Blacktown ceremony is less formal. However, I enjoy attending both councils' ceremonies equally. Penrith City Council gives those taking the oath of allegiance a Bible-an act which I highly commend to all councils-for which it pays and which I know the people very much appreciate. Alderman Alsop of Penrith City Council is one of the oldest and most independent aldermen on the Council. He is always the last speaker at citizenship ceremonies and invites the ratepayers of Penrith City Council to accept the Mayor's invitation to enjoy a little refreshment and light supper, advising them that it will be the last free thing they ever receive from Penrith City Council. I am always pleased to attend citizenship ceremonies. In the Blacktown area we always have a large ceremony at Bowman Hall. On Australia Day we induct some 300 people as Australia's newest citizens. We also have held ceremonies at the Riverstone Senior Citizens Centre in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman) and the Mount Druitt Senior Citizens Centre. The senior citizens always put on a lovely supper and refreshments after the ceremony. The Blacktown City Council now provides Bibles to participants in the ceremony and has developed the practice of handing out, during the ceremony, small shrubs and trees to our newest citizens as a memento of their decision to become Australians. Whilst there are no financial implications in the amendments before the House, I believe that other members on both sides of the House would join me in suggesting that local government should receive some form of recompense for the expense they go to in holding citizenship ceremonies. It would be very nice if, when Federal members attended the ceremonies, they were able, on behalf of the Australian Government, to present to people some memento of their becoming new Australians. Hopefully, this can be incorporated in administrative orders and does not require any legislation. I would be most grateful if the Minister would look at that suggestion. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the last ceremony held at Mount Druitt. I am pleased to say that my wife represented me. I am sure that many wives represent their husbands at these ceremonies when they cannot attend them themselves. Mr Lamb —Spouses. Mr PRICE —Spouses, I am sorry, or partners. Anyway, it is my wife. I was a little jealous that, when Sister Anne Hastings from St Aidan's School, Sister Sarah McCabe from Our Lady of Consolation Home and Pat Stewart and her mum and dad became citizens, I was not there to participate in the ceremony. In respect of the changes in the oath and affirmation, having the person making the oath or affirmation repeat the word `I' and then state his or her before making the oath or affirmation is unnecessary and repetitive and serves no important purpose. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at these ceremonies at least 12 or 15 people will say the name of the mayor after they say `I'. It is rather confusing. I notice that the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and other honourable members have raised the issue of renouncing all other allegiances. I guess that, 10 to 15 years ago, the character of these ceremonies-not that I had the privilege of attending them-would have been very much along the lines of our asking people to be very much Australian to eat meat pies and drive Holden cars. In a monoculture such as Australia was-unfortunately Australian is still very much a monoculture-the renouncing of all other allegiances had very strong connotations about dropping cultural backgrounds, assimilating and becoming very much Australian. The difference today with citizenship ceremonies is that we say: `Certainly you bring to Australia a richness, a heritage. We ask you not to lose that heritage or to drop it. We ask you to preserve your second language'. We have got away from the idea that everyone must conform to a narrow definition of Australian society. We are very much a multicultural society now. Therefore, it is very confusing to ask people to renounce all other allegiances. I am very pleased to say that after the citizenship ceremonies conducted in the electorate of Chifley the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) always sends a message of congratulations to our newest Australians. I publicly thank him very much for that because I know that it always goes over particularly well. I suggest to the Minister that the certificates that are issued would be every more meaningful if they had the Minister's signature on them. I understand that there are moves afoot to do that. Mr Hollis —They should use better quality paper. Mr PRICE —I guess that better quality paper would not be amiss. I thank the honourable member for suggesting it. In cases in which there is a need to get a ceremony performed quickly, with the local council people delegated to do it, there is the mayor of the town clerk. We need to examine the legislation and consider why deputy mayors and deputy town clerks cannot perform this very important function. I strongly support the proposed amendments to the legislation. Citizenship and citizenship ceremonies are taken very seriously in the electorate of Chifley. We all have to be grateful for the quality of the new citizens coming forward and congratulate the councils and local government bodies on the manner in which they discharge their citizenship responsibilities on behalf of the Federal Government. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.28) —The purpose of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986 is to make certain adjustments to the Australian Citizenship Act to exclude children born in Australia to visitors, temporary entrants and prohibited non-citizens from automatically acquiring Australian citizenship by birth; to amend the oath and affirmation of allegiance; to remove the requirements when taking the oath or affirmation to announce one's name and to renounce all other allegiances; to allow the resumption of citizenship for persons who lost it under section 17 of the Act at any time, subject to a continuing commitment to Australia; and to effect, as the explanatory memorandum says, certain other minor and formal amendments. I will be discussing one issue, and that is the issue of the resumption of citizenship when it is lost. I will be quite critical of the proposal of the Government, and I think with very good reason. I am disappointed that this matter has to be debated in a contentious way because I would have thought that it would have been possible for the Government and the Opposition to narrow the range of issues in relation to the resumption of citizenship and I would have also hoped it was possible to narrow the range of issues on the one other contentious question, and that is the amendment to the oath and affirmation of allegiance. Bipartisanship can only be achieved if both parties are willing to participate in meaningful dialogue and discussion, to share their views and to work towards the resolution of differences. It is not always essential that there is bipartisanship for good government or for good policies. A good stoush is sometimes very essential for the workings of democracy, but in the area of immigration, ethnic affairs and citizenship I think for some time it has been desirable to minimise the areas of conflict. Certainly that was the view of former Ministers on this side of the House. I think it ought to be noted that the approach that the Hon. Ian Macphee and the Hon. John Hodges took when they were Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was to involve the Opposition spokesman fully in the development of policies in relation to citizenship and in relation to the question of immigration generally. I have a copy of the `National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship' report of October 1982. I would like to mention what occurred on that occasion because on page 4 it talks about the process of consultation and in relation to the public forums on multiculturalism and citizenship that were being held it says that Mr Hodges welcomed the participation in the forum of the Opposition spokesman on immigration and ethnic affairs, the Hon. Mick Young. I know the sort of co-operation that ought to take place and I am sorry that in relation to this legislation, about which I had expressed a significant degree of interest over time I was not consulted-I do not suppose there was any special reason why I should have been consulted-but the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), received a copy of the Bill some two hours before it was introduced in this House. That is not the basis upon which to get agreement. It is not the basis upon which these issues can be thrashed out and some measure of co-operation obtained. I think it is important. I have listened very carefully in this debate to the discussion that has taken place on the question of the resumption of citizenship and I must say that except for the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), those who have spoken-it is no reflection upon you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it includes you because you have spoken in this debate-have not understood clearly what has occurred, how it occurred and why the approach taken by the Opposition ought to be preferred. The honourable member for Chifley at least canvassed the argument. He had a well written brief. I do not know whether he wrote it himself but, from the words he used, he certainly understood the argument. It was a well prepared brief. Of course, he made it quite clear that in relation to certain amendments made in 1984 there was no capacity for those people who had lost their citizenship before that date to be able to resume it under provisions that were implemented for the resumption of citizenship under section 23aa of the Australian Citizenship Act when it was amended. I understand it was intended at that time that the legislation operate retrospectively to ensure that anybody who lost their citizenship prior to that date would be able to resume it and not just those who lost it after the legislation had been implemented, but for some reason or another the Parliamentary Counsel left it out. I assume, having been bitten in relation to taxation matters, the Government thought that retrospective legislation in relation to citizenship was not appropriate. The fact of the matter is that it was left out. There were also certain changes to section 17 of the Act-the section by which people lose their citizenship. I just want to alert the House to the nature of those changes and also to the nature of the advice given by Australian officials overseas. I intend to mention a particular case which came to my attention. This case is probably the reason that I am very familiar with this issue. A constituent approached me more than two months ago. She lived for a time in Israel and she had, like many young people of Jewish origin, gone to live in Israel as a young person with some commitment as a Jew to assist the state of Israel. She did not intend that she would lose her Australian citizenship. She did not intend that she would never return to Australia. In fact, this lady, being of Jewish origin, and entitled, to do so under the Israeli nationality law which contains certain provisions known as the laws of return, take out permanent residence to enable her to work in Israel. She was unaware at the time that there was also another provision under which, if she had availed herself of it, she might well have been able to maintain her citizenship. However, she did not avail herself of that. That provision in the Jewish nationality law is a provision which enables certain people to conditionally opt out of taking up Israeli citizenship. All through that time our officials at the Australian post in Israel were not terribly concerned about this matter. The operation of section 17 of the Australian Act, which is very similar to the Canadian provision, had not suggested to our people that there was any basis for concern about which they ought to brief people. In fact, the Australian Council of Jewry and others who were advising people going to Israel were not aware that there was likely to be a problem. People went to Israel, accepted permanent residence and found that, of course, over time they achieved Israeli citizenship, very often without knowing it. This particular lady believed that she was still an Australian citizen. In fact, she returned to Australia with her husband, having renewed her Australian passport on a number of occasions before 1984. She had children born overseas whom she registered, one in London and one in Tel Aviv, as Australians born overseas-children born to her, presumably as an Australian citizen. This lady ultimately came back to Australia and in due course her husband wanted to go overseas on a trip associated with his work. Under our new passport arrangements, she applied for an Australian passport and had this drawn to her attention: `Did you go through this procedure in Israel at some earlier time? We are terribly sorry; you are no longer an Australian citizen. In fact, you are here illegally. The fact that you have taken up a job with the Australian Public Service as an Australian citizen means that you are really holding that job illegally because you are not an Australian citizen. By the way, those children you registered as Australians born overseas are not Australians either. We will fix it all up. We will allow you migrant entry now and we will register the children. The Minister has a discretion in relation to that but he has no discretion in relation to you because we passed this amendment in 1984 which did not have any retrospective effect'. That is the nonsense with which we are having to deal. Anyone faced with people who have lost their citizenship-in this case the lady was living in Australia-would understand the nature and the extent of the problem. Of about 7,000 Australians living in Israel, about 2,000, we believe-the number might be greater-may well have not opted out of taking up Israeli citizenship. They will find at some time that they have no right to return to Australia. I will deal with the matter of the interpretation of this legislation. It is rather interesting that Canada had in operation certain provisions, before our amendment in 1984 to section 17 of the Act, that were in like terms to ours. Section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act which operated in 1984 stated: An Australian citizen of full age and of full capacity, who, whilst outside Australia and New Guinea, by some voluntary and formal act, other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Australia, shall thereupon cease to be an Australian citizen. Section 15 (1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act states: A Canadian citizen, who, when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada, thereupon ceases to be a Canadian citizen. That was a very similar operation to our Act. We amended our Act. When we did so, we provided two new elements. They are: 17 (1) A person, being an Australian citizen who has attained the age of 18 years, who does any act or thing- . . . the sole or dominant purpose of which; and . . . the effect of which, is to acquire the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country, shall, upon that acquisition, cease to be an Australian citizen. The Canadians, in interpreting their provisions, which before 1984 operated similarly to ours, took the view, as stated in a letter from the Canadian Ambassador to Israel: In the opinion of the Registrar, the automatic or involuntary acquisition of Israeli Nationality by Canadian citizens does not involve loss of Canadian status. Further, the Registrar confirms that failure or omission to make a declaration of refusal under section 2 (a) (2) of the Israeli Nationality Law of April 1 . . . does not constitute formal and voluntary act for purposes of section 15 (1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act. As a result there would be no loss of Canadian citizenship. I mention that because it is important that honourable members understand that other Commonwealth countries with provisions similar to ours and with a similar attitude to citizenship accept the position in Israel-one of the situations to which these amendments are particularly addressed. Canadians in particular would not forfeit the citizenship of their citizens in similar circumstances to those in which we are saying to Australian citizens: `You have forfeited your Australian citizenship'. How has the Government gone about dealing with this problem? It has not simply ensured that section 23aa can now be of retrospective effect. By reading statements by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and also the undertaking to Australians in Israel in the form of a letter to the editor of the Jerusalem Post by Dr R. S. Merrillees, the Australian Ambassador, honourable members will appreciate that it was thought that the only step that the Government would take would be to amend section 23aa to give it retrospective effect. But that is not the Government's intention. In the Bill the Government has introduced three additional steps that a person in Israel who was likely to lose citizenship would have to satisfy to resume citizenship. Those new steps have been criticised by Opposition members. An amendment has been circulated by the honourable member for Mitchell. The Minister has already circulated a speech and an explanatory memorandum for certain further amendments that he intends to make to his Bill. But that does not meet the Opposition amendment in every respect. The substantial difference is that a person who wants to resume citizenship after residing outside Australia will still, under the Minister's proposal, have to undertake to commence residing again in Australia within three years from the date from which that person seeks to apply for the return of his or her citizenship. The Minister says that that is a new element. It was not in section 23aa when amended in 1984. The Minister says that he wants it because he wants people to evidence an ongoing commitment to Australia. I am not sure what is so magic about three years but I know that it creates a very inconsistent position between every Australian who goes to Israel and is sufficiently astute to make the appropriate declaration and therefore not lose Australian citizenship and the person who has accepted the advice given by our officials-a very important matter-and lost citizenship before 1984 and is now being told that the only basis on which he or she can get it back is to indicate that within three years the person will make citizenship application. It is very important that people understand the degree of sensitivity about this matter in Israel amongst those 7,000 Australians. It arises because there is an element of insecurity, as people said to me when I was there. They are under threat. The security situation is posed in terms of there being a group of people who want to push all the Jews back into the sea. A group of people there, Canadians, Americans, Australians and Britons say: `We are happy to give this time to try to assist in Israel but at some time, if there is a great and overwhelming risk, we may want to be able to go back to our original country'. They see being able to resume their citizenship as a lifeline. It is very important to them. It is a very emotional issue. In my judgment it is appropriate that they should feel that way. Certainly, I would want to meet their wishes. I am disappointed that the Minister is introducing this new element into Section 23aa. As are my colleagues, I am disappointed that he is not here to hear these comments. I hope that they will be drawn to his attention and he withdraws the proposal. In the spirit of bipartisanship which we all see as being essential in this important area I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Mitchell because then it would simply ask that a person residing outside Australia who wants, at some future time, to return be not specific as to the time limit by which that decision ought to take place. I believe that my colleagues have canvassed the other matters well. I attach a great deal to the oath and affirmation. I am disappointed that there could not be a bipartisan approach on that matter as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(4.49) —This Government has introduced several amendments to the 1948 Australian Citizenship Act which covers the bestowal, deprivation and resumption of Australian citizenship. It is right and proper that the Government should constantly review and update its legislation particularly concerning citizenship as there are ebbs and flows of international law and relationships dealing with citizenship between different countries. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) raised the problem of the 1984 amendments which left some people prior to that time who had had dual citizenship or had lost citizenship not stateless but without Australian citizenship. That has been attended to in this Bill; it is a desirable change and a rectification of the problem. As I have said, in late 1984 several amendments were legislated to remove discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or previous nationality and to provide a mechanism to review decisions under the Act through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Among other matters, this Bill tackles an area also mentioned by the honourable member for Dundas, that is, the problems associated with dual citizenship. Australia's granting of automatic Australian citizenship to children born in Australian unless to consular or diplomatic parents often results in dual citizenship for the child and there are problems associated with the renunciation of citizenship when other countries will not recognise that renunciation which results in dual citizenship or a continuation of it. Dual nationality arises through inconsistency between nations applying their domestic laws relating to citizenship. It is internationally accepted that each country is free to determine for itself as a matter of domestic law whom it will regard as its nationals and under what conditions its nationality can be acquired or lost. Australia has for many years tried to avoid the recognition of dual nationality and in fact since 1930 has supported the principle of the Hague Convention which favour a single nationality. Previous governments-for instance, the Opposition when it was in government-also favoured single nationality. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Dundas advocate that we should adopt the model of Canada which does recognise, he said, dual citizenship. But I note that Canada was a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1930. It is not that the matter of single nationality is readily accepted by everyone in Australia. As previous speakers have said, the history of modern Australia is virtually of a nation of migrants or the children of migrants, certainly since the acceleration of and the encouragement of migration to Australia over the last 40 years since the Second World War. Migrants from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth have been reluctant to lose their dual citizenship or their British subject status as there were certain advantages for them in having dual citizenship-for instance, the right to obtain a passport from each country, thus making visiting to their former homelands easier and offering better employment opportunities as nationality is often a prerequisite for employment. Many British subjects were reluctant to accept the amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1973 when the Whitlam Government required British subjects to become Australian citizens only if they met the same formal requirement of migrants from other countries. Some people thought that they would lose their British citizenship as they were required to renounce it. But Britain is a country that does recognise dual citizenship. Ten years on, I believe that British people who migrated here have now accepted those amendments of 1973 and have come to realise that it was not an anti-British move but simply a move to treat all migrants to Australia as equals. However, migrants from other countries, particularly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and eastern Europe are anxious to divest themselves of their former nationality and to be only Australian citizens. Many were war refugees who fled oppression. These people were sad to lose their former nationality because of the circumstances but determined to renounce their former citizenships. But many are still considered by their former countries to be nationals of those countries. Despite their declaration, some of our Australian citizens retain dual citizenship against their will or in ignorance. Should they return to those former countries, they may find themselves subject to the laws of those countries, such as national service. I want to bring to the attention of the House an example from my own electorate of a young Frenchman who migrated to Australia as a minor with his mother. His mother died very soon afterwards but he decided to stay in Australia, took out Australian citizenship and accordingly renounced his French nationality. He now wishes to return to France with his Australian fiance for a holiday and to attend his sister's wedding. He has been advised that he will be liable for national service in the army on his return to France, as it is the duty of any 19-year-old Frenchman. I understand that this is also a problem for Greeks who wish to return to their country. We have a very large Greek population, particularly in Melbourne, and I think they should be free to return to their country of origin. But Greek males face possible induction into national service. The Frenchman to whom I referred is afraid that he will lose his Australian citizenship automatically by serving in the army of a foreign power. But section 19 of the Australian Citizenship Act says that he would be deprived of his Australian citizenship only if his former country were at war with Australia. But we are not at war with France or with Greece. What would be the reaction of the community if an Australian citizen returned to Russia or Vietnam and was forced to do national service there? He would still remain an Australian citizen but I wonder whether there would be clouds over that person when he returned to Australia. Australian diplomats cannot provide protection against induction into a foreign army because of the accepted principle of international law that diplomatic protection may not be given by one State to a dual national when he is in the country of his other nationality. The issue of dual nationality is a vexed one and was referred in 1975 by the then Prime Minister, Mr E. G. Whitlam, to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for report to this Parliament. The firm conclusion of that Committee was that its sympathies were entirely with those who suffer hardship by virtue of their dual nationality status and that attention should be give to overcoming their problems. That is what this legislation does. The report confirmed our ratification of the Hague Convention, Australia being one of only 20 nations to do so. The Council of Europe Convention on Reduction of cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in cases of Multiple Nationality of 1963 brought about similar arrangements between some 10 European countries in an effort to minimise the causes of dual nationality, especially as they relate to military obligations. I will quote a small section from the report of the Joint Committee that points out the situation faced by my constituent, the former Frenchman. It states: This- that is, the Council of Europe Convention- supports the view that the nations of Europe are anxious to minimise the causes of dual nationality. However, there are countervailing tendencies, even within Europe, which exacerbate the whole problem of dual nationality. An example is the French Nationality Law of January 1973. Under prior French domestic law, a person forfeited his French citizenship if he became naturalised in another country. France therefore appeared to uphold the principle of single nationality. The new Law provides that on naturalisation elsewhere a person does not lose his French nationality unless he makes express declaration to that effect: but a man under 35 may not thus renounce his French nationality until he has satisfied, or been exempted from, his obligations of military service. This Law is expressed to be subject to France's obligations under the European Convention, and the combined effect of the two is: if a French citizen becomes naturalised in one of the other countries which has ratified the European Convention, he loses his French nationality automatically: if, however, the same citizen is naturalised in any other country in the world (including Australia)- this would include our former Frenchman- he may continue to retain his French nationality, or may indeed be prevented from losing it. Thus, in relation to all countries outside Europe, France has taken the step of increasing the incidence of dual nationality. We can see that, should an Australian citizen return to the country of second nationality, the Australian Government has no legal authority to protect him or her against the government of that country, such as in the case of compulsory military service, unless some special agreement concerning military service exists between the two governments. In the case that I have outlined of my former French constituent, I made an approach to the French Embassy, and asked it to keep a watchful eye, and also to the Australian Embassy. The co-operation that I have received suggests that my constituent can enjoy his holiday and return to Australia without hindrance. The fact that he did not flee from France in order to avoid conscription, but came with his family, must of course be in his favour. Of course, there is no guarantee; there is only goodwill. In the reply of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) to this debate, I would welcome an indication of any further international efforts being made to bring about bilateral arrangements relating to compulsory national service so that our young former Greeks and former Frenchmen and others can return to those countries on holiday to see their relatives or whatever. I cite this case to the House because of the provision in clause 11 of the Bill which will delete the renunciation phrase from the citizenship ceremony. On the surface, it would suggest a retreat from our commitment to single nationality. As the Australian Government cannot deprive people from other countries of their nationality, the act of renunciation can be an empty gesture, albeit an important symbolic act. Those countries which acknowledge, along with Australia, single nationality, could accept the adoption of Australian citizenship as an automatic declaration of renunciation of their former citizenship. Moreover, for some countries this renunciation does not remove such a person's citizenship. I was going to talk about the importance of the citizenship ceremonies in my electorate and how I enjoy attending them, but I have been asked to speak for only 10 minutes and I will do that, except to make one comment about a matter raised by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). He said that those who swear an oath of allegiance are given a Bible and he recommended that they read it. I endorse that for all those Christians who take out Australian citizenship. However, I am disappointed that we do not do at citizenship ceremonies what we do when we enter this Parliament as new members and have those who take the affirmation and the oath stand side by side. Perhaps the same thing could occur at citizenship ceremonies. Maybe it is for administrative ease that people are put into separate groups, but it seems to me that the problem should be overcome because religion should not be prominent in a citizenship ceremony; the ceremony should demonstrate allegiance and respect for the country these people are adopting. I compliment the Shire of Lillydale, which does not allow its new citizens who affirm their allegiance to go home empty-handed. Without a Bible, the distinction is even more obvious. They are given a book of Australiana showing, for example, Australia's coastline, and even the children are given a book of original Australian stories, such as The Magic Pudding. This is a splendid idea. The distinction between those that affirm and those who swear is blurred even more. I finally say thank you to the people behind the scenes, particularly Mr George Mohren from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who has been at nearly all the citizenship ceremonies in my electorate to make sure that things go smoothly. Without the people behind the scenes, I am sure that the running of these ceremonies would be far more difficult. I am sure that such people could make suggestions for improvements to ceremonies. I support the Government's efforts to eliminate the problems associated with dual nationality, and I support the Bill. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.03) —I heard a definition of parliament the other day which said that it was a place where a person gets up to speak, says nothing and then everybody disagrees. I do not think that the definition applies to this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986. We have heard some very wise words spoken and had many positive speeches, and at the end of the debate I think that there will be a considerable amount of agreement. So the definition I have given is not quite right, at least in this case. I wish to direct my remarks on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill mainly to clause 11. The other objectives of the Bill-such as clause 7, which seeks to redress the loss of citizenship inadvertently brought about by the 1984 amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act; clause 4, which removes automatic citizenship for children born in Australia by granting citizenship only to those with one parent who is a permanent resident or citizen; clause 8, which fulfils Australia's international obligations to prevent the statelessness of a child born in Australia who is not eligible to acquire Australian citizenship by birth; and the remaining clauses, clauses 5, 6, 10 and 12-are considered reasonable amendments to the Act. Not the least reasonable of the amendments proposed is that to be moved by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), to section 23AA in clause 7. I am much more concerned with the implications and unnecessary amendments in clause 11 to Schedule 2. This part of the Act provides the form for the oath or affirmation of allegiance. It describes the various ways in which those two parts of the ceremony should be carried out. The amendment to Schedule 2, in clause 11, removes the requirements for a person taking the oath or the affirmation to announce his or her name and to renounce all other allegiances. It is that removal that causes me a great deal of concern. I feel strongly that the removal of the requirement upon candidates to state their name in full at the commencement of the oath or affirmation is totally unnecessary and has been done far too hastily. It has diminished the great significance of the whole ceremony. By naming themselves in full at the commencement of the oath or affirmation, great emphasis is given to the candidates' psychology of commitment. By naming themselves, people speak to themselves about what they are doing and they give emphasis to their public commitment. I have attended many citizenship ceremonies over the years, both before and especially since my election as the member for Macquarie. Any confusion over the inclusion of a candidate's name in the ceremony has been absolutely minimal. It has never been complained about by any candidates and has never been brought to my attention by any officiating or administrative personnel. In fact, I confidently feel, on the basis of many observations, that the families and friends of candidates enjoy seeing and hearing candidates include their names in the oath or affirmation. It would appear to me that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) has introduced this change without full consultation and evaluation. As a point of interest, I might mention that the greatest confusion occurring at the ceremonies is when families, friends and some candidates witness two ceremonies-one for those taking the oath and another for those giving an affirmation. I turn now to the deletion of the requirement for people to renounce all other allegiances on becoming a new citizen. There exists in this nation today a dangerous imbalance, favouring individual and minority group rights as against shared responsibilities, civic duties and a commitment to self-restraint and self-sacrifice for others. We seem to have forgotten that the social cohesion and the liberal democratic institutions we enjoy and value are human contrivances, the result of conscious decisions. They are part of our natural assets handed down to us. We face the choice of continuing to preserve and develop these assets or letting them be devalued and subverted by apathy, unbounded self-interests or misguided hostility to patriotism. Only last year we saw evidence of dangerous tensions arising out of our neglect to foster patriotism and allegiance to this great country of ours. Honourable members will recall that a few members of one ethnic community threatened to take political action against the Australian Government when it became clear that joint surveillance facilities in this country were being used to monitor political developments in their former country, developments which were detrimental to our national interests. Shocked by these threats, Mr B. A. Santamaria responded publicly in these terms: As a first generation Australian of Italian racial origin, my cultural and emotional links with Italy run too deep to be either betrayed or the subject of apology. Nevertheless, if I am born an Australian, or accept Australian citizenship, the strategic interests of Australia must take precedence over the strategic interests of Italy, Greece-or any other country of origin-and the political viewpoint of that country's government, however much I may happen to sympathise with it. Nor is it in accord with citizen responsibilities for any ethnic group to threaten electoral disadvantage to any political party, in the political interests of their country of origin, at the expense of the decisions of their country of choice. Mr Santamaria was quite correct. That attitude to former allegiance and loyalty to this country should be impressed upon all those who would seek to share in the freedom, wealth and security which we enjoy in this beautiful country of ours. Let us be clear that what I am talking about is not some fanatical nationalism but a mature, patriotic spirit. I believe that it is only as individuals learn to appreciate and serve their own country that they can develop a sense of their place and responsibilities in the global community. I speak of the kind of patriotism which, as Bertrand Russell wrote, emphasises a willingness to die rather than to kill for one's country. I speak of a patriotism which recognises its own limitations, the patriotism of Edith Cavell who, as she was shot in World War I, spoke of a patriotism without hatred or bitterness towards anyone. I speak of patriotism and the need for each of us as citizens to affirm our sole allegiance to this nation, its institutions and its welfare. I speak out of a fear that we are witnessing the dissolution of this country from a united nation, which is bound together by shared values and obligations, into what might be called a group of tribes and self seeking individuals. I appreciate that the renunciation requirement needs clarification and sensitive explanation. I should stress that a legal renunciation does not deny the person's private cultural heritage. Rather, it is a positive step in recognition of the legal requirements and character of Australian identity. The Government was given the choice between clarification and deletion; it chose the easy path of deletion. I believe it was wrong to do so. The citizenship ceremony is, and should be, a solemn and happy occasion. I am very glad to say that throughout my electorate and in the City of Blue Mountains we have very fine ceremonies. I would like to commend the mayor, Alderman Peter Quirk, for the excellence of the citizenship ceremonies that are conducted in the City of Blue Mountains. Likewise, I commend the Shire President of Hawkesbury, Councillor Geoff Michael, and the President of Oberon Shire, Councillor Armstrong, for the excellence of the ceremonies they conduct. They are of great significance to the people concerned. Also jutting into my electorate is the Shire of Baulkham Hills. I congratulate Councillor Les Shore on the excellent ceremony I attended recently in his council area with the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell. Also jutting into my electorate is the local council area of Penrith. Again the ceremony conducted by the Mayor, Alderman Brian King, was a very creditable one and I would like to place that on record. However, I raise one further concern about which I feel greatly perturbed. It would concern me greatly if the Minister were ever to allow citizenship procedures to be delegated to administrative staff to allow citizenship over the counter. I finish by requesting the Minister to clarify his intentions in this regard and urge, as did my colleague the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) last year, that the solemnity and significance of the ceremony be preserved in full as it is at present. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.15) —I speak in full support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986. This is an important piece of legislation and it is an important matter. I congratulate those, particularly on this side of the House, who have put such constructive input into this important piece of legislation. It is very important to me because in my electorate of Grey there is great racial diversity within the population and yet it would be the success story of immigration as all races live harmoniously together, working as one to improve the lot of the communities in which they reside. In my home city of Whyalla there are some 64 different nationalities, whilst the city of Port Pirie, which is some 40 kilometres across the Gulf is based on a large Greek and Italian population. They do some very positive work within the community, particularly on a voluntary basis. It is with this background that I feel I can suitably discuss the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986. Australia is a nation of immigrants. We are a multicultural society. We have greatly benefited from the people who have migrated to Australia and who have brought with them a multitude of educational and vocational skills. I feel confident in saying that on the whole the Australian nation lives in peace and harmony. Perhaps this is due to our attitude of mateship. Of course we have not been without our problems along the way. I like to think that our use of derogatory terms has been mainly a result of good natured jest rather than bitterness. Within our society we have many ethnic communities which are willing to share their cultural background with us. The many cultural festivities which are held throughout Australia and in my home State of South Australia-the festival State-are fine examples of this. Within my electorate of Grey I am proud to be associated with the ethnic communities through the international food and wine fair in Whyalla and the blessing of the fleet at Port Pirie. I have celebrated the Vietnamese New Year, Hogmanay with the Scots and been a guest at various Latin-American evenings and an Indian banquet. I have also experienced many other cultural activities, too numerous to mention, which I have enjoyed immensely including the superb hospitality of the Greek community at Coober Pedy. The goal of the citizenship program run by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is to provide an opportunity for, and to encourage those who are eligible to become Australian citizens, thus enabling them to be fully participating members of the community. Citizenship is the step which makes the settler a full and equal member of the Australian community. It confirms each person's earlier decision to make Australia his or her homeland. The benefits of citizenship are numerous. Australian citizenship enables one to take part in the affairs of the nation. As an Australian citizen one is entitled, under Australian law, to the same rights bestowed by citizenship that are enjoyed by people born in Australia. One has the right to apply for appointment to any public office or to stand for election as a member of parliament. On this side of the House of Representatives we have many fine examples of people who have obtained that right through citizenship. I will name just a few. We have the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) who is from Yugoslavia, the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) who was originally from Ireland, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanuos) who migrated from Greece, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) who is from Scotland and of course you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are from England. Mr Dobie —And I am from Scotland. Mr O'NEIL —I think that they are very fine examples. One has the right, as a voter, to help elect Australia's governments as well as the right to apply for an Australian passport and to leave and re-enter Australia without applying for a return endorsement. While overseas one has the right to have protection by Australian diplomatic representatives and eligibility to apply to enlist in the defence forces and for those government jobs for which Australian citizenship is required. These are just some of the benefits that I have had occasion to discuss with many of my constituents. In my electorate of Grey I have weekly inquiries concerning procedures for obtaining citizenship. The procedure is relatively simple once a person has fulfilled the residential criteria. It would be remiss of me if I did not give some praise to the Good Neighbour Council in my electorate as it does a magnificent job in organising people to obtain citizenship. The amendments introduced in this Bill will most definitely assist in the simplification of the whole process and the concluding ceremony. I see the amendments as positive evidence that this Hawke Labor Government is progressive in its actions. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986 will bring the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 well into the 1980s by amending some of the sections presently contained in the legislation. The removal of sex-specific language from the Act is a progressive move and shows that this Government is prepared to keep pace with the changing times. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948, which came into force on 26 January 1949, provides the legal basis for Australian citizenship. The Act governs the ways in which citizenship can be acquired or lost. This Bill makes amendments to section 23aa of the Act concerning the resumption of citizenship. Previous amendments to the Act empowered the Minister to approve resumption of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. Former Australians who lost their citizenship after 22 November 1984, were able to have it restored in some instances. Following representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), that the resumption provisions be made retrospective, the Government has agreed that the provisions of section 23aa should be applicable to any former Australian citizen, subject to conditions of a commitment in the form of residential criteria. These proposed amendments are to be effected by clause 7 of this Bill. Over the past few years an increased number of people have been applying for citizenship. In 1984-85, 107,744 applied. This was a marginal fall from record applications in 1983-84 of 113,810. The fall was due in part to industrial bans in several regional offices in mid-1984-85. During the remainder of that year, the underlying upward trend of recent years continued. I believe the amendments to this Act in 1984, have contributed significantly to increases in the application rate. Those amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act have made it easier for many eligible people to become citizens. Likewise, I believe that the proposed changes we are debating today will further enhance the reasons for applying for Australian citizenship. Despite the growing awareness of the value of citizenship, the 1981 census showed that over one million residentially eligible permanent residents were not Australian citizens. Although precise figures are not available, the Department estimates that the number of eligible people who have not applied for citizenship has fallen to one million. This is still high. In the past, some eligible candidates have not made application because they did not wish to renounce all other allegiances. Many have been under the impression that, in renouncing all other allegiances, they would have to cut all ties with their former homeland and their cultural background. The amendments to this section of the Act will definitely assist the increase in the number of applications for citizenship by those people who are eligible. Of course, the nationality laws of many countries permit their nationals to have dual citizenship, a fact that many eligible residents are not familiar with. Clause 11 of the Bill will amend Schedule 2 of the Act to remove the requirement to renounce all other allegiances and the requirement that candidates state their names when taking the oath or making the affirmation of allegiance. A fundamental amendment to section 10 of the Act will limit citizenship by birth only to those persons who, at the time of birth, have at least one parent who is either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. The effect of this is that children of visitors, temporary entrants and prohibited non-citizens will no longer automatically acquire Australian citizenship simply by reason of their birth in Australia. As we all know, there are good and bad people in all communities in all countries and there are many people who dishonestly play the system. The amendments to this section of the Act will combat the problem of visitors and illegal immigrants exploiting our generous laws, by having children born in Australia in order to seek to achieve residence. The acceptance of this recommendation by the Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the amendment to this section of the Act to ensure that a child of an illegal immigrant has Australian citizenship, if it would otherwise be stateless, shows the compassionate and generous nature of the progressive Hawke Government. Clause 8 of the Bill will fulfil Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness. During the period that I have been the Federal member for Grey, I have had the immense privilege of attending countless citizenship ceremonies throughout the electorate. At each ceremony I have experienced an enormous pride in our great nation. Too often we take this great country and all its grandeur for granted. We truly are the lucky country and all that it takes to remind us of that is to look at the vast number of people who are so earnest to acquire Australian citizenship. We in Australia take democracy for granted but those who have been fortunate to witness the moving ceremony of citizenship can truly start to appreciate the freedom we in Australia so easily enjoy. The joys these new citizens find in their sense of new found freedom are immense. For many the decision to leave their homeland and their extended families to settle in a country that offers them freedom is a truly heart-rending situation. Those emotions often flow freely during citizenship ceremonies, the climax of their journey. At this juncture I think it is correct to pay tribute to the Mayor of Whyalla, Mrs Aileen Ekblom, for the magnificent way in which she conducts the citizenship ceremonies in that city. She does a magnificent job. I also pay tribute to the Port Lincoln City Council which certainly gives the ceremony the status that it deserves. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill and I commend it to the House. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(5.26) —I enjoyed the remarks made by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), a new member in this House, who is doing a great job in representing that area of Sydney. I was pleased to hear him refer to a speech I made in the House last year where I spoke strongly against the information I had received that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was recommending that the citizenship ceremonies be taken away from local government. Although I have not had any direct response from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) I am aware that he has written to members of his Party saying that this would not be so. As I have listened to this debate and I have heard glowing reports from honourable members on both sides of the House on the standards of citizenship ceremonies throughout the country, I am pleased to see that this furphy has been laid to rest firmly by this debate. It is not my intention to talk on all aspects of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill which is before the House. This has been a long debate and previous speakers, especially those on my side of the House, have given a good coverage of the issues and have put forward the need for amendments to the Bill before us. As I am one of a small number of members in this House who were not born in Australia, my recent personal experiences reveal the need for legislation in the area of citizenship to be precise, carefully considered and drafted. I believe that parts of the Bill dealing with the removal of the renunciation of former allegiances have not been properly considered. Certainly the Minister has not made a sufficient case in his second reading speech to warrant the exclusion of the renunciation clause. I shall address myself to this question later in my speech. Following the 1984 amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act and the issuing of passports, I point out to the House an anomaly in that Act which I had to overcome and which I will be relating to this Bill. Having arrived in Australia at the age of seven months in 1928-honourable members can do their mathematics afterwards-I was not required to go through any citizenship ceremony when I was issued with my first passport in 1953, nor was I required to do so when I was issued with my first official passport as a member of this Parliament in 1966. Nor was I required to do so when I was issued with my diplomatic passport as a member of the Executive Council in 1971. An ordinary passport was issued in 1973 which was surrendered when, once more, I was issued with an official passport in 1976. However, upon the passing of the 1984 Act, despite some 32 years of holding an Australian passport, it was not possible for me to have my current official passport renewed, nor could I be issued with a new official passport unless I produced a declaratory statement of citizenship which had to be signed by someone who had known me to have been a resident of Australia between 1944 and 1949. This was duly done and the official passport duly issued. The point I make is not whether or not one should have made a declaratory statement of citizenship. The point I make is that when this Bill came to the House no mention or suggestion of this requirement was made by the former Labor Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I will not take that up the House's time with further details, but I have made these remarks to emphasise strongly my concern for the amending Bill now before us, when the Minister talks quite superficially about the removal of the renunciation clause in the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I regret to say that I cannot accept the glib assertion he makes in his second reading speech that renunciation is `ambiguous and unnecessary'. In going on further, the Minister says: In many cases renunciation does not affect the previous nationality or citizenship of candidates because the nationality laws of many countries- many countries, not all countries- permit their nationals to have more than one citizenship. The Minister should have spelt out quite clearly to the House which countries do and which countries do not permit dual citizenship. More importantly, he should have informed the Parliament of countries which require a legal renunciation of the previous citizenship. We have had a lot of talk today about the rights and wrongs of dual citizenship, but nowhere have we heard from the Government side any mention of the countries from which we have citizens coming to Australia that require a legal renunciation. This is an amazing gap in this Bill. For example, until January 1985 the Netherlands Government required an adult renunciation of Netherlands citizenship. Until that time, although Dutch-born Australian citizens received Australian citizenship as children on the citizenship certificates of their parents, they were still recognised as being subject to the requirements of the laws of the Netherlands. In this situation, we had the Australian law changed some 15 years ago so that such disadvantaged Australian citizens of Dutch birth, as adults, could renounce and instantly renew their Australian citizenship to conform to the laws of the country of their birth. Again, I have taken the time of the House to illustrate how complex this seemingly simple amendment to the oath of allegiance is. I look forward to the Minister's comment on these vital matters when he makes his speech or whoever makes the speech on his behalf at the end of this debate. Of course, the whole area of dual citizenship and particularly Australia's situation against an international backdrop needs to be investigated. I must say I was pleased to read in a news magazine recently that the Minister had asked his Department to prepare a study on the general question of dual citizenship. I hope this is the case and that the matter is being considered with due care and attention to detail as it affects each and every country whose former citizens are seeking Australian citizenship. The Government's proposal to again play around with the oath or affirmation of allegiance is a nonsense. I would have hoped that the Government would have learned following its experience in 1984 when, without any public mandate and I believe against the wishes of the vast majority of Australians, the Government attempted to withdraw from the oath and affirmation the declaration of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Australia. The Government was soundly defeated by the Opposition and public reaction on that occasion. I am sure the Australian public has not yet forgiven or forgotten that surreptitious attempt by the Labor Government to lead this country down a path to republicanism. While on the oath or affirmation of allegiance I have some doubts on the claims being made by the Minister about the need to simplify the procedure by removing the need to declare one's name. On a personal basis and on balance I do not object to this amendment. I might say there are many colleagues on this side of the House who do not share my view. But, I and all my colleagues on this side of the House remain very concerned about the proposed move to do away with the renunciation of all other allegiances from the oath or affirmation and the repercussions that such a move would have. I had planned to talk on the recent deliberations in the High Court on a Tongan couple whose daughter was born in Australia while they had overstayed their temporary entry permits. However, time does not permit me to have such a discussion. Suffice it for me to say that it is pleasing to note that there is bipartisan support for those sections of the amendment Bill before us, having regard to the Tongan case before the High Court, which deals with what has been a vexed deportation procedure. However, I am a little concerned by some other areas of this amendment Bill which are too non-specific and open to interpretation, and thus need some clarification. I refer, for example, to clause 5 of this Bill suggesting amendment to section 13 of the principal Act by inclusion of sub-section (1A), which reads: The Minister shall not grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person under sub-section (1) at a time when the person is not present in Australia unless- (a) the person is a permanent resident; and (b) the Minister considers that the person is engaged in activities outside Australia that are beneficial to the interests of Australia. I wonder what the Minister considers to be activities `beneficial to the interests of Australia'. Perhaps the Minister, even if not at the end of this debate, would care to advise Opposition members as to what he means by this. Perhaps he could sum up and expand the matter later. It certainly needs clarification. Likewise in clause 7 of the Bill, which repeals existing section 23AA and replaces it with a new 23AA, it is proposed that a person who has inadvertently lost his Australian citizenship must make a written submission to the Minister for consideration to have his citizenship restored. In that written statement the person must show that he or she `has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia'. Again, I ask the absent Minister: What constitutes `a close and continuing association with Australia'? Does this mean a person must have active business and property interests here, or is it simply good enough to show proof that he or she has written home to mum every three months? I think it is important to state plainly how the proposed legislative changes will be applied and what criteria the Minister would use to judge individual cases. We members of this House, on both sides, must have this information so that we may more effectively advise our constituents when they come in to see us, irrespective of party. At this stage I had planned to turn to clause 7 and the proposed changes to section 23AA. However, in view of time I shall leave that discussion to the Committee stage. Contrary to several comments made by back benchers in the Government who have spoken on this Bill, the Opposition does want a bipartisan approach to matters relating to immigration and subsequent citizenship. Cheap points of debate that have been made by them through this debate do not encourage bipartisanship. Certainly all of us in this House have similar problems placed before us by our constituents who seek reunion with members of their family and family friends. All of us here must face the future with bipartisan goodwill towards migration from what will become a greatly changed geographical source of migration to Australia. Our proximity to Asia, Africa and South America demands a bipartisan sensitivity of approach to a change which could well match the dramatic change in the source of permanent residents to Australia following World War II. Already such a change is taking place, but all members of this Parliament, and our constituents, will need to realise that traditional sources of migration will be down numerically and that new sources will become more significant. It means that debate in this House on migration and citizenship will have to be held without some of the smart-Alick comments that some members of the Government have resorted to in this debate. In conclusion, I would like to pay my tribute to the Minister, who has shown a real compassion on those matters I have placed before him when all other administrative appeals have been fruitless. I would also pay a tribute to the many departmental officers, both in Sydney and in Canberra, who, over the past 19 years, have been as professional and considerate as the Act has allowed them to be in all matters put before them. It should be noted that in my experience, however, not all overseas posts have shown the same objectivity when asked to reconsider unfavourable decisions they have made. Perhaps then the next series of amendments, brought forward after further consideration, will bring about a change in the capacity of members of this Parliament to take a far stronger role when applications for permanent residency have been declined by officers based overseas. I was going to talk at length about some of the anomalies that still exist in our Citizenship Act. The 1984 amendments changed the Act with regard to the requirements in respect of people who serve in this Parliament. Up to 1984 one did not have to be an Australian citizen to be a member of this Parliament. But even in the 1984 amendment Act still no mention was made of this fact in the Parliament. So talking this through with the nonsense I had to go through last year in making a statutory declaration of citizenship to get a renewal of an official passport I had held for 19 years, one wonders what should really have happened with regard to my membership of this House, having served here since 1966. Mr Tim Fischer —Refund the money! Mr DOBIE —That was an inane interjection. I mention these things not for any sense of recording details in the Parliament, but to emphasise to the Minister and to his advisers who sit in the House that an amendment Bill such as they have brought forward on this occasion with regard to permanent residency and citizenship cannot be allowed to be as inexact and as carelessly worded as this amending Bill has been. It is far too significant for the people who are taking citizenship to have such broad and bland comments made about things such as renunciation. I suspect that in some of the other sections of the Bill upon which I have decided not to talk tonight, there was an equal problem when it comes down to the likes of all of us in this House, on both sides, trying to interpret for our constituents what the changes really mean. I wish the Minister well. I wish I knew where he was. I hope he is made aware of what has been said in the House today. I know that it would have to be something serious to keep him away, but I am still disappointed that he has not been present to hear the individual debate, because, with all the goodwill in the world, the departmental officers who have been following this and the Ministers who have been sitting at the table have not got the capacity, because of their other interests, to fully relate this to the Minister. So, I think, in all, the bringing in of this amendment Bill has not been a crowing success for this Government. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(5.46) —Anyone who has served in local government and then progressed to be a mayor or a shire president is well aware that the Australian Citizenship Act needs amending. We are talking about a bipartisan approach here, and the speakers have all said `Yes, sure enough, we all know that the Act needs amending and we will take a bipartisan approach'. For years the very amendments included in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill have been discussed throughout Australia by reputable committees which have examined all the anomalies in the existing Act. It was some years ago, as a mayor, that I attended a meeting in Sydney on citizenship and multiculturalism. That was in the days of the Fraser Government. So we all know that the Act needs amending. We have improvements in this Bill. We all accept that they are improvements, and yet there are some of us who are prepared to nit-pick about some of the details contained in this Bill. As outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), Australia is one of the few remaining countries which confer citizenship automatically upon a child born in the country. There are a couple of exceptions, of course. There is no doubt that this fact has been exploited in the past by visitors and illegal immigrants. In fact, the 1985 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Who calls Australia Home?' stated that during its review the Committee became aware of the way that Australian citizenship provisions were being used by some prohibited non-citizens. Cases have arisen of prohibited non-citizens giving birth to a child while they were in Australia and, as a result of the operation of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, that child has become an Australian citizen. When these cases come to light, always in a blaze of emotive publicity, the parents argue that they should not be deported because their deportation would infringe the human rights of their Australian-born child. The Committee stated that a legislative measure which it considered would provide that any child born to a person entering Australia on a temporary basis or who was here illegally would not become an Australian citizen unless the child would otherwise be stateless. The Committee went on to say that, by removing the automatic right to citizenship which currently exists for residents and prohibited non-citizens, another incentive for people to queue-jump would be removed. The Committee recommended that children born in Australia to temporary residents, to the proposed tourist-visitor category and to prohibited non-citizens, should not become Australian citizens unless they would otherwise be stateless. The Human Rights Commission reported on two cases where the parents challenged deportation orders on the basis that their children were Australian-born. In the first case, a Mr and Mrs Au Yeung came to Australia on 15 August 1982 on tourist visas and Mrs Au Yeung gave birth to a son, whose birth was notified to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Sydney. As a result of the operation of section 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, the child became an Australian citizen by birth. When the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs eventually caught up with the Au Yeungs because they had stayed in Australia after their visas had expired, they became illegal immigrants and deportation orders were issued. Mr and Mrs Au Yeung took legal advice and complained, under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, that their threatened deportation was inconsistent with, or contrary to, human rights. The Au Yeung family left Australia in September 1984 and, in its findings and recommendations, the Human Rights Commission, among other things, recommended that consideration be given to the question whether Australia's international obligations in the field of human rights require it automatically to grant citizenship to children of non-citizens born in Australia. Whilst it said that the human rights of Australian citizens must invariably be observed, it questioned the necessity for the children of prohibited non-citizens to become Australian citizens merely because they are born in Australia. The Commission further stated that it may be fairer in the long run to change the rule that birth in Australia automatically results in Australian citizenship, provided that otherwise stateless children born in Australia are granted Australian citizenship. The second case reviewed by the Human Rights Commission concerned the Yilmaz family, who came to Australia on 24 March 1981 on temporary entry permits. They overstayed and became prohibited non-citizens under section 7 of the Migration Act 1958. Mr Yilmaz obtained employment, paid taxes and clearly had the intention of staying in Australia. Two children were born to the Yilmazes and, again, both births were registered with appropriate State registration authorities. As a result of the operation of section 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, both children became Australian citizens as a result of their birth in Australia. When the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs issued deportation orders against the Yilmaz family, an appeal was made to the Human Rights Commission on the ground that their threatened deportation was contrary to and inconsistent with human rights. However, they eventually left Australia on 22 December 1984 to avoid deportation. Again, the findings and recommendations of the Human Rights Commission stated that, whilst the human rights of Australian citizens must invariably be observed, nothing in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Declaration of the Rights of the Child requires the children of prohibited non-citizens to become Australian citizens merely because they are born in Australia. As in the case of the Au Yeung family, the Commission said that it may be fairer in the long run to change the rule that birth in Australia automatically results in Australian citizenship for the children of prohibited non-citizens. These are only two particular cases. There have been many, and there can be no doubt that the parents of such children see this as a way of staying in Australia. Despite the fact that we have in place an excellent immigration program, Australia is faced with ever-increasing numbers of illegal immigrants. These illegal immigrants are threatening the integrity of our migration program. They are occupying jobs needed by unemployed Australians and taxing government resources. Almost half of all detected illegal immigrants and visitors have drawn on health, social security, education and other government services. I was concerned to read in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs review of activities to 30 June 1985 that the nature of the Department's enforcement work against illegal immigration has changed dramatically, as has the management task facing the Department. In the past, few illegal immigrants challenged deportation orders or directions that they leave Australia. Now, however, some form of challenge-often a series of sequential or simultaneous actions-is usual. The Au Yeung and Yilmaz cases are classic examples. Not infrequently, this action must proceed under the glare of media attention to which the Department cannot respond without running the risk of breaching personal privacy or being in contempt of court. These processes are expensive for the Department, in terms of both the staff time they tie up and the overall legal costs to the Commonwealth. The proposed amendment to exclude children of temporary visitors and illegal immigrants, except where they would otherwise be stateless, will remove a big incentive for those people. They will be deterred from jumping the queue ahead of immigrants who go through the regular channels and come to our shores legally. The second significant amendment relates to the oath or affirmation of allegiance and removes the requirements for persons taking such oath or affirmation to announce their name and renounce all other allegiances. The requirement to state one's name created confusion and is unnecessary because candidates have already been identified and will be identified again when called to receive their Australian citizenship certificates. The requirement for candidates for Australian citizenship to renounce all other allegiances is ambiguous and unnecessary. It leads some candidates to believe that they are required to renounce not only other allegiances but also their cultural background and all other ties with their country of origin. Anybody who knows anything about immigration and who speaks to some of the wonderful people who have come to this country will realise that that is a heartrending exercise. Other Commonwealth candidates find it confusing to renounce allegiance to the Queen, as the Queen of Australia is also the head of state in their country of origin. If this is not a farcical situation, perhaps the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) can try to come up with one that is. The other significant change proposed by this Bill relates to the resumption of Australian citizenship under the provisions of section 23AA of the Act. As outlined in the Minister's second reading speech, when the Act was last amended it empowered the Minister to approve resumption of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. Former Australians who lost their citizenship after 22 November 1984 by acquiring the citizenship of another country under some form of compulsion, economic necessity or without realising the consequences of their actions were able to have it restored. Because of representations made to the Minister by former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship prior to 22 November 1984 and requested that the resumption provisions be made retrospective the Government has agreed that the provisions of section 23AA should be applicable to any former Australian citizen, subject to the condition that the person concerned should demonstrate a commitment to Australia. That commitment would be based on the applicant having had two years lawful residence in Australia, at any time, and satisfying the Minister that he or she intends to return to Australia within three years to live permanently. The proposed amendment will also allow a child who had lost its citizenship to resume it with its parent. This amendment will have an impact, especially on Australian citizens who, for example, may have gone to Israel, automatically acquired Israeli citizenship and lost their Australian citizenship. They will now be able to resume their Australian citizenship. The amendments in this Bill have been well thought out. I am glad that some Opposition members are prepared to adopt a bipartisan approach towards them. I hope that we have less nitpicking from the following speakers in this debate. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.57) —Some 2,000 years ago the proudest boast in the civilised world was `Civis Romanus sum'-`I am a citizen of Rome'. Twenty-five years ago, the then President of the United States of America, J. F. Kennedy, summed up the thoughts and aspirations of millions in the West committed to the cause of freedom by standing in front of a mass of people and uttering the words: `Ich bin ein Berliner', thereby associating millions and millions of fellow human beings with the cause of a people and of a city besieged-a city which was a bastion for the cause of justice and peace. I put it to members of this House today and to thousands of my fellow Australians listening to this broadcast while driving home to ask themselves whether there is a prouder boast any of us could make than to say: `I am an Australian citizen'. This is the greatest country in the world. It is a country of potential without limit. There is nothing that Australia cannot achieve if only we Australians make up our minds that we will achieve it. I take pride and pleasure in attending, on many occasions, citizenship ceremonies. I did this as a Minister in the former Government. I did it as shadow Minister for Immigration. I have done it as the member for Denison. I point out the fundamental truth that all citizens of Australia are equal, whether they were born here, whether they are fifth or sixth generation Australians or whether they came to this country as their chosen home. Citizenship is universal, it is equal and it is fundamental that we are one equal with the other. There can be no prouder boast than `I am an Australian citizen'. My colleague and friend, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, commenced his speech on this Bill with words which I dare to repeat because he put it so well. He said: `Any change to the Australian Citizenship Act immediately arouses interest within the Parliament and within the community because citizenship deals with the character, identity, political and legal status of all Australians'. I add one further word. When I see changes to the Australian Citizenship Act brought into this Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government, it not only arouses my interest, it arouses my suspicion. I am saddened to say that once again my suspicions and worst fears have come to light because it is in one area above all that we see once again the nibbling of the republican mice on the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance. It is like cheese to the mice or cheese to the rats-they cannot keep away from it. What appals me-I note that we have the presence of two distinguished Ministers of the Hawke socialist Government in the chamber right now-is that the thing was got right, if I can put it that way, by former Prime Minister Whitlam back in 1974 to the satisfaction of all Australians when the oath of allegiance was settled, encompassing, as it did, in this fundamental oath the views of people as diverse as great Australians like Curtin, Chifley, Menzies, Holt and Fraser. Whitlam got it right in 1974 but since the Hawke socialist Government got into power in 1983 we have seen attempt after attempt to nibble away at the oath of allegiance. What is this oath of allegiance? What does it mean? What does it represent? The oath of allegiance is set out in the Australian citizenship Act 1974, brought in when Mr Whitlam was Prime Minister and supported then by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. In both Houses of Parliament there was unanimous support. The oath states: `I'-then you add your name-`William Michael Hodgman, renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen'. It is a beautiful oath-an oath which has been taken by thousands upon thousands of persons who have come to this country and sought the richest thing this country could give them-Australian citizenship. What did we find in 1983? The Hawke socialist republican Government, without the consent of the people of Australia, moved surreptitiously to slip through this Parliament an amendment to the oath of allegiance to remove all reference to Her Majesty the Queen and to take it out of the affirmation of allegiance. There were some in the Government who were bitterly disappointed that they could not also remove God from the oath of allegiance. I kid honourable members not when I say that that was a proposal which was seriously considered by the Hawke socialist Government. It thought: `We are going to take out the Queen, we might as well remove God as well'. An ever vigilant Opposition in this Parliament took up the fight and the people of Australia rallied to the cause in numbers I have never seen in 20 years in politics. We came into this Parliament and, although the Hawke socialist Government had the numbers, we had the courage and the commitment, and we moved an amendment which the House should have passed-that is not a reflection on you, Mr Deputy Speaker-which condemned the Hawke socialist Government. We condemned it for; firstly, its shameful and disgraceful action in seeking to remove Her Majesty the Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians, without having first put such an important amendment to the people of Australia at a referendum; secondly, its deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship; and thirdly, its overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals. Has history repeated itself? I need only refer the Parliament and the people to the speech of the shadow Minister. What have we got here? Has there been consultation with the wider community? No. The Government does not seem to learn. Is it moving to devalue the importance of Australian citizenship? Sadly, it is. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are one of the most respected members of this House and it is my honour to sit with you on one of the committees of this Parliament. Have you ever heard such nonsense as that it is confusing and difficult for someone to state his or her name at the commencement of an oath? Have you ever heard such poppycock? I suppose it has come about because in some less advanced parts of the country at citizenship ceremonies some genius gets everybody to state their names all at once before they administer the oath of allegiance. I would have thought that on a matter as important as the oath of allegiance that the rest of Australia would follow the lead of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of Hobart and his Worship the Mayor of Glenorchy because when they conduct citizenship ceremonies-I have attended many-those about to receive citizenship are lined up and, as the Lord Mayor looks at each one, they give their names. They do not all do it at once. It is very simple. They say `John Brown' or `Angelo Mariani'-they all give their names, they all identify themselves and then the oath is administered in unison. It is a simple procedure. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), however, against whom I have no malice-he is quite a pleasant, jovial and nice person-has come in here and said that it is unnecessary for people to identify themselves. How would one get on in a prosecution for perjury or when making a false statutory declar- ation if the person has not said who he is. It could be Santa Claus. This is the sort of gobbledegook that has been put in front of us. I ask honourable members to listen to this: Candidates for the grant of citizenship are required to repeat the word `I' and then state their name before renouncing their former allegiance and taking the oath or making the affirmation of allegiance. This is unnecessary, says the Minister, because the candidates have already been identified and will be identified again when called on to receive their certificates. Neither of those procedures amounts to the taking of an oath. One can fill in 150 forms in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs but that does not amount to the taking of an oath. People should say who they are. I have never seen a more pathetic argument put forward as to why people should not say what their name is when they take an oath. My word, I would like to see the fun and games we would have-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have often thought you are very judicial by nature-if you were sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court in Queensland saying to somebody: `All right, come along, we will hear your evidence but you do not have to tell us your name'. This is a public declaration that a person is going to become an Australian citizen. I have to say quite bluntly that the arguments put up are fatuous. This is not a fatuous government; it is a cunning, deceitful and, I might say, untrustworthy government. It does not do things by accident. Once the name is taken out of the oath of allegiance, the oath is devalued, and I am dead against the removal of it, with all due respect to another honourable colleague who spoke a moment ago and who said that it did not matter very much to him. Now we come to the gravamen. The Government is going to take away the renunciation of all other allegiance. If one goes back to the statute of Edward III one will find that it is part of the tradition of the common law, part of the tradition of the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, which is what Australia is, that a person can have allegiance to only one country. There are problems with dual nationality. Every time those words are mentioned I think of our Baltic friends and what they go through. The plain fact is that allegiance is part of the tradition of our heritage. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know that it was treason centuries ago-one did not have to act-to think or compass a treasonable intent? It was a heinous crime punishable by death. Renunciation is a renunciation of former allegiance. It has never been argued by anybody to whom I have spoken that it means that one renounces one's heritage, background and memories. The situation has never been what the Minister and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who has just resumed his seat, said, that is, that there was confusion amongst Commonwealth citizens that they might be renouncing allegiance to one queen and then to another. This is sheer, unadulterated poppycock. I have a suspicious mind about the republican commitment of this Government. We have a Prime Minister who is a self-confessed republican. He backs from it now but when he delivered the Boyer lectures on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio he set down clearly and squarely that Australia would move towards a republic. Mr McGauran —What about the flag? Mr HODGMAN —Of course, the flag. How proud we are of my colleague. If everybody in the National Party were as good as the honourable member for Gippsland this country would really be getting on its feet. Why will the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not tell the Parliament the truth and say: `There will be no change to the Australian flag except following a referendum'? Yesterday he said in a wishy-washy way that it was not high on his list of priorities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —At this point I remind the honourable member for Denison that the legislation before the House does not relate to the Australian flag. He may like to come back to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, your counsel is wise. I readily heed it. It is just that every time I think of citizenship I think of how those opposite want to tear up the flag and turn this country into a republic. I think of every mean, miserable little thought in their minuscule socialist republican minds as evidenced by the sort of claptrap in this Bill. I come back to the matter of renunciation. The Government did not come clean on that and tell us exactly what the people said when they were asked. The impression we got from Government speakers was that there is general consensus-that foul word, the lowest common denominator of everything is consensus. There is no excellence, no achievement, no pursuit of the best. A line is just drawn and the lowest common denominator is taken. That is why this country drops back when it should be striding forward. We have a suggestion of consensus. The suggestion that came out of national consultation on a bipartisan basis in the time that we were in office was that it needed clarification. I agree. It is clarified by explaining that it does not involve renouncing one's heritage, cultural background and memories. I have still to find one person who said he thought that that was what he was giving up. In the extraordinary situation of bipartisan co-operation to get through the second reading stage I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I bear the Minister no malice. In passing, I simply say that he is doing a better job. I stand before this House as a shadow Minister for Immigration who was vilified in 1984 and vindicated in 1986. I believe in this country, its citizenship, its traditions, its rights and privileges. This Government would serve better the Australian people if it stopped coming back like a rat to the cheese, nibbling away at the oath of allegiance. The Government, tragically, has the numbers to get the legislation through this place but I trust in the judgment of the majority of members of another place to ensure that for the second time its attempts to nibble at, alter and devalue the oath of allegiance will be thrown out. The majority of Australians will be delighted to see those opposite get it in the neck once more. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(6.13) —How does one follow an act like that? That is what it was. It was just an act. Parliament has often been described as the theatre of the absurd. We have just seen a fantastic example of absurdity here. The amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act presented by the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986 are further illustrations of this Hawke Labor Government's commitment to the understanding of Australia as the world's most multicultural nation. Our approaching bicentenary of European settlement should make us more aware than ever before of the role played by immigration in our development; whether they be immigrants who came in the First Fleet, Asians, the many Chinese and others who came to our goldfields, Pacific Islanders whom we brought here virtually as slaves for our canefields, the arrivals from Europe or the refugees from wars and persecutions around the world over the last 200 years. Australia has developed into what it is today largely because people from other lands have brought themselves, their families, language, food, customs, skills and culture to this continent. Last year, people from approximately 120 nations took up Australian citizenship. Many of us would be hard-pressed to write a list of 120 nations, yet people from these diverse cultures live, work and play peacefully side by side in this country. Probably the greatest sadness is that the original inhabitants, our Aboriginal people, have been the least well-treated Australian citizens. It should be a sobering reflection for the rednecks and the red faces in this House and in our community to reflect upon the high esteem, place and privilege in which Aboriginal people should be held in this society, as its original inhabitants. It should also be a sobering reflection to note that, without their culture, language and links with this land which were forged and welded over unimaginable thousands of years, our culture and our image as Australians and Australia would be a thin veneer of crass suburban amorphism. Therefore, because of our background before European settlement and the events of the last 200 years, Australia's citizenship laws should reflect the widest possible allowances and openness within practice and reason. The amendments to this legislation develop this direction, started under the Whitlam Government and now further carried on under this Hawke Labor Government. It is valuable within the context of this debate to reflect that, under this Government, the residential eligibility period has been reduced from three to two years after a reduction from five to three years under the Whitlam Government. Furthermore, the new basic English language requirement has had an immediate impact upon the number of people applying and being granted Australian citizenship. Annually about 3,800 applications were refused citizenship in latter years on language grounds. With the relaxation to a basic English language requirement, this number has fallen to about 200. That is very welcome. I make these points because it is in the full context of the Australian Citizenship Act and its more recent amendments under this Government that these amendments proposed today should be judged, although they are quite capable of standing alone. Because of the large number of people who want to migrate to Australia, there are always those who seek citizenship by bending the spirit, if not letter of the law, quite often to the detriment of those who do the right thing all the way through the process of gaining permanent residency and citizenship. In order to give everyone a fair go, the Government now feels it is necessary to remove the provision for people to be able to claim permanent residency and citizenship on the basis of the birth of their child in Australia. Australia is one of only seven countries in the world, where children born in those countries automatically acquire citizenship of the country even though the parents are only temporary residents. The other countries are the United States of America, New Zealand, Argentina, Fiji, Malaysia and Canada. This technique which has been employed by many people over the years to gain Australian residency and citizenship is, unfortunately, now becoming quite a common lurk. In earlier years, the average was approximately 3,000 cases per annum. In 1982-83, this had risen dramatically to 5,025. In 1983-84, it had further increased to 7,422 people who were seeking to gain Australian citizenship in this back-door way. Obviously this loophole cannot be allowed to continue. It only results in costly administrative processes often accompanied by litigation and sensationalist media attention. In fact it is interesting to note that the Human Rights Commission in its reports Nos 10 and 15 recommend that the Act be amended to make sure that such children should not acquire citizenship by birth unless this would render them stateless. Other members, principally the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), have, as usual, very competently addressed this point. So I will not linger any longer on this. I turn now to the clause relating to the requirement for citizenship candidates to state their name at the beginning of the oath or affirmation, which is the case at present. Anyone who has attended citizenship ceremonies-everyone in this House certainly will have done so on many occasions-will have noted the confusion that often surfaces in these ceremonies. It is to be expected. There is a high degree of nervousness among the people who are taking out Australian citizenship. It is a very significant event. It is often difficult for people to understand the proceedings. It is not the sort of thing that one takes part in every second day of one's life. A citizenship ceremony is a very moving occasion and should be enjoyed by all. It should be meaningful to all and its great significance should not be demeaned by problems that surface in the way in which people have to state their name in full within that oath or affirmation. It is okay for people who understand well the English language, our culture and the way that we do things-for example, if one is of Anglo-Saxon background and comes as a migrant from the British Isles or another English speaking country. For many, that is not the case. How many people in this House have been to a citizenship ceremony and effectively heard the people being sworn in as citizens with the name of `State your name in full'? What happens is that the Town Clerk asks them to say `I' and then says: `State your name in full'. In the confusion and rush and so on, the people often just say the words `State your name in full'. It is very sad. The national consultations in 1982 and the report of the Human Rights Commission supported either the clarification of the phrase or its deletion altogether. This Government, for very good reason, believes that it should be deleted. It adds no great significance to the ceremony to leave it there; in fact, it demeans it. Obviously, there is no confusion about who is the new citizen; that has been covered. But the removal of this requirement dignifies the ceremony and enhances it for all concerned. I have spoken to many local government officers and elected councillors and they agree with what the Government is doing. I believe that those opposite should also agree and seek to remove it. At this stage I commend the Preston City Council, the Heidelberg City Council and the shires of Diamond Valley and Whittlesea for the way in which they conduct their ceremonies in trying to make them as meaningful and significant as possible within the confines of the present ceremony. I am sure that with these changes ceremonies will be enhanced. Except for those opposite, who wish to make Australian citizenship as difficult to attain as possible, most reasonable people will certainly welcome this amendment. Related to this amendment in clause 11 is another alteration to the oath or affirmation of allegiance. The present form of the oath or affirmation requires a candidate to renounce all other allegiances. As has been pointed out very well by speakers before me on the Government side, especially the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), this requirement is confusing and distressing for a prospective citizen. It has no basis of protection from his former allegiance or citizenship in most cases and it cannot be enforced or directed simply by the uttering of those words within our citizenship oath or affirmation. In fact a booklet put out by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs entitled `Hints for Australian travellers' at page 10 gives Australian citizens the following warning: Each country is free to determine who it will regard as its citizens and under what conditions its citizenship can be acquired or lost. These laws are often complex and they can be quite different from Australian laws. In many countries, for example, citizenship is not considered to be lost simply because a person has acquired Australian citizenship. The laws of some countries require people who wish to renounce their citizenship to make formal written applications to do so. Such laws mean that citizenship cannot just be renounced in a ceremony in a form of words, but that people have to make written application to do so. The consequences if they do not do that can be quite severe. But the people opposite do not worry about that. They think that it can be done just by a form of words and that that will protect those people. But it does not. The booklet also states: Because of such laws many Australian citizens are also citizens of other countries and, therefore, possess what is internationally referred to as `dual nationality'. It continues: It is wise to check whether you are a dual national before leaving Australia and if so whether you are subject to particular laws or regulations when in the country of your other citizenship, such as liability for military service and for offences under its law committed outside that country. You could also be required to obtain an exit permit before being allowed to leave that country. Even if you do not accept the claim of another country that you are its citizen, the authorities there may treat you as one. If you possess the nationality of an Eastern European country you should know that some of those countries have mutual extradition agreements under which a visitor may be arrested in one country and transported to another (of which he or she is considered a citizen) to face outstanding charges (such as an earlier unauthorised departure from that country). That is what those opposite will expose our new citizens to by their pedantic insistence on these words in the current oath or affirmation. That basically sums it up. If one is born in Australia, like most of us here, or even Britain, it is generally not a problem. But for others it is not as easy. It can dramatically affect the lives of people who are Australia citizens. The inclusion of the renunciation of all other allegiance leaves some people with the impression that perhaps they must give up their culture, language and all that they have brought with them in their natural identity and the spirit of their birth land. Obviously, this is reprehensible in a multicultural society such as ours. But those citizens who leave Australia on a trip or whatever can be lulled into a potentially dangerous situation because the renunciation provision in our oath is not recognised. For anyone to oppose these amendments is pure cultural arrogance, but we see that continually in this House from honourable members opposite. We have seen it on the issues of land rights and of Aborigines in general. We have seen the orchestrated racist attacks of the Opposition during that black time in Australia's history of the Blainey Asian immigration debate. Today we have seen it especially from the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) with his low assertions against the credentials and rights of Central and South American migrants. The honourable member for Petrie exposed today his own political prejudices and those of his Party. His lack of bipartisanship on migration policy in his labelling of people from one particular area as left wing and undesirable is quite disgusting. By statements such as his today, and reflected by others in this House in other ways, he has exposed why his Administration limited migration from these countries. Just because people from those countries were suffering under right wing dictatorships and civil turmoil, they have been discriminated against under the former Liberal-National Party Administration. We might ask on what basis he set immigration policy from countries such as Poland, Vietnam or Kampuchea. Was it because he thought that they would be anti-communist people or because they were genuine immigrants and refugees being treated- Mr Cadman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been in the chamber the whole afternoon. The honourable member for Petrie did not use the words being expressed by the honourable member for Jagajaga. I think he ought to be made to withdraw them because in fact he completely misrepresents what was said by the honourable member for Petrie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr STAPLES —I have in my electorate the example of a person from Colombia who is trying to migrate to Australia. The family has been affected by the volcanic eruption and the mud slide there. I do not care whether they come out here as potential Labor voters or Liberal voters. The fact is that people who seek to migrate to Australia should be able to do so without fear of being treated unequally. This is a sad day for the bipartisanship that we have seen over the years on immigration and ethnic affairs in the Parliament and that those on this side of the House and many others have sought to engender. I refer not only to the comments of the honourable member for Petrie, but also to the whole thrust of the debate on this citizenship legislation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), if they have the backing of their parties or the intent to do so, should clean up their migration policy and direct their members accordingly. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr STAPLES —Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address the Chair while you have been the occupant, so I congratulate you on your elevation to that high office. It is a great joy to us all. As I was saying before the dinner break, I felt that in this debate we had a great opportunity to restore balance, equanimity, reason and the broad bipartisanship that has characterised so much of the debate and action on citizenship and immigration matters. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before the foolish and pedantic tactics of the Opposition were again exposed, I thought that this debate would give us the opportunity to restore some of the broad bipartisanship lost after the disgraceful action in which members opposite played such a large part. It is sad today that we have again stepped backwards. Nonetheless, this legislation will proceed with the blessing and approval of the majority of the people of Australia, who are so well represented in this chamber tonight by so many members of the Government. Their presence highlights further the total irrelevance of the Liberal and National parties to Australians, whether they be born Australians or people who have taken Australian citizenship. As a member of Parliament who was born in Australia, and who obviously had no choice in his nationality, I feel great humility and also pride when attending citizenship ceremonies to see the choice that so many new settlers make. This legislation both enhances the citizenship ceremony and protects our new Australian citizens; indeed, all Australian citizens. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), government members and this legislation are to be applauded. People are getting tired of the attitudes and partisan approach of the Opposition. We need say no more about those opposite than that they stand disgraced again today as a result of their immigration policy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(8.05) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is designed to make some alterations to the legislation which governs Australian citizenship. One aspect of this Bill prompts me to debate this issue in the broader context of Australia's international relations, the significant changes that have occurred to this country over the last 30 years, the changes in the world environment and the concerns of the people who make their permanent homes in Australia. Australia's citizenship law has for a long time been in need of reform. One clause in this legislation is designed to protect Australian citizens who move to live in another country for a short time but whose residence in that country may result in their having imposed upon them the citizenship of that country. When that occurs, under Australian law those people forfeit their Australian citizenship. This legislation is designed to assist those who find themselves in the situation, somewhat later, of deciding to return to the country that they believe is the country of their citizenship only to discover that their citizenship has been forfeited. That is a small step in the right direction, but only a small one. I put it to the Minister that he should have put in this legislation an imaginative proposal that took account of the fact that well over a million Australians have dual citizenship and yet we, under our citizenship law, live out a sham. We pretend that our citizens have only one citizenship. It is a nonsense at citizenship ceremonies to ask people, who know that notwithstanding their application for Australian citizenship they will retain the citizenship of the country of their birth, to deny the allegiance and loyalty to and affection for the country of their birth because we have an anachronistic approach in Australia to single citizenship. I am pleased that consideration is being given to the sensitivity of people when they make their oaths or affirmations but we should not just try to change the words in a way which tries to fit in with that single citizenship attitude. We should move to a more modern approach and recognise dual citizenship. I am aware that this matter has been the subject of parliamentary inquiry and has been examined at the departmental level but I urge the Minister to give it urgent and high priority for his department's consideration because in an increasingly mobile world in which people want to live in one country for a while but desire to maintain the love and affection for and loyalty to the country of their birth they should be able, in this sophisticated and modern world, to have that dual sense of love and affection for and loyalty to two countries. I find it offensive that if I, as an Australian, wished to go to another country, whether it be New Zealand or the United Kingdom or a non-English speaking country such as Italy or Greece, and were under certain circumstances to find that I would like to take out the citizenship of another country, I would forfeit my Australian citizenship. Yet I can have living next door to me people who have come here from the United Kingdom, from New Zealand, from Italy or Greece, who have gone through a formal act acknowledging allegiance to Australia, who have assumed Australian citizenship, but who through the domestic laws of the countries of their birth retain the citizenship of those countries. If that can occur why should we pretend it does not happen? Yet our laws and this legislation are based upon that premise. We shelter behind a treaty, a convention. In 1930 it might have been appropriate for countries to say: `We want to try to get an international regime whereby people have one citizenship only'. However, in 1930 the world was not nearly as mobile as it is today. The opportunities of international travel, not merely as tourists but in terms of life style and career opportunities, are vastly different now from what they were 55 years ago. In any event the 1930 Hague convention was signed by only 20 countries. In signing that convention the countries said that they believed in moving towards single citizenship. Some of the countries that signed that convention recognise dual citizenship, for example, the United Kingdom. When a United Kingdom citizen comes here and takes out Australian citizenship through a citizenship ceremony he or she does not lose United Kingdom citizenship. Why should an Australian lose citizenship when he moves to the United Kingdom or to some other country? I know that difficulties can arise as a consequence of obtaining dual citizenship and that there are some advantages in being a dual national. They include the right to unrestricted entry into either country, the right to engage in employment in either country, the right to own land or property in either country, the right to inherit assets in either country, the right to confer citizenship of one or both countries on off-spring and, in some instances, the right to receive special concessions while visiting other countries. They also give a choice, in times of international conflict, as to the citizenship of which the dual national's rights, duties and obligations may be based and the right to the social security benefits of both countries. Those are the advantages that very often flow to people who have dual citizenship. Why should a million and a half Australians have those benefits if their birthplace is outside Australia whilst we deny those benefits to Australians who get their citizenship by virtue of birth in this country? We do it because we base our attitude on that old-fashioned convention which time has passed and is still passing by. I will list the disadvantages of being a dual national. They may be real for well over one million Australians. What difference would it make if we added a few more thousand-10,000, 100,000-Australian born who wish to take out the citizenship of another country? For the purposes of the debate let me draw to the attention of the House those disadvantages that are commonly advances. They are: On the return to the country of origin there is sometimes exposure to penalties such as a restriction in the freedom of movement; on return to the country of origin there is sometimes exposure to severe penalties such as imprisonment for illegality of the original departure from the country; difficulties sometimes arise from conflicting laws affecting divorce and custody; there are sometimes obligations towards both countries in respect of military service; there are sometimes difficulties in claiming inheritances or compensation for loss of property; in time of war there is the problem of being regarded as an enemy alien in either or both countries; there is sometimes loss of consulare protection in one country when visiting the country of the other citizenship and there is sometimes the possibility of having to pay taxation in both countries. That list is often included in the official presentation in justification of our antiquated approach to citizenship. I get the feeling that people are searching for reasons why we should not change. They are clutching at straws because a large number of those disadvantages apply to Australians who take out Australian citizenship and retain their dual nationality because they were born in another country. We already have a million and a half person-problem and yet we say: `We cannot let our citizens get the advantages of dual citizenship if they choose to take out the citizenship of another country'. I hope that the Minister will pursue the inquiries which I understand he has made to see whether we can lay down new laws for citizenship of this country that recognise that all Australians-not only those who happen to have been born overseas-live in a very mobile world. We want Australians to retain the citizenship of their birth so that they, like Italian Australians, Greek Australians, United Kingdom Australians and New Zealand Australians, can be vigorous Australian citizens while they are here and vigorous supportive Australian citizens when they return to the country of their birth. However, at the same time, we should allow those rights to the Australian born who happen to take up, or wish to take up, citizenship of other countries. I express my disappointment in this legislation. It really makes only a very small change. It does not preserve Australian citizenship to someone who goes to a country that imposes its citizenship upon people and says: `You have lost your citizenship. We will let you resume it on a very narrow basis'. For many it is so narrow that resumption of citizenship is denied. This problem affects Australians today. I am aware of Australians who were born in Australia and to my way of thinking they remain Australians for the rest of their lives. I am sure that Australians who now have the citizenship of other countries have the same affinity with Australia-the place of their birth-that so many of our migrants have with their place of birth. In fact I find it a paradox that we go to a citizenship ceremony and hear those taking on citizenship say: `I renounce loyalty to and citizenship of the country of my birth'-that is, in effect, what the oath says. We then make a speech and say: `You were born in Italy and Greece and you will bring your culture here. We hope that you will maintain ties with your country of birth'. Yet the very ceremony we put people through denies the reality of their new relationship to Australia and their birth relationship to their country of origin. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to making this change. I believe that a large number of Australians would recognise the value of those changes. It is a matter for Australian law because the citizenship of any individual is determined by the domestic law of the country that confers citizenship. I recognise that fact. It is our domestic law that forfeits the citizenship of an Australian who takes the citizenship of another country. I believe that we should remove that forfeiture provision. I would like to see an amendment to this legislation. I propose to read the amendment that I would like to see made to the Bill so that the Minister can give it consideration. I think a clause 6A should be inserted which reads: Section 17 of the principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Loss of citizenship on acquisition of another nationality. Section 17 of the principal Act should read: 17 (1) Subject to sub-section (2), a person, being an Australian citizen who has attained the age of 18 years, who does any act or thing- (a) the sole or dominant purpose of which; and (b) the effect of which, is to acquire the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country, shall, upon that acquisition, cease to be an Australian citizen. That is as the law stands at present. My amendment goes on to state in sub-section (2) that sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to an act of marriage. That relates to an Australian marrying in another country who, by virtue of that marriage, has the citizenship of that country imposed upon her. I say `her' because most countries that do that do not impose the citizenship upon a spouse who is a man. That is for the domestic law of Italy, Greece or wherever it may be. If it were our domestic law, I suppose we would have made changes to it by now. The act of marriage that imposes upon the woman the citizenship of a husband does not forfeit that woman's Australian citizenship. I would like to see added a further sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (b), that reads: the acquisition of the nationality of citizenship of a prescribed foreign country. In other words, proposed section 17, sub-section (2), would read: Sub-section (1)- the forfeiture provision- does not apply in relation to- (b) the acquisition of the nationality or citizenship of a prescribed foreign country. That would enable us, by regulation, to determine with which countries we would have some bilateral arrangements whereby we would acknowledge that dual citizenship. We may want to do it upon the basis of those countries conferring upon Australian citizens born in those countries rights that we think are appropriate to dual nationals when they return to their countries of birth, as we would presumably wish to confer similar rights upon their nationals by birth when they acquire Australian citizenship. In that way we may be able to overcome some of the difficulties that confront dual nationals in respect of military service. We might also be able to overcome some of the difficulties that confront dual nationals when they go to countries basically in eastern Europe. I believe that our negotiating leverage for those people who came here in many instances because they were political refugees is very limited because we deny the existence of the possibility of dual nationality in a domestic law sense. Those countries say: `Once a Czech always a Czech and once a Hungarian always a Hungarian'. We deny the dual nationality and therefore it limits our negotiating capacity. I urge the Minister to look at this matter from two points of view. Firstly, if we confer dual nationality it would put Australian-born Australians on the same footing as well over one million people who became Australians by an act of citizenship. Secondly, it would give the Minister and the Government greater negotiating power for the time being in sorting out by bilateral agreement sensible arrangements to protect the rights of dual nationals when they happen to be in a country of one of their citizenship, so that when an Australian citizen goes to Hungary the Hungarian Government acknowledges that he has some rights as an Australian citizen notwithstanding the fact that he was born in Hungary and, vice versa, a Hungarian born person coming to Australia or an Australian going to Hungary if that were the case. For those two reasons and the others that I have mentioned during my address to the House this evening, I urge the Government to seek to lift itself out of the straightjacket of the 1930s and move into the 1980s and 1990s with regard to our citizenship laws. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.25) —in reply-I would like to thank all honourable members who have taken part in this long and wide-ranging debate. Some strange concepts have been articulated in the House during the debate but, where that has happened, honourable members on the other side of the House have, no doubt, responded adequately. I regret that I have not been able to be present throughout the debate but those honourable members who are understanding will know that there is a large administrative role in my portfolio. Indeed, I have been seeing one colleague after another today, which is one of the jobs of a Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, while the House has been sitting. I have been listening to as much of the debate as I possibly could and I have had officers, both in my private office and in my Department, monitoring what has been going on. I know that on one or two occasions some kind things were said about me as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which, when they came from the other side of the House, were a shock to the system but, nevertheless, much appreciated and I thank those honourable members who recognised the difficulties and expressed those thoughts. Generally speaking, the debate has convinced me of the wisdom of the Government's decision in the three main areas which are the subject of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. I would like to respond now to some of the contributions. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) led for the Opposition. I was disappointed to hear him say-I did hear the whole of his speech-that he felt I was not consulting sufficiently. I reject and resent the claim that there has been a lack of consultation on these matters. We have let his office know of whatever is in the pipeline. I was reminded, by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in the final contribution to this debate of the subject of dual citizenship. The honourable member for Mitchell will know that, because there had been some expressions of interest in dual citizenship by honourable members on both sides of the House, I had work done in my Department. It is not an easy subject. There are all sorts of consular difficulties in dual citizenship. There is also the conventional wisdom-whatever that may be-in our society at a particular time on the value of single citizenship, and the Government would not want to move until there was a consensus for movement in this area. But as soon as we have the papers finalised and as soon as I am able to get more details of what is going on in Canada at present-it has moved to dual citizenship-and how it has dealt with some of the problems, I shall be sharing those experiences and that knowledge with members of the Opposition to see whether there is any consensus for change. In the case of changes to the Act that relate to the resumption of citizenship where it is inadvertently lost, there was correspondence with the honourable member for Mitchell's predecessor, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). In the case of changes to the oath and the affirmation, I felt I was entitled to rely on what was said in this place in debates when this subject was last before the Parliament. Admittedly, the focus of that debate was on removing the reference to the Queen from the oath. I have not so far been able to look to the length that I would have liked at the debate in this House but certainly some members of the Liberal Party of Australia in the other chamber expressed a wish for removing the renunciation of all other allegiances. Just how much can one consult? This commitment on the part of a lot of Opposition members is there in black and white. Then the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) made a contribution which I respect. She commented on the proposal to restrict the acquisition of Australian citizenship to those children born in Australia of parents who were either Australian citizens or permanent residents of this country. The report of the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship in October 1982 considered a proposal that children born in Australia whose parents were either prohibited non-citizens or temporary residents would acquire Australian citizenship at birth, but would lose that status if they left Australian within five years of birth and did not return to this country within five years of departure. The amendments to the Act in 1984 did not include any reference to this topic. The introduction of such a provision would not overcome the problem of queue jumping or the administration problems envisaged for the proposed amendment. The child would be an Australian citizen by birth and its parents would still be using the fact that the child was a citizen as a lever to prevent their having to leave Australia. That was the subject of the Human Rights Commission's advice to us. If I have misunderstood the point made by the honourable member, I will certainly go back over Hansard and reply in writing to her. But I would point out that, administratively, if my assumptions are correct and I have understood her point correctly, it would still have been necessary for such children to have obtained evidence that, if they left Australia within five years of their birth, they had returned to Australia for residence during the five years immediately following the departure. The honourable member for Moncrieff also stated in the debate that if the Bill is passed in its present form the birth certificate of a person born in Australia could no longer be used as prima facie evidence of the person's Australian citizenship. I recognise that, but in fact this is already the case as the birth of some children in Australia does not automatically result in their acquisition of Australian citizenship. The honourable member will know that this applies, for instance, to diplomats and consular officers in Australia. She might rightly say that that is a very small group. The point is that when one has a small group, one has to look on the birth certificate in new light. Every birth certificate has to be checked because of the possibility that it might apply to a diplomat or consular officer. Often my Department is required to check the status of the parents of persons born in Australia. Some expansion of these difficulties will arise from the further reduction in the reliability of a birth certificate as evidence of an Australian citizenship in such fields as passport issue. Consultations have already been arranged with the States with a view to ascertaining whether a means exists by which a birth certificate of a person who is not a citizen would be distinguishable. We will be reporting later on these consultation to anybody who is in touch with us on this matter. I would point out that the proposal for an Australia Card is also interesting in this field. It, too, would give evidence where evidence is not otherwise available. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) stated that he did not wish to see citizenship reduced to a pure administrative procedure whereby it was acquired over the counter. Nor do I. It was an absolute furphy of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) earlier in the term of this Parliament when it was suggested that that might be in the pipeline. It never was, it never has been to my knowledge, and I wish to assure all honourable members that I do not intend to abolish the ceremonies that are conducted by local governments. The honourable member for Cook made a contribution to this debate. I send a message to him-I shall not be so rude as to say who is present in the chamber and who is not, as it was said about me earlier in the day on a number of occasions-that I will be sending the honourable member a list of those countries which recognise dual nationality. Indeed, that list may also be of interest to the honourable member for Sturt. The honourable member for Dundas applied some of his time to the question of resumption of citizenship, and asked why there were differences in relation to Canada. The obvious answer to his rhetorical question is that the words of the particular Acts are different. This Bill seeks to rectify the situation so that those who have been wronged by losing their citizenship, admittedly by no fault of the Australian law but in this case, it seems through the fault of the Israeli law, have, just by seeking permanent residence in Israeli, automatically obtained Israeli citizenship and by that act have in so many cases lost citizenship. I come back to the point I am making that this Bill seeks to correct the wrongs that have been done to people where they did not intend to lose their Australian citizenship. I promised in my second reading speech that because new material had been brought to my attention I would be looking again at this matter. The House now knows, because I have already circulated the amendments, that there are some further amendments to be dealt with at the committee stage which will give us an opportunity to debate that question. I shall not delay the House on that matter. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) expressed concern about the oath. He stated-more for rhetorical reasons, which is a characteristic of his than for any other reason-that the oath was defective legally because the person swearing the oath did not recite their name. I am amazed that a Queen's counsel could have come to that conclusion, which is built on sand. There is no substance in it whatever. It is not necessary for the person swearing or affirming to recite their name. All that is required is that the person be identified. As was said in my second reading speech, candidates are identified both before and after swearing the oath. Mrs Sullivan —How? Mr HURFORD —When they come into the room and when they are ticked off by the clerks. There is no way in the world that when they repeat their names anyone can understand the name in so many of the cases. Let us be reasonable about it. Of course they are identified. They are identified also by the town clerks knowing them. It is most disruptive to the ceremonies when people stop in the way they do at present and do not know what is expected of them; they do not know whether they are saying their names or not. It is an absurdity for anyone to resist this change. The honourable member for Denison also said nobody had told him that the renunciation in the oath was a renunciation of heritage. It is time he got out among the ethnic communities a little more and learnt about their feelings. I suspected that he had been isolated from those who are familiar with these issues, and what he said confirmed my view. As everyone who has taken part in this debate knows, the Government is not automatically conferring citizenship upon a child born here. I think I have addressed the only questions that arose on that and they were from the honourable member for Moncrieff. On the resumption of Australian citizenship when it has been lost, we shall be talking about that matter in the committee stage, so I shall not detain the House now. When it comes to the oath or affirmation, I gather that more will be said in the committee stage about that, too. So be it, let us address that matter when the time comes. For my part now, there is just one other duty I have and that is to draw to the attention of the House that a small change is required to the Migration Act in relation to that part of this Bill that is non-controversial. I refer to Australian born children who are not citizens. Amendment will be necessary to reflect the position that there will be persons born in Australia who are not Australian citizens. The Migration Act provides that persons who enter Australia without entry permits or remain in Australia after the expiry of entry permits are here illegally-termed prohibited non-citizens. The Migration Act will be changed to provide that children born in Australia to non-citizens or to persons who are not permanent residents will be taken to be included in the temporary entry permit of the parent whose permit last expired or, if only one parent holds a temporary entry permit, the child will be taken to be included in that parent's permit. A child where both parents are prohibited non-citizens will be deemed to be a prohibited non-citizen. This amendment reflects the policy position as expressed in the citizenship amendments which are before the House now, and I foreshadow that those changes will be made to the Migration Act. I would be very pleased indeed, as we have already had a wide ranging debate on this issue, if we could include that particular amendment, by agreement with the Opposition, in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Omnibus Bill. We will give Opposition members a copy of that part of the instructions to the Parliamentary Draftsman, because we certainly do not want a wide ranging debate again with such a heavy timetable in this Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.42) —I just wish to raise a matter to seek clarification in respect of clause 3. I have received representations from a group called the Inter-Agency Migration Group, of Marrickville which points out that clause 3 covers abandoned children but does not cover orphaned children. It could well be that the Minister may consider that an additional change could be made here. It is possible that a child travelling with its parents who has no relatives overseas could suffer the loss of its parents through their being killed in a car accident. The child is orphaned in Australia and has no near relative to make a claim on that child. This may be worth consideration. I believe that the Inter-Agency Migration Group has acted in good faith and that this matter should be considered. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.42) —I would be very disappointed if the group has not written to me, too, but I have to tell the House that this was not brought to my attention. If `abandoned' does not already cover the particular class mentioned, we will have to look at that next time the Bill is before the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(8.42) —I take the opportunity to clarify something that I said in my speech in relation to section 4 and I ask the Minister to readdress himself to the subject. I indicated while the Minister was speaking that he had misunderstood something I said. In fact, the notes with which he was provided by his Department or his staff had kaleidoscoped two things that I referred to. One related to the report from the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs on the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, and he said that I had put a view which I had ascribed to that Council. In fact, the view that I was putting at that stage was from the speech of the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), when he made a statement to the House on 6 May 1982 which initiated the review of the Citizenship Act. It is the report on this review that has been central to the debate here. I make that point by way of clarification. I have to say that I am disappointed that in the Minister's response on the subject of changes to the section on citizenship by birth, it is clear that he apparently has no knowledge of the suggestion made by the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on this subject, a suggestion made to make more humane the operation of this part of the Act. I found the Minister's comments on this subject altogether too cursory in that they skated over what the possibilities were. Obviously, the Minister is not going to accept that, but I ask him, since there will obviously be further reviews of this Act in the future on the basis of what he said this evening, to look at that suggestion again, because I feel that his amendment goes too far. On the subject of birth certificates, I am a little disappointed to be told that consultations have commenced on what will be the implications for the recording of births in Australia, given that it is State governments that are responsible for the recording of births. I accept that it is probable that the Minister felt that he could not wait for those consultations to finish in order to settle this issue of whether people who are illegal immigrants or have overstayed their visas and have children here, attempt to use the device of their Australian-born children as a way of stopping their deportation from this country. However, I simply suggest that it might have been better to wait until those bureaucratic difficulties-mentioned in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report to which I referred this afternoon-were further down the track. The Minister mentioned that there are presently categories of people who are excluded from claiming Australian citizenship because they were born here, categories of a very limited nature. I would be interested to know how those children are identified-I would think that those cases are extremely limited-and how their birth certificates are handled. I doubt that there is much use in those procedures for the situation that the Minister will face after this amendment. Under these circumstances, this amendment is premature, and we should have been better advised as to how this will operate, given that it has the potential to affect everyone born in Australia, including those born to Australian citizens. A birth certificate is important to people in respect of such things as obtaining a passport. If the situation arises in which a substantial number of children born in Australia are not entitled to Australian citizenship, a question mark will arise over the usefulness of a birth certificate showing a birth in Australia for those purposes. It may well be that the Minister has something very specific in mind. He did not give it to us in his second reading speech, and I, therefore, have to assume that it has not all been worked out and that this clause is therefore deficient. It is being introduced in advance of the Government's having worked out all its implications. Under those circumstances I do not believe that the Government should proceed. Perhaps the Minister would say that the amendment is necessary now to stop these applications for residence from illegal immigrants. I do not think that it is beyond the realm of the Government's power to announce that it will legislate to this effect in the future, and the legislation will be made retrospective to the date of the announcement-that is quite a common device in our laws, particularly in financial matters. Therefore, anybody now in Australia illegally or who has overstayed his or her visa and who has a thought of using that device to stay in Australia would be warned that a law would be passed by this Parliament which would render that device useless. I think that that was a possibility. It might also have given time for the sort of consultation that should have been undertaken on other aspects of the Bill; I am sure this will be debated further in the Committee stage. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.48) —The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has been building a lot of straw men in the course of her remarks. Of course before we brought such a measure as this to the House we looked at any administrative arrangements that are necessary in order to put into effect what is being put into the law. I have not resiled from the fact that it will be far better administered when we have entered into successful negotiations with the States so that the birth certificates themselves will show whether people are born of Australian citizenship, and, in time, that will be done. But the necessary tests can be now carried out by those who are issuing passports to ensure that people are Australian citizens before they are issued with passports. The honourable member need not concern herself with a lot of the worries that she has. These have been addressed in the administrative arrangements that we are putting in place. Clauses agreed to. Clause 7 (Persons may resume citizenship lost in certain circumstances). Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.49) —I move: (1) Clause 7, page 4, line 7, omit ``did not do'', insert ``had not done'' This is a technical amendment picked up by the Parliamentary Draftsman. Amendment agreed to. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.51) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 7, page 4, proposed sub-sub-paragraph 23aa (1) (b) (iv) (a), omit ``permanently'' (twice occurring). (2) Clause 7, page 4, lines 21-30, omit proposed sub-sub-paragraphs 23aa (1) (b) (B) and (C), substitute the following word and sub-sub-paragraph: ``; or (B) in a case where the person is not residing in Australia-to return to Australia; and''. The Opposition and the Government are not far apart in regard to the amendments each is proposing to clause 7. The only area of disagreement in regard to the amendments-one from the Government and two from the Opposition-relates to the amount of time that an Australian, who has lost his citizenship and who has then regained it under the provisions of this Bill, has to remain outside Australia before returning to Australia. The Minister is prescriptive in his approach and says that such people must return to Australia within a period of three years from the day on which their statements were first made. The Opposition does not consider this to be a reasonable approach. We have considered the matter carefully and consulted widely. We feel that citizens who inadvertently lost their citizenship by dint of the 1984 Act should not be treated differently from any other citizens of Australia who are overseas. It was through no fault, intent or action of their own that they lost their Australian citizenship. These people are mostly Australian citizens living in Israel who, under the law of return, Aliyah, had to apply within a period of three months to disclaim any wish to become citizens of Israel. Mr Donald Cameron —There are about 2,000 of them. Mr CADMAN —As the honourable member says, about 2,000 of them were stuck in the position of having lost their Australian citizenship, but of having had no intention of doing so. There are some sad and distressing stories of individuals who lost their citizenship in this way. There have been many newspaper accounts of people who feel that they were badly treated and deserve better treatment from their own country. These people were born in Australia. They were natural Australian citizens. I quote from a report in the Age of 20 December concerning Mrs Waysman, who was born in Australia. When she found out that she had inadvertently lost here Australian citizenship she said: I still feel very . . . Australian. I felt like I'd had a limb amputated when I found out I had to have a visitor's visa to go back to Australia where my family's roots go so deep. That would be the typical reaction of any person who felt that he or she had been poorly treated by an inadvertent effect of changes to the law in Australia. The amendments the Minister is now proposing to the Bill make some sort of sense out of it. There was no way in which the Opposition could have agreed with the Bill as it was originally presented. However, on examining the amendments the Minister now wants to make, it is our feeling that a limitation of time should not be placed on individuals who regain their citizenship by applying and making a statement to the Minister and the Minister then exercising his discretion. How are those people who have inadvertently lost their citizenship and are to have it restored by this Bill, when it becomes an Act of the Parliament, different from citizens who have not returned to Australia at all? It was not their intent to lose citizenship. It was not as a result of their action. They were not involved in any positive steps to lose it. We restore their citizenship by this Bill, properly and rightly, and then the Minister says that, unlike anybody else, these people ought to return to Australia within three years. It is not fair. It is not proper. The Minister has not explained, either in the explanatory notes or in the speech that he has circulated, why there is a need for this three-year limitation. There is no reason for it. We are talking about Aussies who have lost their citizenship under the 1984 Act. We are restoring that citizenship and now the Minister wants to apply to them a condition of time within which they have to return to Australia. I do not believe that we can tolerate this. We are talking about Australians. They have not taken steps to deny that they are Aussies. They have not taken steps in any way which would move them away from the mainstream of Australian life, or acted any differently from other Australians living overseas. I do not believe that the House should accept the Minister's proposal. The Opposition and the Government are close together in intent. The Government has seen the error of the original Bill. It has moved to correct that error in a sensible way. Not only has the Government moved to correct it formally, but it has moved informally to give the assurances that are necessary for the administration of the Bill to be carried out cleanly. It has moved to define areas that are left uncertain by the Bill, such as what `retaining appropriate contact with Australia' should be. I appreciate that. The Opposition appreciates it. I know that all the citizens who have been affected appreciate it. However, a small matter still rankles-the condition the Government is setting that these Australians have to return to Australia within three years. It is no good saying that they must only give an intention that they will return to Australia. What is the Government trying to do? Is it trying to encourage them to make false statements? Is it trying to say to them: `Wink wink, nod nod, sign this and you do not have to come back to Australia': Let us put it up front. Let us be honest about it and say: `If you are going to sign for a three-year limitation in the country where you are living and then requirement to return to Australia, we will apply that provision'. On the other hand, we should say: `We do not really think that condition is tenable. It was a thought that we had that would put some obligation on those individuals to show their real regard for Australia, to show their intention of continuing an association'. There is no need to do that. The Government has available to it other techniques which it has enunciated. It has enunciated with care and detail the way in which it wants these people to show a continuing contact, with regard for and intent towards Australia. It has clearly stated that. All that needs to be done at this point is to remove the three-year condition. It is a small thing and a proper thing to do for Australian citizens. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.00) —I am not sure whether the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs heard my speech at the second reading stage. I would not like to have to go through it and cover the whole ground again, but I do wish to reinforce briefly some of the points I made in that speech because I think it is important that we all understand that the nature of the Nationality Act in Israel-I understand there are one or two other places in which there are similar provisions; South Africa may be another place where provisions have a similar impact-is such that people lose their Australian citizenship in circumstances where they simply take up permanent residence in Israel to enable them to work. That is familiar to us because it happens with many people who come to Australia. They have no intention of giving up their citizenship of another country and we do not ask them to give up their citizenship. We say that they can come to Australia as a permanent resident but they are not Australian citizens. People do the same thing in Israel-they go there to work and have no intention of giving up their Australian citizenship-but the operation of the Nationality Act in Israel is such as to give them automatically Israeli citizenship unless, within a certain period of time, they disavow the intention of taking up Israeli citizenship; in other words, they opt to retain their Australian citizenship. That is a positive act that is required on their part. It is that positive act, the failure to take that additional step, which has meant that many people who were affected prior to the operation of this legislation and who believed that they would not lose their Australian citizenship have in fact lost their Australian citizenship. It is a result of inadvertence. It is a result of poor advice. The fact is that officers at our posts abroad believed that before 1984 people in those circumstances would not lose their Australian citizenship. The evidence for that is contained in the specific case study I mentioned in which our posts at Australia House and Tel Aviv registered as born to an Australian the children of a lady who it was determined later was not an Australian. The children of that lady were registered as Australians born overseas. They could only have been registered if the officers in the post-those people who are responsible for the administration of the law-looked at the information which was provided to them honestly and in a bona fide manner and accepted that this woman was an Australian citizen. Certainly in terms of the advice I have been given following talks with officials, it is generally recognised that before 1984 people were not thought to have lost their citizenship in those circumstances. We now know that there are a large number of people-the estimates are that there are as many as 2,000 people-who have not made a declaration in accordance with the Israeli Nationality Act. In many cases they would have believed that they were still entitled to keep and retain their Australian citizenship. There have been meetings in Israel of many hundreds of people concerned at the impact of the changes made to the Act in 1984. Those people sought, which is the approach that I thought the Minister would take, provisions by way of amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act that would simply provide that section 23aa would have retrospective effect to cover those people who thought they retained Australian citizenship and who have now found that it is lost to them. The Government has produced an amendment which contained a number of provisions but which, after being further amended, will simply impose one new condition. That new condition is that a person who applies overseas to have his citizenship restored will have to evidence an intention to return to Australia within three years. Of the 5,000 people in Israel amongst the 7,000 residents who were formerly Australian citizens there is a group of people who are entitled at any time to return to Australia but who do not have to return within a particular time. Their citizenship is not at risk unless they take some further action which brings them into conflict with the relevant parts of section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act. Provided they do nothing of that sort, they will retain their Australian citizenship. They might never return, but they will still be Australian citizens. That is one class of people. Those people who have lost their citizenship through poor advice or inadvertence and who we believe ought to have the capacity to have their citizenship restored have to satisfy another condition. That condition is that they will return within three years. I submit that the Minister is creating two classes of Australian citizens-those people who have taken up permanent residence in Israel and who have taken the further step of reciting that they do not wish to lose their Australian citizenship and the people who failed to do so and who will have to satisfy this additional provision. It not only imposes a very considerable hardship but also creates classes of citizenship, which I think is undesirable in that sense. It also means something for the people I described this afternoon as seeking to have a basis upon which they could return to Australia in the event of significant and changed circumstances in Israel. There would be a group of people who were born in Australia and who would be able to return and there would be a group of people who were born in Australia or who had taken out Australian citizenship previously and who would not be able to return. I do not think that is fair in any sense whatever. While I do not believe it is appropriate that we should be guided by what other countries are doing except by way of analogy-I do not think we have necessarily to adopt their laws-I think it is important for the Minister to note that other countries which have a similar legal background to our own and which disavow the concept of dual citizenship, countries such as Canada and Britain- Mr Hurford —Canada does not disavow dual citizenship. Mr RUDDOCK —As I understand it and as I recited this afternoon, it has a similar provision-section 15(1) of its code-which provides in similar terms to section 17 as it operated before 1984 for citizenship to be forfeited where people take a particular step. Mr Hurford —I responded to you in my reply to the second reading debate. You should have heard that. Mr RUDDOCK —I apologise if that was the case. I was in a Party meeting, as the Minister might know. I would not normally miss the opportunity of hearing the Minister's contributions, particularly when they are responding to mine. I will read those comments with interest because if they do not in any way answer mine, perhaps I will be given an opportunity to make them again and we can have a further tete a tete. The fact is that the Canadian provision was a very similar operation to our own before 1984. As I understand it, in terms of the interpretation given by the Canadian Registrar, Canada does not revoke the citizenship of a Canadian in the circumstances where we revoke the citizenship of an Australian. I think that is another reason why we ought to have an element of consistency in the approach we take and why we ought to ensure that there are no double standards in relation to these matters. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.10) —The Government cannot accept this amendment but it accepts the objective that is sought to be achieved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). In my second reading speech over two weeks ago I indicated that the Government was giving further study to the contention that the requirement that a person should intend to return to live permanently in Australia may be unduly onerous as it is drawn in the Bill that was first brought to this Parliament. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I have taken wide counsel on this matter. I have had discussions with leaders of the Jewish community. The Committee will know, because I have given ample evidence, that I intend to move shortly a Government amendment. It will make redundant the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell because it removes certain words that are removed in that wider amendment. To be fair to the Committee I should anticipate my amendment and explain why I will seek the support of the Committee for that amendment. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister is stretching the line by anticipating this. But I imagine that in the terms of the debate the Committee is interested. Mr Cadman —It would be useful to have some explanation. Mr HURFORD —I would be disappointed, Mr Chairman, if I could not ask you to review your interpretation. The CHAIRMAN —I said that I think in the interests of the debate that the matter is in order. Mr HURFORD —Thank you, Mr Chairman. The fact is that when I move the amendment I will do so because on the examination that I promised I would make I have concluded that the provisions of clause 7 would operate against some former Australians who, as we all know, wish to resume their citizenship, for example, those who will return but expect to again depart to live or work overseas for brief periods. To this extent, we are at one because we all want to make sure that those people are not penalised. To overcome this consistency in application the amendment that I propose to clause 7 will delete the requirement that a person must provide evidence of intention that he or she will either continue to live permanently in Australia or will return to live permanently in Australia. We are at one there, too. In summary, the Bill as amended will provide that persons who have lost their Australian citizenship-here is the important part because I believe that this extra part is what the House would want to hear-can apply to resume it provided they are able to show that they would have suffered significant hardship if they did not acquire the foreign citizenship. Indeed, I explain that many people who go to Israel, and apply for permanent residence in Israel, thereby getting citizenship in Israel, lose their Australian citizenship accordingly. They are doing this not only because that is the law in Israel but also because they need Israeli citizenship in order to carry out a lot of the vocations in Israel. As I understand it Israeli nationality is required for a person to work in an Israeli hospital. Doctors who decide to leave Australia and give some of their working life to Israel would require Israeli citizenship to carry out that calling. I will go back over the various elements. They would suffer significant hardship if they did not acquire the foreign Citizenship. That point would apply to them. Significant hardship would be suffered by those who did not know when acquiring that citizenship that they would lose their Australian citizenship. That situation applies to many people, as we know, including those in these categories: Those who (a), have resided lawfully in Australia for at least two years; (b), intend to continue to reside in Australia or to return to Australia within three years to reside here-I will come back to the point of why I think that time limit is necessary in a moment-or, (c), they have maintained a close and continuing association with Australia. In relation to the last of these requirements, it is envisaged-it is very important that this is in the public record-that the `close and continuing association' requirement will be interpreted liberally so as not to pose an obstacle to resumption of citizenship in cases where individuals have maintained any form of close association with Australia. It is of course impossible to define all the circumstances in which an individual will satisfy the test of having `maintained a close and continuing association with Australia'. I believe that the test will generally be satisfied where the individual (a) has family or relatives living in Australia and is able to demonstrate that he or she has maintained contacts with them by correspondence, telephone or by visits to them in Australia or visits to him or her; or, (b), is able to demonstrate that he or she maintains significant economic, financial or business interests within Australia; or, (c), maintains friendships with residents in Australia and visits them in Australia from time to time. I believe, particularly after the discussions I have had with leaders of the Jewish community, that the proposed amendment which I will move shortly will operate without discrimination to former Australians and should therefore receive the support of the Committee. It is not sufficient that I should just say that but I should also respond to the points made by the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). My advice is that a time limit is necessary; otherwise the requirement means nothing. To make a commitment to return in say 20 years, leave alone an unlimited return time as is proposed in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell, in reality is no commitment at all. Three years has been chosen as a reasonable period. In addition, that period coincides with the three-year period within which a permanent resident who leaves Australia with a return endorsement must return to Australia. I will go over that again. Mr Cadman —A permanent resident, not a citizen? Mr HURFORD —Yes, a permanent resident. Of course, a citizen can come back-there must be some consistency-whereas a permanent resident in this country can have a return endorsement for only three years. There has to be balance in this matter as well. Honourable members should remember that we are talking about people who are often giving virtually the best years of their lives to another country. They require some consideration which we are giving but too many cases have come to my notice, and I am sure will have come to the notice of previous Ministers for immigration, in which Australian passports are being abused, where people have no commitment to this country whatsoever and are using those passports around the world for their own benefit. I hope honourable members realise that fact and that anything we put into the law applies not only to the Israelis, for whom we have sympathy and whose leaders we have been in contact with in arriving at this solution, but to everyone. I urge the Committee to see reason and to recognise-this is no great criticism of the honourable member for Mitchell; he does not have the resources that I have in matters such as this-that we really have come to a sensible balance. To save later debate in Committee, because I will only formally move my amendments-if we get that far-I will read into the public record the letter that I have written to the President of the State Zionist Council of Victoria which gives even further commitments from the Government regarding unfortunate circumstances of these Israelis. I have referred to discussions with Mr Mark Leibler. I stated: . . . concerning the question of Australian Jews in Israel who were advised, or understood, prior to 29 July 1981- I will come back to that point. I make the point in passing that this administrative arrangement was messed up in this way in the years when those in opposition were in government. There is a reason why 29 July 1981 is an important date. But I continue: . . . that they had not lost their Australian citizenship when they acquired an Israeli resident visa. I wish to confirm that I would be prepared to exercise my discretion under section 32 of the Australian Citizenship Act to grant them certificates of citizenship so as to remove any doubt as to whether they are in fact Australian citizens. It continues: Because of the advice provided, I do not believe it to be clear that the act which they did at that time was `voluntary'; that is, with correct advice they may have been unwilling to undertake the act. In order to avail themselves of that discretion, it would only be necessary to apply formally to the Department for the necessary certificate. It would not be necessary to comply with the conditions specified in section 23AA. Australian-born children of these people and children born overseas prior to 29 July 1981 may be included in the section 32 certificate provided, in the case of those born overseas, their parents registered their birth with the relevant post to acquire citizenship by descent. Children born subsequent to 29 July 1981 would have not been registered and would therefore not have acquired Australian citizenship. The resumption provisions of section 23AA could not apply. So as not to penalise these children I would be prepared in appropriate cases to exercise my discretion under section 13 (9) of the Act to grant them citizenship in their own right upon application to my Department. Finally, let me say that, consistent with the Government's objectives and policy as outlined in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986, my associated statements to Parliament, and this letter, I shall give sympathetic consideration to anomalous individual cases, if any arise. In summary, we are now talking only about people who lost their citizenship after 29 July 1981. It is a fact that that date is applicable because that is the date on which our Embassy in Tel Aviv learned unequivocally from the then Administration of the parties of honourable members opposite that the Israelis who gained Israeli citizenship lost Australian citizenship. However, in these amendments, we are facilitating their regaining their Australian citizenship provided that they have a commitment to this country. I have not been able to explain that in detail to all honourable members who are interested in this subject but I hope, now that I have done that, and explained why I will move my amendments in the form in which I will move them, that these amendments will be withdrawn or, if not, just allowed to be disagreed with on the voices, so that we can move to the Government amendments which are well thought through. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.23) —I appreciate what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) has just said. There are a couple of points that I would like to make in response. First of all, he is correct in trying not to confine this particular part of the debate to Israel. It just happens that the law of Israel has impacted upon the law of Australia in a way that has affected some 7,000 Australians who happen to be Jewish and who happen, therefore, to be caught under the law of Israel. I do not think anyone listening to this debate ought to think that, therefore, we are making a judgment to assist Australian Jews. It just happens that they are the ones immediately affected. There are a number of aspects about these amendments with which I agree, especially those relating to marriage. When I was the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs I had to exercise judgments often about the way in which Australians through no voluntary act, really, but just by the act of marriage to a male of another nationality, had by the law of that country surrendered their Australian citizenship, or at least had become citizens of the other country and as such had lost, under our laws, their Australian citizenship. One was then faced with the issue whether to allow them to migrate back to Australia in the event that they became widowed or separated. I am pleased that that state of affairs has been improved. I am also delighted that the Minister has now placed on record the letter that he is writing to Mr Leibler. I commend the Minister for doing that. It will probably put at rest the unease now in the minds of a number of Australians of Jewish faith who happen to enjoy being Australian but who feel a commitment to and manifest that commitment by going to live in Israel for lengthy periods and have, therefore, been caught up with the law and the administrative arrangements to which the Minister has referred. I must say that the period to which he referred was my period as Minister and I must say that I was not aware of these administrative arrangements that were then apparently made. I take the Minister up on one point. He speaks of liberalising the term `close and continuing association'. He says that he will interpret it liberally so as not to pose an obstacle to resumption of citizenship in cases where individuals have maintained any form of close association with Australia. He said: `It is of course impossible to define all the circumstances in which an individual will satisfy the test of having maintained a close and continuing association with Australia'. Of course, I agree entirely with the Minister's observation. He then went on to outline a general test. I suggest to him that he must have some sort of general test and guideline to look at when he is exercising his discretion. Knowing the Minister reasonably well but speaking from experience, I suspect that what he has now set out will not be a sufficient test or guideline in many of the cases before him. Frankly, that is the reason why I, speaking from experience, still support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) to remove the time limit. Mr Chairman, you used to come to me with representations on behalf of your constituents and I do not doubt that you go to the present Minister. One has to make judgments. We and the officers of the Department become skilled in assessing the bona fides of people. But I think this test is too tight. I am bound to observe that this has not been the most splendid piece of draftsmanship. First of all, we had the amendments put through by the Minister's predecessor, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West). Secondly, I must say that when I picked up the Bill now before us I found all sorts of things that I thought were wrong. I then found that several of my colleagues had picked up those things, and so had the Minister. The Minister then came in with further amendments. As the honourable member for Mitchell has rightly said, there is not much difference between the views of the Minister and the shadow Minister. The only point of difference appears to be in the need to set a time limit for determining the bona fides of somebody who is Australian but who happens to have gone abroad and the country in which that person has settled has a law which somehow or other conscripts that person into changing his nationality involuntarily and, I am bound to say, informally. The clause before us refers to a formal act. The mere fact of being, in this case, in Israel is voluntary, yes, but it is not a formal act. We are putting a number of unnecessary complications in our own way by this kind of amendment to the Act. Therefore, I support the amendment to the Bill moved by the honourable member for Mitchell because I think it is also a challenge to our maturity as a nation. Having been to Israel-this happens to be the case that has come before us, but I stress that it is not the only case-I can say that I met many Australians, including many from my own electorate, who were working in various ways. Some were on kibbutzes; that is true. Some were working for medical research foundations and other scientific and technical research institutions. Some were working in national security activities. As the Minister observed, some were working in hospitals and were obliged under Israeli law to be Israeli citizens. It is terribly important that we recognise the country to which they have a religious and cultural commitment but of which they do not intend to become permanent residents or citizens in the strict sense; their affinity with that country is far more of a cultural and religious nature. They are Australians who happen to have that commitment over and above that which most of us have to the country of our antecedents or the antecedents of our parents or grandparents. These people are doing something that they think is important, and it is important. They are acquiring knowledge in a country which is surrounded by enemies and which therefore adopts security laws which impact upon the citizenship of Australians who may actually be resident there. We have to be part of the world, in more ways than one, and be very mature in the way we look at that matter. Imposing a three-year time limit is not the way to go. Let me give one example from another country. Sir William Heseltine is now Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen. Whether she be the Queen of Australia, the Queen of England, the Queen of Granada or the Queen of all the other countries of the Commonwealth that bestow that title upon her, it just happens that her Private Secretary is an Australian. He comes here when Her Majesty comes here. He may come over and above that; for his annual holidays to see his family and friends. He has on every basis a close and continuing association with Australia; he is proud to have his Australian passport. He may well have some sort of UK passport-I have no idea-because the UK does allow that. I do not know what his entitlement to a UK passport would be. The important point is that he is an Australian and he feels himself to be Australian. The test ultimately is what people feel themselves to be. The Australians I met in Israel were no less Australian for having committed themselves for a period of time in their lives to work in Israel. Whether it was three years, six years or thirty years really does not matter. They are no less Australian in the end; they feel that they are Australian. We know of so many people who have migrated to this country and who now, at the age of 65 or 70 years, go to citizenship ceremonies because their children and grandchildren are here and at last they feel they will never return to the country of their origin. It is how people feel that matters. We get to know when there are subterfuges, when there is deceit, and we get to know when people are genuine. While our officials in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are not always right, because they are human beings, they are right more often than they are generally given credit for and I think that their capacity to work with their Minister in a liberal interpretation of this close and continuing association test will be a great one. On the basis of their judgment and their capacity and the problems which I know to exist in Israel but which will exist also from time to time in other countries in which Australians feel some commitment, I support the amendment moved by my colleague which effectively deletes the time limit. I put it to the Minister very seriously that he is achieving nothing by imposing a three-year time limit. He is doing nothing other than obliging people to spend an air fare to come back here for a short period and then go back to the country whence they have come. I have had five continuous years away from this country but I was no less Australian for that. It just happened that the two countries in which I resided during that five years did not have laws that obliged me to become a citizen. What an incredible situation one would have been in if one had had to go through the rigmarole-with due respect to the Minister, liberalised as it might be compared to the original legislation-in the Bill which he now puts before us. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.33) —I support the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) but as the debate on these amendments has ranged beyond the amendments to this clause I hope to have the indulgence of the Chair to engage in like remarks. The CHAIRMAN —To keep the debate on the clause in context the Minister was allowed to anticipate. I hope that the honourable member for Sturt might keep to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mitchell, and if he wishes to debate the amendment that the Minister is to put forward he might address it when the Minister does so. Under those general guidelines he may continue. Mr WILSON —I understood that people were addressing themselves to the clause but if that is not the case I will wait until the Minister's amendment. However, I support very much the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell. This time limit should be removed. I support the arguments he has advanced. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.34) —Mr Chairman, I do not in any way wish to canvass your ruling because I want to address my remarks to the amendment of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). In doing so I will by analogy draw some inferences from the comments that the Minister himself made because I think that they were also made in the context of the debate on the amendment of the honourable member for Mitchell. The CHAIRMAN —Would it help the Committee and the honourable member for Dundas if that were dealt with when the Minister moves his amendment? Mr RUDDOCK —It is very difficult because I want to relate to the Minister's argument when discussing why the honourable member for Mitchell's amendment should be preferred. The CHAIRMAN —I realise that but I also have to be fair to the honourable member for Sturt. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes; my view would be that we ought to treat the whole matter as a cognate debate. Mr Cadman —Mr Chairman, it may please the Committee if we have such a debate now but may not debate the Minister's amendment when we come to it. The CHAIRMAN —There are five amendments to clause 7-three moved by the honourable member for Mitchell and two to be moved by the Minister. If it suits the Committee we could have a wider debate and both the honourable member for Mitchell and the Minister could come back into that debate. Mr Cadman —One of my amendments is not really related to the matter currently under discussion. The CHAIRMAN —We are talking about the first two Opposition amendments and the first Government amendment. Would the honourable member for Dundas mind if I recalled the honourable member for Sturt? Mr RUDDOCK —I am happy with that. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.36) —I want to take part in this element of the debate because the legislation brought before us by the Government is very narrow and inadequate and although it could be made somewhat wider by the proposal of the honourable member for Mitchell, which I support, it is, nevertheless, a band-aid approach to the problem. It does not in any way anticipate the sorts of circumstances that could arise. For example, I refer to a former German citizen who takes up Australian citizenship. German law is somewhat similar to ours, but even if it is not let us consider the hypothetical case that Germany passes legislation not in relation to Australia but generally that says that when a former German national born in Germany returns to that country that act of returning regains him his German citizenship. That would then re-confer upon that former national pensions which are forfeited as a consequence of losing German citizenship. How then would this apply? We would say that those people who have lived in Australia a long time would have within three years to go through a technical and formal procedure in order to regain Australian citizenship. This would apply even though their family and home were here and their return to Germany was for a long working holiday or even just a retirement holiday. In that regard the Minister's legislation is far too narrow in trying to achieve its particular objective but also it is totally inadequate in addressing the problems of the type I have instanced. As I mentioned earlier, in the second reading debate, the nationality laws of countries are based upon their domestic law, and the rules governing nationality generally range from an automatic loss of former nationality on the acquisition of another to making it impossible to surrender a former nationality. We adopt the view-wrongly I believe-of automatic forfeiture however that other nationality is acquired. Some countries make it impossible for their citizens to lose their nationality and there is a large group of countries in the middle that make their citizens go through a formal act under the domestic law of the country whose citizenship they are giving up, so that the appearance of giving up citizenship at one of our citizenship ceremonies, not being an active law under the country of birth, is not regarded as the giving up of citizenship. As a consequence of that and our being a migrant receiving country, well over 60 per cent of overseas-born Australians who have taken up Australian citizenship have dual nationality. Thus those Australian citizens have a whole range of choices. I will not go through the advantages that they have because I outlined them in an earlier debate. However, I want to emphasise the fact that someone with dual nationality who, for example, is going on a holiday to the United Kingdom, someone born in the United Kingdom or with United Kingdom citizenship because of some patriality arrangement, can leave Australia on an Australian passport, enter the United Kingdom on a United Kingdom passport, leave the United Kingdom on a United Kingdom passport and return to Australia on an Australian passport. Why should not that be so for someone who was born in Australia and who, in appropriate circumstances, applies for citizenship in another country? Earlier I instanced the sort of amendment that I would like to see made to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, probably as clause 6A, to amend section 17 of the principal Act for the purpose of following the present procedure of having the act of acquiring the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country to cause the cessation of Australian citizenship but then to expand the area of exceptions. The present exception is an act of marriage. A person does not forfeit Australian citizenship if that person acquires another citizenship as a consequence of an act of marriage. I would like to see added to that a further exception and that would be the acquisition of the nationality or citizenship of a prescribed foreign country. If we had prescribed Israel or Germany-I gave an hypothetical illustration-that problem would not arise. If the Australian Citizenship Act were amended in that way it would be necessary to the extent that it would continue to be desirable to have resumption of citizenship proceedings to cover those countries that had not been prescribed under our legislation. It would then be necessary for the changes to this section of the Act to be amended in a consequential way for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed paragraph 23AA (1) (a) to read: (i) has done a voluntary and formal act, other than marriage, by virtue of which the person acquired the nationality or citizenship of a country other than a prescribed country or other than Australia; or (ii) has done any act or thing- (A) the sole or dominant purpose of which; and (B) the effect of which, was or is to acquire the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country other than a prescribed country, being an act or thing that resulted in the person ceasing to be an Australian citizen; I have urged the Minister to look at that matter. He touched on it very lightly in his response in an earlier debate. I conclude by quoting an article entitled `A note on the problem of dual nationality' by Anthony Bergin, a lecturer in politics at the Royal Australian Naval College. He stated: Similarly the International Law Commission has not pursued the question and in 1954 decided to `defer any further consideration of multiple nationality and other questions relating to nationality'. He continued: One need not adopt too cynical a view of the effectiveness of international negotiations to suggest that the chances of any international conference abolishing dual nationality by adopting a single principle for the conferring of nationality at birth are fairly remote. Indeed it is for precisely this reason that it would appear far easier to obtain an agreement between two states that acknowledges the existence of dual nationality . . . I urge that we should acknowledge the existence of dual nationality in a de jure way, not in a de facto way, so that we are able to seek to regulate the resulting difficulties rather than to discover some international formula which would radically restrict State powers to legislate in this area. I recognise, as did the author I have just quoted, that bilateral agreements may not be easy to negotiate with those major countries from which Australia takes migrants because very few of them are parties to the Hague convention in which there was a declaration of belief in single citizenship or nationality. Many of the countries which signed that convention have denied their commitment to that principle by having legislation that recognises dual nationality by virtue of the fact that citizenship of their countries is not forfeited automatically if a person takes up citizenship of another country. I would have liked to see this band-aid measure replaced by a full-blooded change in our approach to the problems that affect a small number of people who have returned to Israel and who, by working in an Israeli hospital or living in an Israeli kibbutz, have had Israeli citizenship conferred upon them in circumstances where, but for that, they would have suffered detriment or where citizenship was conferred on them without their knowledge. People should not forfeit their citizenship in those circumstances. Because the amendment of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) is much wider and addresses the problem in a more comprehensive fashion than the Government's proposal, I strongly support the honourable member for Mitchell. However, I urge the Government on some future appropriate occasion to make some comprehensive amendments to this law so that Australians who are born here can have the same opportunities and benefits from dual citizenship. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.47) —I welcome very much the contribution of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) to the debate because it advanced the discussion somewhat. He provided information of which I was not previously aware and which has some influence, but not complete influence, on my thinking in relation to this matter. The Minister made it clear in his speech that he will exercise certain discretions that he has under section 32 of the Australian Citizenship Act and also under section 13 (9) relating to minors. He indicated in the letter he read into Hansard that he had written to Mr Mark Leibler that he will exercise that discretion in relation to those who lost their citizenship before 29 July 1981, that being the date upon which the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs became aware that it was giving incorrect advice and presumably formed the view that the operation of the Nationality Act in Israel was such that it would put at risk the citizenship of Australians who had gone through the processes that I described earlier. I do not believe that 29 July is such a magic date. It may well be that if somebody had gone to the Department after that date and asked for some advice he would have been given different advice. People do not overcome their ignorance of the law merely because departments, at a particular date, start giving correct advice. Very often they get advice from friends, people who have made inquiries at an earlier date, and organisations. It takes a while before the correct approach starts to become known. Certainly this question did not become a cause celebre amongst Australians in Israel until fairly recently. If we are going to exercise a discretion under section 32 and section 13 (9) the operative date ought not to be 29 July 1981 because that is when the Department got its house in order. The operative date ought to be the date upon which people could reasonably be expected to know that their citizenship was at risk. I am also disappointed in the sense that we have come to this decision late in the day. The Minister knows that I have been raising this question for approximately 12 months. This was not an approach that the Minister was prepared to exercise in relation to the constituent who would not be affected by the provisions that we are proposing to implement in this case because she was resident again in Australia. However, she has had to take out permanent residence again. I would like to know whether or not her difficulty, as it was, might be addressed now by giving to her the same opportunity that the Minister is intending to give to others. Amongst those people whom I met recently in Israel-one of the reasons I have an interest in this matter is because of the recent opportunity I have had to discuss the question in Israel-were representatives of the National Council of the Hitahtud Olei Australia. I know that they were more keen not to have their citizenship restored, as it were, by a fresh application but rather that the Minister operate as he is proposing by way of a declaratory statement. It would seem to me that it would go a long way towards overcoming the problems if the Minister were prepared to make the undertaking that he has given Mr Leibler, one that would be of wider operation than the amendments in 1984 or perhaps the amendments that are operating now. I hasten the Minister, if he is mindful, to look at a further compromise to raise with my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), and that is the question of the undertaking he has given to Mr Leibler and as to whether a further undertaking can be given to extend the operation because I think that would address the immediate problem. It does not overcome the question of principle which I addressed in my first speech; that is, the problem that we have of two classes of citizen. Nevertheless, in terms of the large numbers of people involved-2,000 odd in Israel in particular-the Minister's willingness to extend the undertaking that he has given to Mr Leibler to 1984 or to these amendments in particular would address the problems of the large number of people that we have identified. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.53) —I wish very briefly to answer that one point. I am advised that I am unable, under section 32 of the Act, to exercise my discretion beyond 29 July because it was at that date that the Embassy in Tel Aviv and, through the Embassy, the people concerned, were made fully aware of what their citizenship circumstances were and that, if they took certain actions, they would lose their citizenship. Therefore, I am advised that I would be unable to apply my discretion after that. That is the reason why. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.54) —The Opposition cannot endorse the Minister's statements and therefore, regrettably, we will be dividing on this clause because we feel there is some separateness, some division, some discrimination amongst Australian citizens. It does not matter what their nationality is or what the circumstances are, we cannot have that. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Cadman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D, P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth. R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Gorman, R. N. J. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: Clause 7, page 4, lines 17 to 30, omit proposed sub-paragraph 23AA (1) (b) (iv), insert the following sub-paragraph: ``(iv) intends that- (A) if the person again becomes an Australian citizen and is residing in Australia at the time when the person so becomes an Australian citizen, the person will continue to reside in Australia after so becoming an Australian citizen; or (B) if the person again becomes an Australian citizen and is not residing in Australia at the time when the person so becomes an Australian citizen, the person will commence to reside in Australia after so becoming an Australian citizen and before the expiration of the period of 3 years commencing on the day on which the statement is made; and''. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.04) —I move: Clause 7, page 4, lines 40 and 41, omit ``hardship or detriment of an economic nature'', substitute ``significant hardship or detriment''. I shall be brief. I need to point out to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) and to place on record the concern I have raised with departmental officers regarding consistency between two aspects of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that people seeking to have their citizenship re-instated need to make a statement concerning the state of their finances. Clause 7 (b) (i) refers to a person who `would have suffered significant hardship or detriment'. I contend that in this instance the statement made by the person making an application is fairly wide. The Minister in his discretion considers the matter more narrowly and specifically on the grounds of economic detriment or economic hardship. The Opposition feels that this is an improper and inconsistent approach and has moved this amendment to that effect. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.06) —The Government cannot accept this amendment. There is no limitation on the kind of hardship or detriment that may be alleged. The threat might be in the form of a threat of physical injury or death or loss of liberty. As the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has had explained to him, there are good reasons, because of implications of consistency, as to why we are obliged to oppose the amendment. I am now in receipt of a letter from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel about this issue, and I am prepared to make a copy available to the honourable member rather than to detain the Committee by reading it now. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to. Clause 9 (Review of decisions). Amendment (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: Clause 9, page 6, line 7, omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(b) by omitting from paragraph (1) (e) `(2) refusing to register a declaration' and substituting `(1) refusing to register a declaration or (2) refusing to include the name of a child in a declaration'.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 (Schedule 2). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.08) —The Opposition opposes this clause on two grounds. The first ground is the Government's contention that to prevent confusion persons need not repeat their names when they make an oath or affirmation. The second ground on which we oppose the clause is that the Bill removes the need to renounce all other allegiances. Many aspects of this proposal have been debated in the House today. Despite what has been said, there has been no consultation with any section of the community. The only consultation that has taken place in regard to this proposal to remove the need for a person to say their name and the removal of the renunciation of all other allegiance was done in 1982 at the instigation of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). The Government has not chosen to follow the recommendations of those consultations, which made clear that clarification of the oath was all that was needed rather than a removal of any words. Perhaps there could have been a reordering of the words, but certainly clarification was the most desirable resolution of the matter. Instead, the Government has chosen to follow the Human Rights Commission whose reports, beginning in 1982, consistently recommended that the renunciation of all other allegiance be removed from the Australian oath. There are many suggestions as to the way in which these provisions could be improved. The Minister is aware of those suggestions. The Minister has not seen fit to consult the coalition parties or the community, and that is deplorable. The Government is fully aware of the resistance of the Australian community when previously proposals were put forward by the Australian Labor Party to change the terms of the oath and the affirmation. Why is there a need for secrecy on a matter such as this? Two weeks ago we were made aware of this legislation and we were made aware that there was going to be a change to the oath. I do not think that that is proper consultation, and I do not think that it is the way we should deal with an important matter such as the stating of a person's name in regard to Australian citizenship. It seems to me that this Government, on the one hand, is run by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and, in this instance, by the Human Rights Commission. It is a critical factor that a name must be stated. I reiterate it. It was not some flippant remark that was made by the Queen's Counsel from Tasmania, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman); it was a factual comment that he made. There is need for a personal identification by the candidate so that he is making a conscious act to link himself or herself with the substance of the solemn promise which follows his or her name. That is the purpose of any oath-so that there can be no doubt that that person is the person committing himself. It will not stand up that the removal of the name does not weaken the oath or affirmation. It certainly does so. The alternatives that the Government could have looked for are so simple and so easy. There is no denial of cultural tradition by the renunciation of allegiance. I quote the first few words of the American oath: . . . to support the Constitution of the United States and to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to a foreign place. That is a positive statement followed by the renunciation. That is what the Opposition feels is by far the best approach to this matter. The Opposition has examined the matter closely and feels that alternative words, such as those laid down in the consultation report, could easily be developed with care and consideration. If it is possible, Mr Chairman, I wish to have printed in Hansard three alternative forms of oath. They are short, they are in type, and they should be easily reproduced. The CHAIRMAN —Unfortunately, the rules as laid down by the Speaker are that only tabulated matter can be incorporated. Mr CADMAN —I will read them, and thus delay the House. The CHAIRMAN —Those are the rules. The honourable member may read them if he wishes. Mr CADMAN —Mr Chairman, I think that this is an absurd ruling of the Speaker, and I wish that you would take it up with the Speaker. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member shall not reflect on rulings by the Speaker. He has been a member of this House for a long while and is aware of the rules laid down by the Chair in relation to incorporation of matter into Hansard. Mr CADMAN —Mr Chairman, I do not reflect on the Speaker; I reflect on the ruling. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will withdraw. It is not possible to separate the two. The honourable member will withdraw, and then he may read into Hansard what he wishes to illustrate. Mr CADMAN —I withdraw. There are three possible forms of oath or affirmation which would resolve the problems that the Minister has raised-spuriously, I believe-about the need to reject the current form of words. It is a simple matter and yet some charging, innovative crusader on the Labor Party benches is going to change the whole concept of the Australian oath and affirmation. It is not good enough. We have a legal entity, and we have a character. We are proud of them. We cannot, as a nation, put ourselves in a position in which all of the disparate forces that have, from an external point, an influence on an Australian individual can be accommodated in our oath. The simple fact is that I have commitments, other members have commitments, and other citizens have commitments. We understand that some of our citizens feel an obligation or commitment to a country of birth. We cannot allow that sense of an individual personal commitment to be reflected in our national life. We cannot, by the processes of citizenship, allow the continuation of circumstances in which an individual does not commit himself first of all to Australia. The oath can be easily fixed. I am so disappointed with the Minister, and I am disappointed with the Speaker's ruling, Mr Chairman, because I think it would be of benefit to the Parliament to compare various forms of oath. Honourable members would then see that any problems can be easily resolved. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member may table the documents. Mr CADMAN —But they will not be printed. The CHAIRMAN —No. Mr CADMAN —That is what I should like to see. The Opposition opposes this measure and will vote against it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The question is: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Did the honourable member for Mitchell intend to read those forms of oath into Hansard? Mr Cadman-No. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.16) —I rise to draw attention to some statements that have been made in debate relevant to the subject of the changing of the wording of the oath and affirmation of allegiance. I do not intend to reiterate all the points I made in my speech on the second reading motion, but the reply that the Minister gave was quite unsatisfactory. The Minister's argument seems to revolve largely around the report from the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship. I address my comments to the subject that the proposed oath and affirmation will remove the requirement of a candidate to renounce all other allegiances. I referred at the second reading stage to sections of the report on National Consultations, which I shall not now repeat. However, I want to extend some quotations from the report to point out how incorrect the Minister is when he indicates that this report is in any way responsible for this changing of the oath and affirmation. The report suggested two alternative forms of the oath of allegiance, and I quote them. The first suggestion is: I pledge allegiance to and swear to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia and I renounce all other national legal obligations. The second suggestion is: I renounce and abandon all allegiances, if any, to any foreign state and swear- And it continues. This suggested rewording, covers other points such as removal from the oath and the affirmation of reference to the Queen. Nevertheless, these national consultations did not support removal of that requirement to renounce other allegiances. The point is made in the body of the report that there was a suggestion that it was not good that the renunciation be as negative as it is in the present oath or affirmation. If that were the sort of change that was being proposed I, for one, would not object to it. But that is not what is being proposed. It is being proposed that this renunciation be removed altogether; not that it be clarified, as recommended in the report; not that it be reworded so that it overcomes the objections-which I do not believe are there, but some people think are there-relating to renouncing cultural heritage. I do not know where this revision came from. For all I know it came out of the Minister's head. Or maybe it came from someone in his office, or somebody in his Department. But to my knowledge, this suggestion in this Bill does not appear in any public document dealing with this subject. Its origins are unknown to this House. The Minister in his second reading speech attempted to imply that the national consultations were in some way responsible for it. That is quite false. Mr Hodges —Misleading. Mrs SULLIVAN —It is misleading, as the honourable member for Petrie says. These national consultations were wide-ranging and thorough. One takes them as being a reflection of views expressed by people who had an interest and a concern in the matter. Their summary view is contrary to the view the Minister is putting. I think the Minister owes this Committee an explanation as to why he is putting forward an important change in the wording of the oath and affirmation of allegiance which is not supported by the national consultations or, so far as I know, by any general public wish. The origins of the change are, at this moment, anonymous. We deserve a better explanation than we have had as to why we should take this significant step. I think it is important that there be either a statement pledging allegiance in positive terms or a rewording of the renunciation so as to remove any ambiguity. I believe that most people would argee. Very clearly, those in our migrant communities who were interested enough to involve themselves in changes to the Citizenship Act agree with me and not with the Minister. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.22) —I support entirely what my friend the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has just said. The issue is quite simple. Two concepts are involved. One concept is the renunciation of other allegiances of a political character-allegiances to a sovereign other than the Australian sovereign. The second concept is a commitment to Australia. As a matter of logic, the law as it now stands asks people to renounce their other political allegiance and to accept and affirm their commitment to Australia as Australian nationals. It is true, as the Minister has said, that many people misunderstand the current wording. The current wording is `renounce all other allegiances'. As the Minister rightly says, many people whose first language is not English interpret `all other allegiances'-even when it is explained to them-to mean their entire cultural heritage. I have heard that and I accept that that is the perception people have. There is no question about that. The advice that I was given by the forerunner of the committee from whose report the honourable member for Moncrieff has quoted was to reverse the order of the oath or affirmation. At some point or other, Cabinet records will reveal that that proposal had some attraction. That is all the Minister needs to do. One does not have to follow literal logic. One can simply reverse the order of the oath or affirmation and say the positive thing, which is the commitment to Australia, and then the negative thing, which is the renunciation of political allegiance to another country. We make a positive commitment to the Government of Australia, that is, to the Constitution. We commit ourselves under the Constitution to the sovereign of Australia and to the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution of Australia. Having committed themselves to that, people understand that what they are then renouncing is something similar in relation to another country. They are not renouncing their culture. They are renouncing their political and national allegiance. Mr Dobie —And they know it. Mr MACPHEE —They do know it. There is no question. They have made a commitment to Australia in a political sense. They are in no way disowning their former cultural heritage. They know that when they make a renunciation it is as specific as the commitment they make to Australia. We all know that when they become Australians they enrich Australia so much with their cultural heritage. They would also know that they were not denying that heritage when they made a renunciation if we simply reversed the order. I put it to the Minister that the honourable member for Moncrieff is right. No advice that this Government or the previous Government has received from the Australian community has been in support of what the Minister is now putting to this House. On the contrary, the advice is that if we reversed the order of the two concepts we would essentially achieve what is fair and acceptable to those who are asked to take the oath or make the affirmation to become citizens of this country. For that reason I urge the Minister not to force this matter to a vote tonight but to go away, do a bit of homework on the matter-it will not take long-and come back to us tomorrow with an amendment which reverses the order. We will be pleased to accept that amendment. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.26) —I thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for not repeating the speech he made in the second reading debate. I know that he was anxious to speak, but the hour is late and we have been over this ground during the second reading debate. Perhaps I will now be allowed to close the debate on what I concede to be a very important subject, namely, the oath and affirmation taken and made at citizenship ceremonies. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) admitted clearly that there was no question that there is confusion. I respect him. He put forward something constructive, which has not been done too often. However, it was done by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). In many ways I was sorry that he did not get the opportunity to read his three alternatives into the record because I can assure him, the honourable member for Goldstein and all other honourable members that I have given long and careful consideration, as has the Government, to what are the alternatives to what we are putting forward-the simple oath and affirmation which I will remind the House about in its new form before I resume my seat tonight. We have given a lot of attention to turning it around; but, with all the attention we have given it, we believe that we have not come up with something as dignified, simple and positive towards Australian citizenship as what will result after, I hope, this Bill goes through the House tonight. Let me return to the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who suggested that this wording might have come out of the top of my head. It has not. I draw to her attention that the first report of the Human Rights Commission, in August 1982, included much discussion on this matter. I do not know of anybody who took more soundings around the community about this matter at that time. My advice is that the feelings that were expressed to the Human Rights Commission on this subject at that time are still widely held in the community. The report of the Human Rights Commission ended with these words: Accordingly the renunciation clause could with advantage be omitted from the oath. Anything that turned the oath around would take away from its simplicity. Mrs Sullivan —You are not correctly referring to the report. Mr HURFORD —I have mentioned the report on National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship of October 1982. That is what the honourable member is referring to. I am not suggesting that that report recommended taking out the renunciation altogether. It presented alternatives. The honourable member should listen to what I say. I have referred to the August 1982 Human Rights Commission report. The States were consulted about changes to the oath or affirmation in 1983-84. The only objection came from Queensland and Tasmania and was to the proposed removal of the reference to the Queen. There was nothing about the removal of the requirement to renounce all other allegiances. The significance of the renunciation phrase is that it draws the attention of new citizens to an underlying principle of Australian law that, as far as possible, Australian citizens should not be dual citizens. The phrase is ambiguous and unnecessary. Some people believe that it requires them to renounce their cultural background, which is what the honourable member for Goldstein has drawn to our attention. Some Commonwealth citizens find renunciation confusing, as the Queen is also the head of state in their country of origin. How many members of this House-certainly members on this side of the chamber-who are sensitive enough to understand what I am saying, have gone to citizenship ceremonies and found an increasing number of British people renouncing, at the beginning of their oath or affirmation, the Queen of England. That is an absurd suggestion and that is what the Opposition is putting forward. The phrase is essentially symbolic. Whether or not new citizens lose their former citizenship does not depend upon Australian laws but upon the laws of their former country. Why does the Opposition want that renouncing elsewhere? It is not going to make any difference to them. How many British people, having renounced their Queen of England, have kept their United Kingdom passports? That does not only apply to the Brits, it applies to Italians, Americans and many others. Over a million Australian citizens who migrated here from countries as diverse as Britain, Canada, New Zealand, France, Hungary, Greece and Poland still retain their former citizenship under the laws of those countries even though they renounced their former allegiance when they became Australian citizens. One person who I hope will not join with the Opposition in voting against this particular change is the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) who has-I respect him for doing so-raised the whole question of dual citizenship. Canada has been through it. I will be studying how Canada has accepted it and how it has overcome the particular consular problems. Certainly if one has any inkling of a thought that perhaps dual citizenship in a country like this would be appropriate, one would not want to write that in in any way-turning it upside down or in any form-and if I might address the honourable member for Goldstein, one would not want the words renouncing any other form of allegiance to anything. General support from the ethnic community is there and those countries with which we feel so close-the 75 per cent from Anglo-Saxon and Celt backgrounds such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand-contain no renunciation phrase in their oath of allegiance. I have looked at the options. I have also taken counsel from previous debates. In conclusion I draw the attention of the Committee to what went on in the Senate the last time the oath was before it. Senator Crichton-Browne, a Liberal, who is not exactly a raving socialist, said: `Why does the renunciation of all other allegiances remain?'