Tuesday, 8 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I refer to the death of Senator Alan Missen and I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death, on Sunday, 30 March 1986 of Senator Alan Missen, a Senator for Victoria from 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and members of his family in their bereavement. Born in Melbourne on 22 July 1925, Alan Joseph Missen was educated at Box Hill and Melbourne High Schools before going to Melbourne University where he completed a Master of Laws degree. Subsequently Senator Missen pursued a career as a barrister and solicitor. Senator Missen was a foundation member of the Liberal Party of Australia and he played a major role in drafting the Liberal Party's constitution and developing its platforms. He joined the Kew branch of the Liberal Party in 1946 and was a member of the State Executive for 13 years from 1955. He was first elected to the Senate in 1974. As we all know, Senator Alan Missen was a man of deeply held principles. On issues as diverse as the referendum on the dissolution of the Communist Party and the Franklin River dam, he stood as his principles, rather than his politics, demanded. His dedication to principle was not without cost. He did not allow perceptions of possible personal advancement to stand in the way of his deep personal convictions. Senator Missen was a man of very considerable gifts and energy. He was a noted campaigner for legal and constitutional reform in such areas as family law, freedom of information, electoral law and scrutiny of legislation. He was also a well known advocate of human rights, a prominent member of Amnesty International and, as we all know, chairman of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. Senator Missen was deeply concerned about racial discrimination in South Africa long before the issue assumed wider importance. As a stalwart of Amnesty International, he went to the Soviet Union where he made contact with dissidents on whose behalf he worked long and hard. Despite illness, Senator Missen continued to work for his principles until his death. At the time of his death he was Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, a job that he won, lost and then won again last year. To this point I have been speaking about Alan Missen in terms of his achievements and attitudes. However, as all who had the good fortune of knowing him will know, Alan Missen was also a man of great personal charm and character. He had an awareness of problems of people, a remarkable breadth of vision, a tolerance and a compassion. Senator Missen was an outstanding parliamentarian who contributed greatly to his Party and to his country. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his widow our sincerest sympathy and our regret at the loss of this distinguished and principled Australian. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regarding the late Senator Alan Joseph Missen. In doing that I particularly express on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia the sadness and sorrow of so many members of that Party at Alan's untimely death on 30 March. Although he had not enjoyed good health for some time his death did come as a shock to all members of the Party and to many people beyond the Liberal Party. On behalf of the Liberal Party I extend to his widow, Mollie, our very sincere sympathy. As the Prime Minister has said, Alan Missen was a very fearless, articulate upholder of those things that he believed in. We have all lost a very valued colleague and a very good friend. He was a person of principle and integrity. One did not always have to agree with Alan Missen to recognise the deeply held integrity on which his positions were based. His death takes from Australian politics a very creative and analytical mind, and a very eloquent champion of the institution of parliament, the advancement of individual freedom and the protection of human rights. Throughout his political career Alan Missen was very directly and passionately concerned with human rights. More than two-thirds of Alan's life was devoted to serving the cause and the principles of the Liberal Party of Australia. He was, as the Prime Minister has observed, a foundation member of the Liberal Party of Australia, and I believe in that sense his death severs an historical link between this Parliament and the genesis of the Liberal Party more than 40 years ago. For many years Alan worked tirelessly for the organisation of the Victorian Division of the Party. He served on the Victorian State Executive for 13 years. He was metropolitan Vice-President and a member of the Platform Review Committee. He had a long involvement with and support for the Young Liberal Movement of Australia and was honoured by the grant of honorary life membership of the Victorian Young Liberals. Alan Missen entered the Senate in 1974, the same year as the entry to Parliament of myself and a number of other colleagues still serving in the Parliament. I first met Alan Missen as a member of the Federal Platform Review Committee under the chairmanship of the late Sir Phillip Lynch, and it was my first personal contact with the quality and the commitment of his committee work. He displayed then an enormous command of detail and an enormous commitment to a proper and concise expression of what he saw to be the essential values and the essential beliefs of the Liberal Party. He spent a great deal of his parliamentary time working on a variety of issues. People will remember in particular the work that he devoted to the Family Law Act and to the freedom of information legislation. Whatever views one may hold about the contents of either of those pieces of legislation, the work that the late Alan Missen devoted to them won respect on both sides of the House. It is also worth recalling, when reviewing the contribution made by Alan Missen to the work of this Parliament, what he had to say in debates relating to the establishment of the National Crime Authority. Alan worked very intimately on Senate committees related to that Authority. He had a very strong view which he expressed articulately. I think it is fair to say that he took a view that at the time was in advance of the attitude that was held by many of his colleagues in the Liberal and National parties. But in time just about all of the recommendations that Alan Missen had stood out for in relation to the National Crime Authority were adopted as Opposition policy. He spoke of the deficiencies of the National Crime Authority Bill at the time of its passage through this Parliament. I believe that the work he did on that is one of his more significant parliamentary monuments. His work on Senate committees was quite prodigious. For nearly seven years he served as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Throughout his career, Alan Missen stood readily and vigorously to promote the primacy of Parliament over the Executive arm of government. He cogently argued for and drew attention to the need for Parliament to be constantly vigilant in protecting individual liberties. As I said a moment ago, he was relentless in his pursuit and exposure of abuses of human rights wherever and whenever they occurred. He cared little from where human rights abuses emanated. His overriding concern was to see such abuses exposed and rectified. He played a major role as a member of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. It was therefore fitting that at his very moving funeral service in Melbourne last Friday there should have been an Amnesty International participation. He was chairman of this group from 1978 to 1980 and from 1983 until his death. His work with Amnesty was not confined to speeches in Parliament or the writing of letters. During his overseas trips Alan pursued the issue of human rights in many of the countries he visited, sometimes with little regard to his personal safety and comfort. The Prime Minister has rightly recalled Alan Missen's visit to the Soviet Union in 1976 and his successful efforts in making contact with members of the Moscow branch of Amnesty International and the Nobel Prize winning scientist, Dr Andrei Sakharov. As a result of this visit, Alan obtained a copy of the report compiled by Soviet dissidents which listed the many examples of the Soviet Union's breaches of international obligations under the Helsinki Agreement. He managed to smuggle this report out of the Soviet Union and have it released. Needless to say, in the eyes of the Soviet Union, from then on Alan Missen was very much persona non grata. In a speech to the Senate in 1980 he highlighted many of the human rights abuses within that country. In particular he drew attention to the plight of Dr Sakharov. He quoted from a speech of Dr Sakharov's which summed up many of the concerns of Amnesty. Dr Sakharov said: Tragedy abounds in today's world. Blood is being shed in the Middle East, Latin America, Southern Africa, Northern Ireland, Ethiopia, Iran and Afghanistan . . . In such circumstances, a discussion of violations of civil rights in the USSR and Eastern Europe may appear a minor distraction from the more serious problems. But I am certain this is not so. I believe that the main front in the struggle against totalitarianism lies in the international defence of human rights wherever they are violated. Alan echoed and practised these sentiments and backed his words with action. His death has taken from Australia a fearless defender of the institution of Parliament and the freedoms which Parliament is designed to protect. He saw readily through the cant and hypocrisy of bodies that were being used as fronts for promoting other than democratic ideals. He was equally scathing of Western European delegations to bodies such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union which voted for resolutions which were, in his opinion, spineless. He was never prepared to concede respectability to dictatorships which employed the forms but not the substance of a parliament. That is one of the things for which he is very well remembered by so many of his colleagues. Many people, both at the time of his death, at his funeral service, and today, have spoken of his great commitment to principle, whatever the political cost. Alan was prepared to stand up for what he believed to be correct even though it often incurred short term political adversity. In doing that, he won for himself a lasting respect and admiration from all of his parliamentary colleagues. He was a person whose position on issues was always based upon an attitude of integrity. It was not for him to go from issue to issue without any consistency of principle. There was always a philosophical thread binding all his actions. I greatly liked and respected him. I did not always agree with his attitudes on issues, nor he with mine, but I always found him to be a person who would state his position honestly, base it on integrity and then, maintain a position of great consistency. Whatever one's political party, one can ask no more of a colleague than that he maintain a position of integrity and consistency. Alan Missen was a very human person. He was a very gentle soul. People who knew him well valued his friendship very greatly. This very impressive and moving funeral service which