. Going across the spectrum, Senator Chipp said: `The present renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous. People are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language or their culture.' All of these people are important when it comes to getting the numbers. Finally, Senator Harradine said: `I think citizenship is a two-way thing. Firstly, Australia should have regard to the sensibilities of those who wish to become Australian citizens. Thus at some stage there is a need for the words to be amended. I think that is generally agreed around the chamber.' He said, and I thought it was true because I thought honourable members opposite had more sense than they are showing tonight: `I believe that the Opposition also has the view that a tidying up of the actual words would be appropriate'. I conclude by reading to the Committee how simple and dignified will be the oath, as will be the affirmation: I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. What could be better than that, more positive than that and more sensible than that? I trust that the Committee will support that sensible oath. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.34) —I know that there are certain arrangements about time tonight and I therefore rise not to be vexatious but to put the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) straight. I do not even rise in indignation because he has insulted my intelligence, but because the speech he has just made contains misstatements. He took it upon himself to suggest that I might look at the August 1982 report of the Human Rights Commission on the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. I refer the Minister to Hansard tomorrow where he might see that I quoted from that report in my speech today. The quote was this: The Commission notes the Minister's announcement- that is the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee)- that the wording of the oath will be changed to stress that persons are not re-nouncing all cultural ties with their former country. Depending on its precise formulation, this could substantially meet the points made by the Commission. In other words, the Commission said that, if a wording was found that made it clear that the renunciation did not mean a renunciation of cultural heritage, it would accept that as being adequate. I suggest that the Minister should read the report himself instead of telling me to read the report. He did not know I had read the report because he did not listen to my speech and he was not properly briefed on it. As a final postscript, on the subject of including names in the oath and affirmation, I want to know when this Government is going to suggest a constitutional referendum in respect of our oath and affirmation when we are sworn in as members of the House so that we do not have to say our names all together either, because of the so-called cacophony it creates. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.35) —I will be brief. I agree again with what the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has said. I point out to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) that the three senators whom he quoted were all finding fault with the current form of renunciation, which is our concern as well. To pander to those people who happen to have come from another country which has a concept of sovereignty and which happens to have the same sovereign, as is the case with Australia, is again adding to the confusion rather than trying to resolve it. It is terribly important when we word the oath or affirmation that we point out that the sovereign of Australia is an utterly different concept, even if it is the same person, as the sovereign of another country. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! That is fundamental. Mr MACPHEE —That really is a fundamental point. We all know that if perchance under the laws of the United Kingdom Her Majesty ceased to be sovereign that would have no impact whatever on the laws of Australia and her utterly different role as the Queen of Australia. That was dramatically illustrated when the Americans invaded Granada and the British Prime Minister was alleged to have been put out by the fact that Her Majesty did not inform the British Prime Minister of the Americans' decision. Her Majesty's position, as we understood it, was that she was informed by her Governor-General of Granada. It was as Queen of Granada that she was being advised by her Governor-General of Granada and it had absolutely nothing to do with the United Kingdom. It is terribly important that we understand that that is the concept of sovereignty which we are talking about. Mr Hodgman —Gough Whitlam understood it. Mr MACPHEE —He gave attention to detail which I am bound to say, with respect to the Minister, has not distinguished his performance on this point. Mr Hurford —Absolute rubbish. Mr MACPHEE —It is not. There is this whole body of advice which the Minister has not taken notice of. He has not given us one reason why he has not now adopted a simple formula of words. I could draft it for him in five minutes. He should not say it is complicated because it is not. That simple form of words would renounce the political allegiance that other people have. The question of dual citizenship can and should be debated by this Parliament. We look forward to a document on that in the future. We cannot now take it by the backdoor in a measure of this nature. The Minister is saying, and he is correct, that there is almost a de facto dual citizenship because of the laws of other countries, and in the case of many of them that is so. The Minister said in his second reading speech that there are some 20 or 30 countries like us which say that we deny that. Let us have a proper debate about dual citizenship by all means, but this particular amendment should not be the avenue for creating what amounts to a legal dual citizenship. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D, P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth. R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N.D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Gorman, R. N. G. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.48) —I recently had the honour to visit the United States of America which, as all honourable members will know, is party to the ANZUS Treaty which is the fundamental defence treaty for our nation. It is protocol when one is outside Australia not to criticise the Government or the Ministers of one's home country for, I believe, the very simple and proper reason that, first, they do not have the opportunity to make an immediate reply and, secondly, it is divisive to the national interest of Australia to have internal political matters discussed outside the country. I took the opportunity in the United States where I was indeed grateful for the assistance provided, firstly, by the United States Ambassador to Australia, Ambassador Lane of the United States Embassy, secondly, our own Department of Foreign Affairs which I found extraordinarily helpful and co-operative and, thirdly, those involved in the United States Administration who gave me the opportunity to meet and speak with people far higher in station than one in my position would normally have the opportunity of speaking with in Australia. I say in passing that it is about time that a few home truths came back to this Parliament about what the United States really thinks about this Government and Australia in 1986 in view of what has occurred over the last three years. The ANZUS Treaty is fundamental and critical to the defence of this country. Over the last three years, we have seen the ANZUS Treaty white-anted and dishonoured by the Hawke socialist Government. In Moscow corner opposite, there are members who would be delighted to see the ANZUS Treaty torn up, delighted to see United States bases in Australia terminated and delighted to do anything they could which weakens the stand of the United States and strengthens the hand of the Soviet Union. Before my remarks are written off by those fellow travellers-it is about time that term came back into the Australian political dictionary-and fifth columnists who care nothing for the national security of this country, I wish to place on record my gratitude for the fact that I was able to meet people of the calibre of Colonel Samuel J. Watson III, Deputy Assistant to the Vice-President of the United States for National Security Affairs, Mr Paul Wolfowitz, who has just been appointed United States Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and people such as Dr Craig Dunkerley, Dr Bruce Burton and others including Mr Surber, Director of Pacific Islands Affairs, who will shortly be visiting Australia. I was able to talk to people who were free to talk to me in a way that, sadly, they are no longer free to talk to the Hawke socialist Government. Let me put these facts on record and let there be no misunderstanding about them. The credibility of this country as a true and faithful ally of the United States is still in tatters following the MX missile decision of Prime Minister Hawke. Those people just do not know where to turn. Mr Slipper —A disaster. Mr HODGMAN —It is a disaster. They do not know where to turn. I remind honourable members of reports in the New York Times with headlines such as `Australia reneges on treaty commitment' and `Premier blames split in party', with a photo of the Prime Minister of Australia. Those were headlines read by over 50 million Americans in journals syndicated right throughout the nation. Secondly, the Americans are not certain what they can tell Australia that will not filter through to New Zealand. I have to say quite bluntly that Australia's greatest foreign affairs mistake in decades, and a tragedy at that, was to treat the New Zealand fiasco as simply a matter between New Zealand and the United States. Mr Howe —You make Joe McCarthy look like a progressive. Mr HODGMAN —It is all right, comrade; we will deal with you later. The fact is that it is not a bipartisan dispute between the United States and New Zealand. This was a tripartite defence treaty, like a three-fold cord. If one takes away one of the three-fold cord strands, great strain is placed on the remaining two. The Minister at the table is an apologist for the Soviet and an opponent of the United States. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.54) —My receiving the call, colleagues, is a demonstration of faction power. Last night in this House I was giving a dissertation on the hypocrisy-I guess that is unparliamentary; I will say machinations-of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I was caught short by the expiry of time on that occasion. The reason why I became involved in this matter was that many of the local government areas that he now represents have been writing to me very concerned about the amendments to the Interstate Road Transport Act. They have been so thoroughly misinformed by his mischievous antics that they are genuinely concerned. I have been able to write to them to tell them that the Bill was not opposed in this House by the Liberal Party of Australia and that it was supported in principle by every State in Australia. I reached the stage last night at which I had pointed out that the honourable member for O'Connor had gone to Esperance to try the same sort of trick that he had tried everywhere else, that is, to convene a meeting at which he was the only authority present. But, this time, as I said last night, he failed because of the straight shooting of the State Minister for Transport, Julian Grill. This time when the honourable member for O'Connor got to the meeting he found out that everybody wanted to hear all of the speakers, which was an unusual situation for him to be in. This time the honourable member for O'Connor entered the meeting quivering with rage because he lost the debate. He lost the debate because he so heckled Mr Grill and other speakers that the truckies present began to move out. They just did not want to listen to that sort of diatribe. He lost the debate because he is not familiar with free speech. He likes the one-sided forum; that is what he is familiar with. He lost the debate because the independent chairman, local Primary Industry Association official, Mr Tony Overheu, a former key member of the then Country Party-summed up the evening by comparing the track record of achievements of the Western Australian Transport Minister, Julian Grill, with the negativity of the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Overheu declared, more in sorrow than in anger, I should add, that the issue really became one of credibility. He further declared that, while Mr Grill on his past record was very credible, the honourable member for O'Connor was not. This was the considered opinion of the leader of the PIA in the Esperance area, a one time candidate for the National Party of Australia, a man very well regarded, who certainly has my respect. The honourable member for O'Connor congratulated the ladies of the Goulburn Valley Wives Trucking Support Group for their efforts on behalf of their husbands and the industry. I have no wish to detract from those congratulatory comments. I simply choose to congratulate those people at the Esperance meeting who listened to both the Federal Liberal member for O'Connor and the State Labor Minister and who clearly acknowledged who had won that debate. There is no doubt that it will be a long time before the honourable member for O'Connor goes back to the Esperance area, an area which he used to represent in this Parliament. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.58) —I wish to speak tonight about a very disturbing world-wide trend which has involved the dumping of hazardous and dangerous goods on the world market and which has caused massive suffering and death to people in many Third World countries. One of the very welcome developments that have occurred to combat this very disturbing trend is the development of Consumer Interpol. Of course, what happened, particularly in the 1970s, was that there was growing evidence of the dumping of these hazardous products and the export of dangerous technologies and toxic wastes on these Third World countries. As a result of the internationalisation of product marketing, consumer organisations in the form of people power, have been organised on a world-wide basis. This organisation has taken the form of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions which now has 115 members in 55 countries. The International Organisation of Consumer Unions has three main goals. The first is to support members with information and training. The second is to expand the consumer movement around the world. The third is to represent consumers' interests at the United Nations and other international bodies. The overriding concern of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions has been to promote fair practices and social justice in the world market-place. As I mentioned, the practice of dumping has been, on commercial and on any reasonable moral, ethical grounds, a most reprehensible one which has caused massive death and suffering in so many countries. One example of this dumping has been the result to the survey in 1979 in several ASEAN countries which showed that a number of trans-national food companies were marketing sweetened condensed milk products as instant food, although the use of such products had been banned in Britain as long ago as 1911. A second very disturbing example was the revelation in 1972 that 400 Iraqis had died and 5,000 more had been hospitalised after eating wheat and barley imported from the United State of America. A further example was the 1,000 water buffalo that suddenly died in Egypt after exposure to agricultural chemicals manufactured in the United States and which had been exported despite a United States prohibition. The reason for the development of the- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —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 West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and Report: Construction of State Mail Centre, 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Mr Scholes to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 11 March 1986, namely: The construction of carpark lighting at Section 21, Parkes, adjacent to the Administrative Building. Mr Campbell to ask Madam Speaker: What is the reason for the apparent break down in the telephone system in Parliament House resulting in (a) difficulty in obtaining outside numbers, (b) frequent wrong numbers and (c) congestion causing difficulty in obtaining lines. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 March 1986: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1986-MS10/86-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to North America. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars pursuant to section 106aa, dated 3 March 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1447) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic 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 Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) No advertising campaigns were conducted or commissioned by my Department in the period since March 1983. However, there were a number of public information programs conducted during this period to generate awareness of services and to advise the public of policy and procedure changes. Details may be obtained from the reply given to the related question No. 2341. Details of research studies are set out below: Advertising campaign research study Project/task Other Government agency advise Yes/no Agency/market research firm Cost $ Turkish and Yugoslav Press... To study Turkish and Yugoslav Press in Melbourne No Australian National University 39,500 Migrant Resource Centres... To review locations of Migrant Resource Centres No Urban Environmental Planning Group 19,345 Lebanese in Sydney... To study the resettlement of Lebanese in Sydney No Middle East Research and Information Association 28,163 Community Languages... Maintenance, Learning and use of community languages survey: Feasibility Study No University of Wollongong-Centre for Multicultural Studies 450 Community Languages... Maintenance, Learning and use of community languages: Main Study No University of Wollongong-Centre for Multicultural Studies 25,00 Family Formation... Pilot study on family formation No Institute of Family Studies 3,514 Temporary Residents... Survey of temporary residents No Reark Research Pty Ltd 33,740 Family Migration... Family migration category C: Initial settlement survey No Australian Sales Research Bureau 26,333 Macedonians Macedonians in Queanbeyan and ACT No Dr Arthur Pascoe 12,568 Italian Settlers... Study of long term Italian settlers in Brisbane No University of Queensland-Uniguest Pty Ltd 15,000 Population Curriculum Kit... Population Curriculum Kit for schools Yes Dept of Education Victoria College 89,000 Migrant Woman... Literature Research: Bibliography on Migrant Woman No Ecumenical Migration Centre 850 Family Migration... Family Migration Category C: Follow up Employment Study No Reark Research Pty Ltd 34,681 Migrant Women... Migrant Women in the Work Force No Reark Research Pty Ltd 30,000 Child Care... Cross Cultural Child Care No Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre 15,000 Ethnic Communities in Victoria Profiles of (6) Ethnic Communities in Victoria No Centre for Urban Research and Action 12,500 Client Survey... Analysis of Data and Report on `Client Survey' No Swinburne Institute of Technology 1,300 Migrant Survey... Migrant Attitudinal Survey No Reark Research Pty Ltd 43,766 Literature... Literature Research No Monash University 527 Survey Questions... Omnibus Survey Questions No. 1 No McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd 6,850 Survey Questions... Omnibus Survey Questions No. 2 No McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd 6,850 (Question No. 1638) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The facility for reverse-charge trunk calls is available to all offices of the Department and the Department's officers are always ready to accept bona fide reverse-charge calls. You will also appreciate that with the Government's firm resolve to contain public spending it is difficult for me to consider installing 008 telephone numbers without a detailed examination of the demand for, and the estimated costs to my Department in providing such a service. (Question No. 1961) Mr Peacock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What actions has the Government taken in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in accordance with Labor Party policy to support (a) strengthened representation of Third World countries and (b) policies designed to assist access to official credit for developing countries. (2) At what times, in accordance with that policy, has the Government opposed imposition by these bodies of contractionary fiscal and monetary policies on third World countries experiencing severe economic difficulties. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Government endorses the expansion of World Bank and International Monetary Fund membership where the countries in question meet the requirements of those institutions. (b) Australia is supportive of continued expansion in the activities of the World Bank and has indicated that it would support a general capital increase for the Bank. Australia is also a strong supporter of the Bank's concessional lending arm, the International Development Association (IDA), which provides funds to the world's poorest countries. This year Australia made a voluntary contribution to IDA of $A60m. We consider that the Bank's primary aim should continue to be the provision of long-term project-oriented finance for developing countries. We have also supported the established role of the IMF as basically a revolving short-term fund. Within that framework Australia has supported the continuation of the temporary enlargement of its financial resources to meet the abnormally large and widespread payments imbalances being experienced. (2) As its primary concern is the provision of long term project-oriented development finance, the World Bank is not ordinarily associated with the conditionality applying to the broad settings of fiscal, monetary and foreign exchange policies. The basic nature of IMF programs is that they are designed to support and facilitate adjustment. Such adjustments are made necessary by the circumstances of the country concerned, not by the Fund. What the Fund can do is advise on the appropriate adjustment and give financial support to the country so as to minimise the burdens involved in adjustment. The aim of Fund programs is to lessen imbalances and thereby foster sustainable growth in the medium and long term; programs have increasingly focused on structural adjustment as well as on demand management. This Government has supported the evolution of Fund programs consistent with its basic charter and operations which provide that the Fund shall respect the domestic, social and political policies of members and the particular circumstances of members. (Question No. 2313) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic 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 public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 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 Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No public relations activity took place in either 1983-84 or 1984-85 apart from the normal activities of the Media Liaison staff who respond to media and specialised public inquiries. There were a number of public information programs conducted during this time to generate awareness of services and to advise the public of policy and procedure changes. Details of these may be obtained from the reply given to the related question No. 2341. The Department issued 103 news releases in 1983-84 and 80 news releases in 1984-85, which involved some administrative cost involving journalists and clerical support. (3) No. (Question No. 2341) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic 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 Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information sought is set out in the table below. (2) to (5) No advertising campaigns were conducted by authorities within my portfolio and as indicated in my replay to the related question No. 1447 no advertising campaigns were conducted by my Department in the period since March 1983. There were, however, a number of public information programs conducted to generate awareness of services and to advise the public of policy and procedure changes. Details sought on campaigns are given for the public information programs in the table below. ADVERTISING BY SUBJECT/PROGRAM FOR 1983-84 AND 1984-85 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Subject/ program Initiated by Conducted by Reason Basis of remuneration ICB/AGAS assistance 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ 1. Grant-in-Aid scheme Department AGAS/ICB Advertising Service Publicise availability of grants DIEA funds AGAS/ICB Advertising Service 20,223,14 25,581.20 2. `Living in Australia' booklet Department AGAS/ICB Advertising Service Publicise availability for new settlers DIEA funds AGAS/ICB Advertising Service 12,168,35 1,133.44 3. Migration procedures Department AGAS/ICB Advertising Service Publicise changes DIEA funds AGAS/ICB Advertising Service - - - - - - 10,500.00 4. Private Overseas Student policy Department AGAS/ICB Advertising Service Seek submissions for Committee of Review DIEA funds AGAS/ICB Advertising Service 4,902.03 5. Business Migration program Department AGAS/ICB Advertising Service To promote the program to likely target groups overseas DIEA funds AGAS-appointed agency for advertising overseas (Neville Jeffress Pty Ltd) - - - - - - 14,236.65 NOTE: In addition, there has been advertising expenditure incurred at overseas posts on this program in association with special information seminars for prospective BMP migrants. These costs are incorporated in overall seminar expenditure provided from Central Office. The amount is modest and a breakdown would require unreasonable commitment of resources. Total cost for 84-85 was $58,191. 6. Tenosynovitis Department The Department Information announcement in eight languages DIEA funded production costs No. SBS arranged and carried broadcast costs 1,630.00 (produc- tion costs) - - - - - - 7. On-arrival English courses and child-care Department The Department Information announcement to advise of services DIEA funded production costs No. SBS arranged and carried broadcast costs 5,697.00 (produc- tion costs) - - - - - - 8. Telephone Interpreter Service Department The Department Information announcement to advise of services DIEA funds No. Regionally organised placement by TIS Service 2,512.00 12,630.00 (Question No. 2346) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Major advertising programs (those exceeding $5,000 in cost) as at January 31, 1986 are listed hereunder. Advertising campaign Expenditure 1983-84 Expenditure 1984-85 Initiated by Conducted by *Reason for campaign $ $ (i) Calling of applications for National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) grants, fellowships, etc. 15,667 23,406 NH & MRC NH & MRC Routine annual advertising (ii) Importation of sheep and goats into Australia 5,619 . . Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To advise of new animal import conditions (iii) Calling of submissions to Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals 11,930 3,372 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To seek appropriate input to Inquiry (iv) Information concerning Medicare dispute with N.S.W. doctors 78,627 1,401 Federal Government Dept. of Health To present facts on dispute (v) Calling of submissions to the Medicare Benefits Review Committee . . 12,568 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To seek appropriate input to Review (vi) Disqualifications of medical practitioners under Medicare provisions 9,878 2,458 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To publicise names as required by legislation (vii) Publicising of Mosquito Eradication Campaign 9,850 17,290 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To invite local co-operation in important public health campaign (viii) Calling of submissions on drugs matters for National Campaign Against Drug Abuse . . 89,429 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To seek appropriate input to Campaign (ix) Blood donor recruitment/general information relating to AIDS matters . . 561,810 National Advisory Committee on AIDS Dept. of Health To assist Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service and to correct misinformation on AIDS (x) Ongoing publicity campaign on plant quarantine 314,927 103,204 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To protect Australian agriculture from imported pests and diseases (xi) Assistance to `Life. Be In It' company with production costs of TV commercial on nutrition . . 25,000 Dept. of Health Dept. of Health To help promote Departmental publication on good nutrition (xii) Medicare information campaign 3,238,520 1,024,585 Health Insurance Commission Health Insurance Commission To secure Medicare enrolment of total population and to inform all Australians of their entitlements under Medicare (1983-84); to correct residual public confusion regarding Medicare entitlements (1984-85) (xiii) Anti-smoking campaign 28,076 13,626 Former Capital Territory Health Commission Former Capital Territory Health Commission To provide the ACT community with encouragement and advice on how to establish and maintain better personal health and well being Minor programs (those costing less than $5,000) cost $15,705 in 1983-84 and $30,369 in 1984-85. * 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 for an information campaign, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. 4. Standard advertising agency billing arrangements applied. 5. Yes for campaigns (i) to (x). In the case of (xi), funding was provided direct to the `Life. Be In It' company by the Department. In the case of (xii) the Health Insurance Commission dealt direct with the advertising agency concerned. With respect to (xiii), the former Capital Territory Health Commission (now the ACT Health Authority) also dealt direct with the advertising agency concerned. Note: No details have been provided in respect of the commercial operations of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories or the Health Insurance Commission's Medibank Private activities funded from private health insurance, as these matters are commercial. (Question No. 2613) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 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, (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Nos. 2313, 2341, 2515, 2543 (b) No. 2117 (c) Nil (d) Nil (e) Nos 1447, 1475 (f) Nil. (Question No. 2792) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department has made positive attempts to employ Aboriginal staff through the lodgement of Recruitment Demands with the Public Service Board concerning employment of Aboriginal base grade clerical staff. The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Plan which will shortly be implemented in my Department and the Australian Customs Service will encourage applications from Aborigines and Islanders for positions in the Department and the Customs Service, ensure equality of opportunity for Aboriginals and Islanders who apply for positions and eliminate any discrimination in the selection process. The programs will also provide Aborigines and Islanders in the Department and the Customs Service with specific training and development opportunities. It is not possible to provide employment details of Aborigines and Islanders in the Department or the Customs Service for the dates requested. Public Service Board statistics relating to the then Department of Industry and Commerce show that at 1 October 1982 the Department employed 12 Aborigines and Islanders. At 1 October 1985 the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce employed a total of 19 Aborigines and Islanders (18 of which were in the Australian Customs Service and one in the Department). (Question No. 2795) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, 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 Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Treasury has participated in the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program run by the Public Service Board from the beginning of 1985. In 1985, the Department placed two persons recruited under the scheme and the Department has offered to place another two persons in 1986. (2) The Department is only able to identify as Aboriginals those persons who have previously responded to surveys seeking self-identification as Aboriginal and those persons who are participants of the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program. As at 31 March 1983, the Treasury did not know of any Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders in its employ. As at 30 November 1985 the Treasury had one Aboriginal employee. (Question No. 2815) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) All positions in the Department have been `IDENTIFIED'; identification of positions ensures that the ability to communicate effectively with Aboriginals and a knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture is part of the selection criteria for all positions in the Department. In addition, advertising of all positions in the national and local press, as well as the Australian Government Gazette is aimed at attracting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants. (b) The Department vigorously pursues the recruitment of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders through the Public Service Board's Aboriginal Services Clerical Assistant and Clerk programs. (c) The Department seeks to enhance the career opportunities for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders by actively encouraging and approving their participation in the Public Service Board's Aboriginal Undergraduate Scheme, Aboriginal Sponsorship Programs and secondments to other Departments or Portfolio bodies. (d) The Department provides pre-employment training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders by way of the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) followed by the offer of permanent employment to the majority of those trainees. (e) Considerable encouragement is given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates to join the Department as Assistant Research Officers. Of the 9 Aboriginal graduates who applied for the Assistant Research Officer Schemes in 1985-86, this Department has appointed 7. The remaining 2 Graduates decided to continue their studies. (f) A major objective of the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity Program, is a plan to increase the number, level and status of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the Department in a way that ensures a real basis for equity and participation at all levels. (g) Regional Directors have been asked to provide names of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders whom they consider may be suitable for appointment to the Australian Public Service. (h) In 1984 the Department's Staff Development and Training Section was expanded and given responsibility for the development and training of all staff in the Portfolio. Emphasis is given to the provision of training for Aboriginal staff in order to prepare them for higher office. (2) (a) 177; (b) 140. (Question No. 2826) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, 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 Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) TAA and Air Queensland-51.8% (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries-45.0% (c) East West Airlines-1.4% (d) Commuter aircraft-1.7% (e) Charter aircraft-0.1%. Percentages are calculated on the total expenditure on domestic air travel for the financial year 1984-85. (Question No. 2835) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minster'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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: During 1984-85 the percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Department of Aviation was: (a) TAA and Air Queensland-44.2 per cent (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries-51.5 per cent (c) East-West Airlines-1.0 per cent (d) commuter aircraft-1.0 per cent (e) charter aircraft-2.3 per cent It should be noted that the larger percentage travel shown for Ansett and its subsidiaries is brought about by intrastate travel in Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and New South Wales being available on Ansett subsidiary airlines only due to lack of or lesser services provided by TAA within these states. (Question No. 2849) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Are statistics kept by the Commonwealth relating to deaths and injuries associated with individual consumer products. (2) Is he able to say whether statistics are kept by each State and Territory. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It has been recognised that Australia lacks comprehensive statistical data on consumer product-related deaths and injuries at both the National and State and Territory levels. Some data is collected in a number of jurisdictions but is not closely co-ordinated nor slanted towards product identification or the specific prevention of deaths and injuries resulting from use of consumer products. A major initiative has been commenced involving the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia (CAPFA), the Commonwealth Government and the States and Territories to rectify this lack of co-ordinated and comprehensive data in relation to injury surveillance and prevention. The substantial contribution made by the CAPFA must be acknowledged in this regard. The first step is to undertake a pilot study to demonstrate the perceived benefits of such a system and this proposal received strong support from all Consumer Affairs Ministers at recent meeting of their Standing Committee. My colleague, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has been given the responsibility to co-ordinate the Commonwealth's interest. I am advised that preliminary work to establish the pilot national injury surveillance and prevention system commenced in late 1985. (2) See (1) above. (Question No. 2852) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has action been taken to promote the establishment of shop-front consumer information centres; if so, what are the details. (2) What is the level of funding allocated to such initiatives in 1985-86. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The possibility of establishing Commonwealth centres of this kind has been raised with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in the context of his responsibility for information co-ordination. Establishment and operating costs for information centres are significant, and consideration needs to be given to the various options available for providing information about a broad range of Government services. In addition, the Commonwealth Office of Consumer Affairs and the Trade Practices Commission co-operate with State and Territory Consumer Affairs Agencies, which provide information services at that level, to ensure information is available about Commonwealth laws and services. (2) Within the Attorney-General's portfolio, there are no funds allocated for this purpose in 1985-86. I shall, however, discuss the matter further with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism who has responsibility for information co-ordination. (Question No. 2854) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Do uniform codes and standards exist throughout Australia for (a) production packaging, (b) labelling, (c) unit price marketing and (d) advertising for (i) food, (ii) drugs and (iii) other products and services supplied to consumers; if not, what Commonwealth initiatives are underway to bring about this uniformity. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Production packaging codes and standards for food and drugs are mainly prescribed in Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation dealing with health and weights and measures matters. In respect of food products, I am advised that the Model Food Act and Regulations provide, inter alia, for standards of hygiene for the preparation, processing and packaging of food. All State and Territory governments are committed to the rapid introduction of the provisions of the model. In addition, State and Territory Weights and Measures legislation generally controls the production packaging of consumer goods, including food. This legislation is based on model legislation developed by the Standing Committee on Packaging. Packaging is therefore now essentially uniform in respect of packing in prescribed quantities, quantity statements, marking of unit price (price per kilogram) and size of letters and figures in marking on packages. In respect of drug packaging, I am advised that an appropriate level of safety and uniformity is achieved through the forum of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. The package of all new drugs intended for over-the-counter sales is evaluated as part of the drug evaluation process. Packages are tested against accepted pharmacopoeial standards. Model legislation which deals with deception in packaging, e.g. the free space permitted within a package, has been developed by the Standing Committee on Packaging. This model has been fully adopted by NSW only. A recent initiative has been taken by Commonwealth/State/Territory Ministers in establishing a Working Party to examine all weights and measures legislation, including deceptive packaging, with a view to identifying and eliminating any remaining differences in legislation and administration. The Model Food Act and Regulations contain extensive food labelling requirements and this model legislation has been or is being adopted by all States and Territories. The Commonwealth is presently co-ordinating arrangements to finalise the introduction of the model. In respect of therapeutic goods, including drugs, I understand that the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee has developed, in close consultation with industry, governments and user groups, a final draft of the Therapeutic Goods Order for the general requirements for labels for therapeutic goods. This Order is expected to be considered for adoption under the Therapeutic Goods Act in the near future. The individual States and Territories have agreed, in principle, to draft complementary legislation to ensure the requirements are uniformally applied throughout Australia. The labelling of general consumer goods is also substantially uniform resulting from the adoption by the States and Territories of model legislation for weights and measures. Advertising standards for food, drugs and other consumer products and services are controlled by legislative requirements and self-regulatory codes. At the Commonwealth level, the main sources of legislative controls on advertising standards are the Broadcasting and Television Act and the Trade Practices Act. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal administers advertising standards which cover a range of matters including alcoholic liquor, personal products and advertisements directed at children. Bans on the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products on radio and television and control over the advertising of therapeutic goods are monitored by the Tribunal. The Trade Practices Act provides a standard for advertisements by prohibiting misleading and deceptive conduct generally as well as certain unfair practices. The Media Council of Australia is responsible for the advertising industry's system of self regulation which comprises codes of conduct i.e. code of ethics, therapeutic goods code, cigarette code, alcoholic beverages code, code for slimming preparations, treatments, appliances, and a domestic insecticide code. The Trade Practices Commission, under Section 88 (1) of the Trade Practices Act, authorises voluntary advertising codes submitted by the Media Council of Australia provided the Commission is satisfied that such codes are likely to result in net public benefit. (Question No. 2858) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What expansion of the powers and facilities of the Australian Law Reform Commission has occurred since March 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The powers of the Law Reform Commission, which are provided in the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, have not been significantly altered since 1983. However on 21 February 1984 the Attorney-General gave the Commission a Community Law Reform Reference for the Australian Capital Territory which provided that the Commission could work on small projects relating to ACT laws without the need for a further separate Reference. The program also provides for the Commission to request specific References on more significant matters. Since March 1983 the Attorney-General has given the Commission five References, in addition to the Community Law Reform Program. They are Contempt, Matrimonial Property, General Insolvency, Domestic Violence in the Australian Capital Territory and Occupiers Liability in the Australian Capital Territory. The authorised staffing levels for the Commission in 1982-83 and the years following were: 1982-83-18 full time, 2 part time; 1983-84-28 full time, 2 part time; 1984-85-32 full time, 2 part time; 1985-86-30 full time, 2 part time. One additional full-time Commissioner was appointed in June 1983 bringing the number of full-time members to five. The Commission also opened a branch office in Canberra at that time. Four additional part-time members were appointed in 1983-84 bringing the number of part-time members to 12. The following amounts were appropriated for the Commission in 1982-83 and the years following: 1982-83-1,372,500; 1983-84-1,849,400; 1984-85-2,542,000; 1985-86-2,432,000. (Question No. 2859) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether State police forces engage in security intelligence information gathering activities; if so, which section of each State police force are engaged in such activities. (2) Is any information gained passed on to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ASIO co-operates with State police forces in accordance with section 19 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The matter was discussed in the 1984 Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, in particular in Chapters 5 (`Politically Motivated Violence') and 8 (`Assessment and Communication of Intelligence'). The Report observed that agreements regulating the relationship between ASIO and State police forces are in force between the Commonwealth and most States and the Northern Territory, and that these agreements provide a desirable mantle of authority for and clarify the extent of ASIO/police relations (paragraph 8.66). The form of the agreements is at page 379 of the Report. The Report stated that where agreements exist, communication of intelligence by ASIO and by police is in accordance with those agreements, and that where agreements do not exist the communication of intelligence is within the limits of the terms of the agreements (paragraph 8.61). To a large degree, dealings between ASIO and police relate to terrorism and the protection of holders of high office (paragraph 8.59). The Report found that co-operation between ASIO and the various police forces is mutually advantageous (paragraph 8.66) and that relations appear to be generally satisfactory (paragraph 8.62). (Question No. 2861) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What was the government expenditure on legal aid in each year since 1971. (2) What was the increase in expenditure on legal aid in real terms between 1982-83 and 1985-86. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Aggregate expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on legal aid, including aboriginal legal aid and grants to community legal centres, in each year since 1971 is as follows: 1971-72-$ 271,185 1972-73-$ 366,009 1973-74-$ 2,547,184 1974-75-$ 5,626,747 1975-76-$12,528,206 1976-77-$21,836,702 1977-78-$24,067,155 1978-79-$26,197,648 1979-80-$28,684,855 1980-81-$33,748,060 1981-82-$39,299,351 1982-83-$57,818,497 1983-84-$65,469,158 1984-85-$69,699,944 1985-86-$82,576,000 (estimated) (2) It is estimated that the increase in expenditure on legal aid between financial years 1982-83 and 1985-86 in real terms will be of the order of 18%. (Question No. 2882) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Do controls over foreign investment require, where feasible, majority Australian participation in new projects in all industries or sectors of the economy. (2) What industries or sectors of the economy are currently reserved for Australian ownership and control. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) None. Details of the Government's foreign investment policy are set down in a publication ``Australia's Foreign Investment Policy-A Guide for Investors''. A copy of it was sent to each Honourable Member and Senator. (Question No. 2885) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Do performing and creative arts workers experience special taxation problems arising from fluctuations in incomes. (2) If so, what action has he taken to resolve these special problems. (3) What other occupations experience special taxation problems arising from fluctuations in incomes. (4) What problems would arise if tax averaging were available to all taxpayers. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In answering the honourable member's questions I recall that the Government has been engaged for some time in undertaking a major review of the Australian tax system. This unfortunately, has restricted the resources available to tackle particular income tax issues confronting occupational groups such as performing and creative arts people. The Government has received representations from such people in the past concerning their income tax liability in the face of fluctuating incomes and requesting tax relief along the lines of tax averaging afforded to primary producers, or through the abnormal income provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which apply to authors, artists and inventors. In this regard, I would point out that there already exists a tax deduction schedule designed specifically for use by actors, variety artists and other entertainers. This schedule recognizes that such people can have periods of unemployment between engagements and that they also incur expenses which are allowable deductions. The Government has given an undertaking to extend averaging to sportspersons whose incomes fluctuate during relatively short careers and to artists in the performing and visual arts. This will be considered further in the forthcoming budgetary processes. Tax averaging entails a considerable revenue cost and can give rise to some undesirable effects. The Government believes that these reasons require the scope of tax averaging to be confined. (Question No. 2897) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What is the current level of (a) development and (b) other assistance by the Government to each of the countries which are members of the South Pacific Forum. (2) What was the increase in the level of such assistance in real terms since 1982-83. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The current level of Australia's bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) to individual member countries of the South Pacific Forum and the change in real terms since 1982-83 are contained in the table below. The principal source of ``other assistance'' is the non-ODA elements of the Defence Co-operation Program. The Minister for Defence is the Minister responsible for the Defence Co-operation Program. BILATERAL ODA 1985-86 (1) (Estimates) Percentage change in real terms since 1982-83 $'000 Cook Islands... 513 -39.0 Fiji... 16,162 +6.1 Kiribati... 2,652 -5.1 Nauru... 59 +710.3 Niue... 388 +26.6 Papua New Guinea... 320,918 -4.4 Solomon Islands... 6,344 -41.2 Tonga... 5,622 +11.0 Tuvalu... 1,111 -20.8 Vanuatu... 6,643 -7.5 Western Samoa... 5,365 -39.1 Source: Budget Estimates 1985-86. (1) Australian Development Assistance Bureau administered programs. Assistance not directly allocatable to member countries (e.g. regional or multilateral assistance) is excluded from the table. In interpreting these figures it should be noted that until 1 July 1984 the overseas student subsidy was not classified as ODA. Estimates by country of such subsidies prior to that date are not available. Within the South Pacific, allocations to individual countries vary from year to year according to program requirements and therefore annual comparisons do not necessarily reflect any policy change nor are they indicative of any increase or decrease in our commitment to individual countries. The Government has endorsed an indicative planning figure of $300 million over the period 1983-84 to 1987-88 for aid to the countries of the South Pacific excluding Papua New Guinea with which the Government has entered a separate aid agreement. In addition to the above, Australia also assists the countries of the South Pacific through its contributions to the multilateral organisations active in the region, namely the Development Banks, and United Nations and Commonwealth agencies, as well as to South Pacific regional organisations. (Question No. 2970) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to public support for the acquisition of a national cyclotron to be based in Sydney. (2) When does the Government anticipate making a decision concerning the cyclotron. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that nuclear medicine physicians and medical research scientists strongly support the establishment of a medical cyclotron in Australia. The National Health and Medical Research Council has also expressed support for such a facility. A major study by a Medical Cyclotron Committee, funded by my Department, has recommended that a national medical cyclotron facility should be established at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission should be responsible for the preparation and distribution of cyclotron-produced radioisotopes. (2) The recommendations of the Medical Cyclotron Committee are at present under consideration by the Government in the Budget context. (Question No. 2980) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What research is being carried out into integrated pest management and what biological control is being carried out by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) the State governments. (2) What was the level of funding allocated to such programs in 1985-86. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1a) The following research programs of CSIRO are concerned with integrated pest management and biological control, either directly or through background research of relevance in developing improved strategies: Insect Pathology Aim: To study the interactions between disease-causing micro-organisms (including nematodes) and insects in order to develop environmentally acceptable means of pest control; to provide a quarantine service for screening imported insects for pathogens; and to advice on the rearing of disease-free insects. Pathogenic nematodes have been used to control sirex wood wasp in pine plantations, blackcurrant borer, and black vine weevil. Studies are now focused on pathogenic fungi for the control of aphids, wingless grasshopper, sugar can grub, banana weevil borer, and rice stem borer. Insect Behaviour Aim: To study the behaviour of insects with a view to obtaining biological and chemical information, basic to the development of specific and environmentally acceptable pest-control methods and an understanding of the biology of insects. Targets of current research include cabbage white butterfly, sheep blowfly, lightbrown apple moth, oriental fruit moth, codling moth, Heliothis species, a number of armyworms, and Queensland fruit fly. Ecology and Control of Insect Pests of Stored Grain Aim: To search for new or better methods of controlling stored grain pests. Nations that import Australian grain have come to demand complete freedom from insect infestation. As all the important grain pests have now developed varying degrees of resistance to all pesticides that are fully acceptable internationally for use with stored grain, the need for new control methods is critical. This program, as well as studying insecticides, is investigating a number of non-insecticidal approaches to grain-pest control. These include high-temperature disinfestation, fumigation, and storage under controlled atmospheres, and the integration of the various control strategies into programs for managing the major pest species. Ecology and Control of Insect Pests of Crops and Pastures Aim: To study insects in crop and pasture ecosystems to gain an improved understanding of insect biology, ecology and dispersal, evaluate their pest status, and devise effective and environmentally acceptable measures for their control. The pests under study include the cotton boll weevil, armyworms, phylloxera of grapes, fruit flies, scale insects, and lucerne aphids. Biological Control of Aquatic and Terrestrial Weeds Aim: To study and assess overseas, and subsequently establish in Australia, effective agents for biological control of introduced weeds of economic importance. Current programs are concerned with weeds of European, South African and American origin. They include skeleton weed, heliotrope, St John's wort, ragwort, thistles, spiny emex, mimosa, silver leaf nightshade, salvinia, water hyacinth, water lettuce and alligator weed. Ecology and Control of Dung and Dung-breeding Flies Aim: To determine the major factors influencing the abundance of buffalo fly and bush fly, both of which breed in cattle dung, and to study the ecology of arthropod fauna of dung. The major objective of the program is to bring about reductions in populations of these flies through biological and other means. A second aim is reduction of dung accumulation in pastures through the introduction of dung-burying beetles. Ecology and Control of Arthropods Breeding on Livestock Aim: To study the biology, ecology, behaviour and genetics of flies and other arthropods breeding on livestock with the broad objective of developing management strategies to obtain regional control or eradication of the pest species. The pests under study are the sheep blowfly, screw-worm fly, and ticks of cattle and other animals. Weed Control Aim: To contribute to the biology control of weeds by studying the ecological relationships of major weeds. The weeds at present under study are skeleton weed and some of the thistles. (1b) The State Governments are involved in varying degrees with integrated pest management and biological control, sometimes in association with CSIRO. Comprehensive information and funding levels are not available. (2) The level of funding allocated in 1985-86 to the programs described in part (1a) of the answer is $8,600,000. (Question No. 3003) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What legal constraints exist that would prohibit the distribution of first release movies on video for a period of 6 months from completion of its first city run. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The distribution of a film is a matter for the copyright owner or exclusive licensee. It is for that person to decide whether and when a `first-run' film should be released on video for the rental or sale market. The conditions of that release, whether after six months or after some other period, depend on the terms agreed between the parties. However copyright holders and their licensees should be aware that any such arrangements may be subject to the Trade Practices Act. (Question No. 3127) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What was the level of staffing at the Australian War Memorial as at 1 July in each of the years 1980 to 1985. (2) How many resignations were received in (a) each of the years 1980-81 to 1984-85 and (b) the period 1 July to 1 September 1985. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Level of staffing: Full time Part time 1 July 1980... 102 5 1 July 1981... 110 6 1 July 1982... 120 4 1 July 1983... 160 9 1 July 1984... 161 22 1 July 1985... 188 22 (2) Number of resignations received: (a) 1980-81... 8 1981-82... 9 1982-83... 5 1983-84... 8 1984-85... 7 (b) 1.7-1.9.85... 5 (Question No. 3130) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Is it fact that on 17 September 1985 a Qantas international flight was given permission to land at Tullamarine Airport while, at the same time, an Ansett domestic flight was given permission to take-off on a bisecting runway. (2) Did the pilot of the Qantas flight take evasive action to avoid what he considered a dangerous situation. (3) Was the landing by the Qantas flight and the take-off by the Ansett flight authorised by air traffic controllers working under the new provisions for simultaneous aircraft movements on intersecting runways announced by him in June 1983. (4) Did the air traffic controllers involved say there was no danger in the operation. (5) Will his Department conduct an inquiry into the event; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No-the Qantas flight approaching Tullamarine had not been given permission to land. The Ansett aircraft, a Fokker Friendship, was given permission to take-off from Runway 34. The Air Traffic Controller intended to wait until this aircraft had passed the intersection with Runway 27 before issuing a landing clearance to the Qantas flight approaching that runway. (2) No. The pilot of the Qantas aircraft elected to carry out a go around because he considered that there may have been insufficient separation between the two aircraft. The go around is not regarded as an evasive manoeuvre and it does not involve any abrupt changes to the aircraft flight path. (3) No. These procedures were not being used at the time of the occurrence. (4) The report provided by the Air Traffic Controller did not make reference to any danger in the operation. However I am informed by my department that in fact no danger to the aircraft or their occupants existed. (5) An inquiry was commenced by my Bureau of Air Safety Investigation on the day of the occurrence. The inquiry found that the safety of operations had not been jeopardised. (Question No. 3155) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What is the additional cost to the Department of Defence of conducting separate joint military exercises with the armed forces of New Zealand as distinct from conducting combined ANZUS military exercises. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The first ANZUS exercise to be affected by the US policy not to continue exercising with NZ was SEA EAGLE 85-1. As host, Australia cancelled the exercise and rescheduled a new exercise FLYING FISH 85-1, to which NZ was not invited. As an alternative, NZ was invited to participate in the Australian exercise INTREPID GUNNER. This invitation was accepted, and the exercise was subsequently renamed TASMAN LINK. There was no additional cost to Australia. The additional cost of converting Exercise K85 into the maritime exercise CORAL SEA with the US and the field exercise TASMAN WARRIOR with New Zealand is difficult to assess. The two exercises cost a total of $19m, $0.3m more than estimated for K85, and that increase may be partly attributed to splitting the original exercise. The increased New Zealand participation in Australian exercises does add to the cost of those exercises. However, the Australian and New Zealand Defence Forces have an offset arrangement whereby costs of collective training are balanced at a biennial reconciliation. (Question No. 3156) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What has been the expenditure by the Commission for the Future to the date of answering this question. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commission for the Future's expenditure to 21 February 1986 was $226 301.31. This amount includes a salaries component for the Commission's staff of $128 121.45. (Question No. 3204) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) In what countries has the Government advertised Australia's Business Migration Program. (2) What has been the cost of advertising the program. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1985-86 the Business Migration Program has been advertised in the following countries: United Kingdom Federal Republic of Germany Switzerland Hong Kong Advertising is also undertaken in publications such as travel industry magazines which ensure world wide circulation. In addition the BMP is promoted in the form of seminars. In the past they have been held in the United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Further seminars will be held before the end of the financial year. (2) In 1985-86 $197,000 has been allocated for promotion of the Business Migration Program. Separate costs for the advertising component are not readily available. (Question No. 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 (10) 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. (Question No. 3246) Mr Price asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age by Kate Legge concerning a courier employed by his Department. (2) Does his Department have standards of dress to which employees must conform; if so, what are they. (3) Has there been any breach of standards by the employee mentioned in the article; if so, what action has been taken. (4) Did the employee disclose publicly that he was responsible for carrying classified and other security documents; if so, (a) does this constitute a breach of security and (b) what action is being taken. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Department has, however, issued the following guidelines on standards of dress for its civilian staff: Standards of dress for defence civilian staff There are no statutory requirements concerning the dress and appearance of officers while on duty. Subject to the need to wear uniforms or to wear clothing for safety reasons, dress and appearance is a matter for the judgment of the individual officer. In coming to this judgment, staff should bear in mind the following factors: a. the geographic location and climatic conditions of their workplace; b. the degree and type of interface with the public; c. community standards in similar work environments; and d. the extent to which staff are employed in an integrated Service/civilian environment; for example, civilians employed at a Service base should take into account the standards of dress observed by Service personnel undertaking comparable functions. Advice should be sought from other officers or supervisors where doubt exists. (3) No. (4) (a) and (b) No. If the employee had disclosed such information this in itself would not have constituted a breach of security. Mr Lionel Bowen —On 29 November 1985 (Hansard, page 4021), Mr Ian Cameron asked the following question, without notice: Is it a fact, as reported in the Press, that the Government intends to amend the Bill of Rights Bill in the Senate and infringe on States rights to attempt to enforce Federal laws on State redistributions? If so, will the Senate be included in the Government's desire for one vote one value, as a senator in New South Wales requires 281,000 votes, in Queensland 176,000 votes and in Tasmania only 20,000 votes? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the honourable member is aware, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, as read a third time by this House on 15 November 1985, does not override State laws. As I noted in my second reading speech, this was in order to achieve if possible a co-operative approach to human rights protection. It is true that the very large discrepancies which exist between the sizes of electorates in certain States represent the gravest imposition on the most basic political rights of the citizen, and are to be deplored. But even in respect of those matters, I am firmly of the view that to override State legislation without first allowing the States the opportunity to participate in a truly co-operative arrangement would be unnecessarily heavy-handed. However, as I pointed out in my second reading speech: . . . the Commonwealth expects the States and the Northern Territory to take action to amend or repeal legislation which offends human rights . . . The Government wishes to make it clear that if such action on the part of the States is not forthcoming, the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact specific overriding Commonwealth legislation and to extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to the States. As to the honourable member's question about the number of votes required for the election of senators, he should be aware of the Constitutional requirement that each State have the same number of senators.