so many members from both sides of this House attended in Melbourne last Friday was a very fitting and eloquent tribute to his life's work, his service for the Liberal party of Australia and his service to the Australian nation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party, I join in the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in memory of a great parliamentarian, the late Senator Alan Joseph Missen. It is true that in this House there are people from virtually every sector of our society. It is difficult in a parliament now as large as ours for individuals to stand out; yet there is little doubt that Alan Missen did that, because of both his commitment and his ability. There is little doubt that in his role within the Senate he displayed a questioning mind and powers of forceful advocacy. As a member of the committees of this Parliament, he certainly demonstrated a capacity for detail and a preparedness to pursue causes and inquiries where he believed they should lead, irrespective of the political cost. He was a man who, above all, constantly expressed his concern for others. He was a man who, through his role in Amnesty International, had a continued commitment to advance the cause of individual liberty and to try to advance human rights wherever that might be necessary. Senator Missen, in his role as a member of the monitoring committee of the National Crime Authority, sought to ensure that justice was achieved within Australia. He also pursued through other committees an examination of the detail by which legislation from this place affected the individuals in our community. He was a man with whom many of us found on occasions we were in disagreement; yet, irrespective of that disagreement, he was a man whose judgment one respected, whose integrity one admired and whose personality and advocacy one accepted as being the reflection of a man who was a very worthy citizen of Australia and a very distinguished senator for Victoria. To Mollie, his wife, on behalf of all my colleagues and me, I extend our deepest sympathy. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —I want to pay tribute to Senator Alan Missen, particularly for his role in his struggle for justice for the people of East Timor and the courageous stand that he took in that regard. He made his stand against Liberal and Labor Governments. His opposition was consistent. He was strongly opposed to the Indonesian military invasion of East Timor. As all speakers to the condolence motion have said, he was a person of goodwill. In the true sense of the word, he was a true liberal, which is a very rare commodity in Australian politics today. The Australian Parliament will miss him. People who seek freedom and justice everywhere have lost a great fighter. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —I wish particularly on behalf of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia to add my expressions of sympathy on the death of Senator Alan Joseph Missen, senator for Victoria from 1974 until his death during the Easter recess. At the outset I would like to place on record that amongst the hundreds of people who attended his funeral were a number of Government members in the Senate and the House of Representatives, both Ministers and back benchers. Their presence was noted and was appreciated, and it was a fine tribute to the wide cross-party respect that Senator Missen always enjoyed. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has rightly pointed out, Senator Missen was one of the foundation members of the Liberal Party, joining the Kew branch of the Party in 1946. He was also a foundation member and the first President of the Melbourne University Liberal Club, which brought him into some exchange of views with Sir Robert Menzies, and he helped found the Young Liberal Movement of which he eventually became the Victorian patron. He was, of course, as has also been said, a member of the State Executive of the Party in Victoria for 13 years from 1955 and he was elected to the Senate in 1974. He was both before and during his parliamentary career a noted campaigner for legal and constitutional reforms in so many areas-family law, freedom of information, the fight against crime, electoral law, scrutiny of legislation and, of course, as has already been mentioned, many aspects of human rights. These and many other matters were his interests and his causes which he pursued with great zeal and commitment. His advocacy of human rights took a very tangible form in his work with Amnesty International and he was, of course, the Chairman of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. It is not often realised that he also took a great interest in matters ranging far beyond and quite apart from human rights matters. One need only look at his maiden speech in 1974 to see that. He spoke on a trade practices Bill where he advocated then, as he continued to advocate, the merits of free enterprise, the rights of citizens to participate in the production and distribution of the nation's wealth and, most importantly for him, his concern that there should be real competition and a fair deal for consumers. These, of course, were to remain some of his most strongly held convictions. Senator Missen believed in open government and he advanced this cause from his earliest days in the Senate. He was, as we know, at the vanguard of the campaign for effective freedom of information legislation in Australia. As Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, he presided over a major report on freedom of information and he was rewarded by eventually seeing that proposal put into legislation and implemented. He maintained his interest in freedom of information and, most recently, was successful in obtaining Senate support to disallow some measures to increase freedom of information charges and otherwise to restrict the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act. He had a wide and genuine interest in all aspects of civil liberties and human rights. He took up the cause of the oppressed Ukrainians and the human rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka, Afghan refugees in Australia and many others. He was patron of the Australian Relief Committee for Afghanistan and in that capacity advocated that Australia should increase its intake of refugees from that unfortunate country. It did not matter to him, of course, how many or how few people were affected by a transgression of human rights. What was important to him was the cause itself and the injustice that was done to a single individual. Alan Missen was always an individualist. He pursued his causes because he believed they were right and he did so courageously and irrespective of whether it made him unpopular or put him in disfavour with his own Party or anyone else. He did not just talk about but put into practice the principle that, at the end of the day and after all the argument, a member of Parliament must act and vote according to his own conscience. But it should not be forgotten, despite that, that he was also a party man who worked through the structure of the Liberal Party for 40 years and contributed an enormous amount to its work and its success, particularly in Victoria. He will be sadly missed in the Party, in the Parliament and, I believe, in the wider community. I am sure that this House would be of one mind in expressing its sorrow at his passing and its sympathy to his widow, Mollie. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —I knew Alan Missen for more than 30 years. We were on the same side of the barricades in many major controversies, including civil liberties, censorship, increased funding for education, the abolition of the death penalty, freedom of information, the rights of Aborigines, conservation issues-notably the Franklin dam case-and steady opposition to fanaticism and ignorance. He adopted a lonely position, running against the mainstream of his own Party, and never found himself as a Minister or as a Party spokesman. I interpolate to express some puzzlement as to how somebody can be a foundation member of the Liberal Party of Australia when he joined the Party in 1946 and the Party was founded in 1944, but leave it aside. In the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party there were some kindred spirits in the early 1970s, notably Dick Hamer, then Andrew Peacock and later Ian Macphee, but he must have found himself in a state of permanent opposition. He was a great parliamentarian. As his lifelong friend Dr Keith Boardman, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, pointed out, as a law student at the University of Melbourne in the 1940s his strong convictions on the right of the individual and the free enterprise system were not well received by the majority of the politically minded university students, very much left of centre in those days, nor did his liberal ideas find much favour with the hierarchy of the newly formed Liberal Party in Victoria. He was deeply opposed to the use of an adventitious Senate majority in 1975 to defeat the Labor Government. I remember his strong views expressed to a group of us after Graham Perkin's funeral in Melbourne on 17 October 1975 that although he would reluctantly vote with Fraser on procedural issues he, and some others, would not vote to actually reject Supply. Long before he entered the Senate we worked together in the Tait case of 1961-62 and the Ryan case of 1966-67, and in various Freedom to Read campaigns. As has been said, he devoted a great deal of time, energy and passion to Amnesty International, travelling widely and often, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, as has not been remarked before, South Africa, sometimes at his own expense, to find out about prisoners of conscience, to visit them where possible and then to light a candle in the dark. In our last conservation at the Free Wallenberg meeting in Melbourne on 16th March, we shared concern about the shift in public opinion away from liberalism, except in economic matters, of course, and towards authoritarianism, the promotion of simple solutions for complex problems, extreme polarisation, exaggerated overstatement of arguments, the rise of tribal feelings and a spirit of bitter partisanship, appeals to fear, appeals to greed and appeals to prejudice, the rise of violence and a community reaction, nonetheless appalling for being understandable, in favour of meeting violence with violence and death with death. Ours is a much less liberal community than it was a decade ago. This may reflect that the world is changing and we do not quite know how to cope with it. Senator Missen looked very robust and full fleshed until the last few years when he undertook a radical diet to cope with his diabetes. He became very gaunt, but kept insisting that he felt well and kept up his sporting activities until close to the end. He chose a very bad time to leave us and we are much diminished by his passing. He had courage, compassion and integrity. I express my deep sympathy to his wife, Mollie, who was central to all his causes. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff) —I was just elected to the Australian Senate at the 1974 election, as was Alan Missen. However, my friendship with him and Mollie Missen went back quite some years previously. Although I did not have the advantage of knowing him in the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia, I met him and Mollie over 20 years ago at the Australia debating championship and was immediately attracted to both of them for their wit, their intellect and their charm. I rise to speak today both as Allen Missen's former colleague in the Senate and as, I would hope the Missens would call me, a long-standing friend. I was one of those at the service of tribute to the life of Alan Missen last Friday in the Holy Trinity Church at Kew who, I am sure, had mild but wry smiles on their faces when the Hon. Peter Block referred to the fact that being a friend of Alan Missen's was not always the most comfortable experience people could have. In fact-this might surprise some of those who clashed with Alan and for whom he was not a friend-he could make life much more uncomfortable for his friends than for his opponents. He was absolutely relentless with his friends when he thought they were in error, whereas he could dismiss the views of those whom he thought beyond salvation. Alan Missen was a classic liberal in that he dedicated his life to the individual and his or her liberty. He was also a classic democrat in that he had faith in the intrinsic worth of the parliamentary institution and he used it as the means through which he chose to work to better the lot of individuals world wide. Of course, his first objective was the citizens of Australia. To that commitment, as a liberal and a democrat, he brought a rigorous and relentless intellect. The results of his work and his intellect have been documented already here today. I will mention some: in the legal area, laws on freedom of information, the Human Rights Commission, the National Crime Authority, matters associated with the environment, family law, and discrimination in particular. Those were issues always at the top of the list and ones on which he worked with great energy and dedication. In Parliament he served on committees to which he was also committed. He served on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He was the initiator of the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Whilst that is a Senate committee, the Parliament as a whole is the poorer for the fact that Alan did not achieve his ambition to make it a standing committee of the Senate. It is a committee that lives from one session of Parliament to the next. I hope that in the future that Committee which he founded will become a permanent committee and make an assured contribution to Parliament. Within the Liberal Party, of course, he made many contributions. I draw attention to one policy in particular because it was one to which he was absolutely dedicated and he was extremely frustrated when it was not paid more attention. It was an official coalition policy-and he was not alone in drafting it-but his policy on deregulation during the last election campaign was outstanding. I hope it will be paid much more attention in the future. On a personal level, whilst much has been said today of Alan's achievements, it is also true that he had many great disappointments in his time in Parliament. I think he would have accepted that if one is to achieve things, one will also have disappointments. It is inevitable when one seeks to achieve that one will at some stage be disappointed. Those two things go together. That did not, however, lessen the personal hurt he felt on occasions when he did not achieve those things that meant a great deal to him. I was one of his friends who witnessed that hurt on a number of occasions. However, never did any of his disappointments, no matter how major or hurtful, lessen his drive, his desire, his determination to do better during the time he was here. There are those who have referred to the fact that he did not achieve the personal advancement that his talents might have given him. He did compromise on occasions. He was not an absolutely uncompromising man. The sacrifice he made for his principles did not mean that he lacked ambition. He would have liked to have been a Minister in a Liberal government. He would have liked it very much because it would have meant that he could have done so much more. But Alan Missen could never have been a time server. The premature nature of his death showed that it is well that he was not a time server. Madam Speaker, some parliamentary lives will be a little more comfortable in the future with Alan Missen no longer here. However, I believe that he and Mollie would consider it of far more significance that many Australians' lives today are better because he was here. At the service last Friday the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) delivered a tribute which was very moving. The honourable member for Goldstein has asked me to say on his behalf that, because of a commitment he gave a long time ago, he is not in Canberra today and therefore cannot speak on this condolence motion for Alan Missen, as he would have greatly desired. I have a copy of the tribute that the honourable member for Goldstein gave last Friday. While I know that it is not normal to have such pieces of prose incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard, I seek the indulgence of the House to have incorporated that tribute of the honourable member for Goldstein to Alan Missen. Madam SPEAKER —I say to the honourable member for Moncrieff that the ruling was never meant to be inflexible. I am sure that leave is granted. I heard the tribute on Friday and it was a very moving one. The tribute read as follows- `Everything he had written was dedicated to destroying some privilege or oppression, some ignorance or abuse that arrested people's development and kept them shackled to the barbarism of the past. So great was his devotion that he searched everywhere-into every discipline he could master, into every salient public issue-probing for sources of stagnation, and excising them root and branch.' So said Eugene August of John Stuart Mill. Alan Missen, I believe, is worthy of a similar epitaph. Mill was one of Alan Missen's great inspirations; Mill has inspired Liberals elsewhere and Alan Missen followed his example and maintained Mill's commitment. Both knew that Liberals can never afford to relax their vigilance. Of all modern Australian Liberals, Alan Missen remained the most vigilant. I once asked him, why he always seemed to be fighting on so many fronts. He answered by listing all the topics upon which he was then working. This satisfied me that he was exercising great discipline in only promoting a fraction of those topics for discussion at any one time. Like Mill-and like Alfred Deakin (who also inspired Alan)-Alan Missen was dedicated to helping to create an environment in which individuals would be free from oppression, abuse and ignorance. Alan, like Mill and Deakin, was unreservedly committed to action which would ensure that all enjoyed maximum freedom of choice and genuine equality of opportunity. Alan Missen fought unrelentingly to protect and advance the well-being of individuals in Australia and throughout the world. He frequently updated his statement of modern Liberal philosophy. When doing so, he covered the entire range of essential social, economic and foreign policy areas. A challenge now before Liberals is to index Alan's prolific work. The next challenge will be to act constantly upon those Liberal principles so cogently and forcefully set out by him. Alan Missen was a truly remarkable person. We are all the richer for having known his restless intellect, his gentle barbs, his indefatigable energy, his great compassion and his practical approach to a multitude of problems facing human beings throughout the world. Alan was one of the few Australian parliamentarians who was well known and respected throughout the world. His commitment to individual liberty and human rights took him-at his own expense-to South Africa, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Irian Jaya, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and other countries in which he believed there were human rights violations which ought to be exposed. His concern was to fight discrimination, oppression, persecution and poverty. He worked with the major world relief organisations and at some world conferences was the only Australian present. Above all he worked with Amnesty International, being chairman of the parliamentary group at the time of his death. In Australia Alan fought for individual rights in so many areas. A renowned defender of civil liberties, he championed the cause of freedom of information in the face of great opposition from sections of the executive government. He was Chairman of the Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee which, against executive wishes, forced the creation of the vitally important Parliamentary Monitoring Committee of the National Crime Authority. Alan was one of those who was instrumental in the creation of the Human Rights Commission. While he was the bane of the Executive in many ways he believed that the Human Rights Commission was a necessary part of the Executive to act in conjunction with the courts to protect and advance individual rights. His last major contribution in the Senate was to have his amendments to the H.R.C. accepted. He was hard at work with further improvements to the H.R.C. when he died. Alan's patient work on the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee won him and the Australian Parliament renown throughout the democratic world. It was the work of a pioneer-a pilgrim. Australians also owe him much for the work he did so painstakingly for the Senate committee dealing with the disallowance of ordinances and regulations. He received international recognition for his approach to delegated legislation and its exercise. At all times he sought to safeguard the rights of individuals against the intrusions of government-a liberal vigil indeed. Alan also distinguished himself on a range of environmental and conservation issues. Much could be said on each of those. Even more could be said in praise of his contribution to the reform of family law in Australia. Again, he died with many of his proposed reforms not finalised to his exacting standards. Likewise, he did not have time to advance some of his most cherished thoughts for constitutional and parliamentary reform. We shall all remember and respect him for his passionate commitment to the principle that an elected government, commanding a majority in the House of Representatives, is entitled to have the Senate pass its essential financial legislation unless the enactment of such measures produces effects which are harsh or repressive. Several times in the last year, Alan told me how much he wanted to have another decade in the Senate. There was simply so much to do for individuals so that they might do good deeds for the world. That work is now for others to do. Each of us shall miss him but none more than Molly who shared Alan's ideals and aided his efforts so much. Alan's spirit was always undaunted but without Molly's constant and loving encouragement even his faith in his ideals would have been shaken on occasions. Each of us, however, rejoices in his life, in his accomplishments and in the fact of being privileged to have been his friend. Alan and I were elected to Parliament on the same day, almost 12 years ago. We became very close friends in an atmosphere which is generally alien to friendship. I shall miss his great warmth-his humanity. And I shall miss the daily letters and the urgent phone messages when his caring and conscientious spirit discovered a new wrong to set right. Politics attracts too few like Alan. A biographer might, therefore, judge him to have been a fine parliamentarian but a poor politician. Alan might have happily agreed! Alan was a modest and shy man. He would have been astounded at the size and composition of today's congregation paying homage to him. An appreciation of his real worth in the eyes of others would have been quite beyond his view of himself. Alan Missen was a major inspiration to the Liberal Party of Australia from its inception. But he was much more than that. Alan Missen provided a bright beacon for liberalism generally-regardless of formal political party affiliations. His uncompromising commitment to liberal principles on a vast array of Australian and international issues made him not merely a great liberal conscience in Australia but made his life a noble moment in human history. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Not many people in our society evolve like Alan Missen. I cannot speak of him personally because it is an unfortunate fact of life that, not only being from a different party but also from a different House, I did not see him or mix with him all that often. Too few of the people who evolve like Alan Missen come to the Parliament. He was a very special personality in Parliament. Some people who thought he may not have been tough should recollect how hard he worked right up to the time of his death and some of the decisions he had to make during his 12 years in Parliament-Alan Missen and I were elected at the same time-in deference to the majority view of his Party. I travelled with Alan Missen to Lagos and had many discussions with him about the issues in which he was interested. He left Lagos to go to South Africa to talk with people about the problems of South Africa. Even then, at a time when his illness was almost at its height, he had an unrelenting interest in trying to talk to people about the problems in their own countries, and that interest was reflected in the Parliament. Alan Missen brought a great deal of credibility, not only to the members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia but also to all parliamentarians, because of the work he did and the issues in which he took a great interest. I cannot think of anything which has happened in my time in the House which is as critical as the events of 11 November 1975, and I would hope that no member of either chamber of this Parliament would want to see a repeat of those events. I have held the view for a long time that had the Governor-General not made that decision on 11 November, people such as Alan Missen would have voted to pass the Budget and there would have been no constitutional crisis at that time. For Alan Missen to have done that, at a time when all those pressures were brought to bear on him, would have shown what sort of a person and a parliamentarian he was and, finally and more importantly, what sort of an Australian he was. I extend to his widow our condolences. Mr BURR(Lyons) —At Alan Missen's memorial service the printed program was appropriately headed `Alan Joseph Missen, Senator for Victoria, Champion for Human Rights'. Alan was a very warm and compassionate human being whom I was proud to call a friend and a very close colleague. He dedicated his life to helping others. His was not just a patronising theory-his belief in equal rights for all people was so dynamic that it motivated him throughout his life. He opposed the oppression of people, no matter where it occurred in the world or by whom the oppression was perpetrated. His work in the field of human rights won him justifiable world-wide acclaim. Alan Missen was a true Liberal. He joined the Party in 1946 and worked diligently for it throughout his life. He believed in equal opportunity for every individual. He did not believe in equality of outcome and that was where he differed so strongly with the socialists. However, he believed that all individuals should have equal opportunity to exploit and develop their talents. He opposed monopolisation by governments because it inhibits opportunities for the individual. But he was equally opposed to monopolisation by private business interests through a laissez-faire market-place because it has the same effect of infringing on the rights of the individual. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have already mentioned the wide range of interests Alan had and the way in which he exploited them. In a recent conversation I had with Alan, he expressed the view that a blanket privatisation policy was a wrong concept. He was not negative in that view. He showed me very detailed papers that he was preparing to analyse each individual government corporation. He was looking for areas that could successfully be let out to public tender. At the same time, he was bitterly opposed to allowing our great public enterprises to be exploited by private interests or to be placed under the same threat as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Alan Missen was a true Liberal. He remained consistent to his beliefs throughout his life. It often amazed me that people strongly supported him when he exposed human rights violations in Russia and yet opposed him bitterly if he exposed human rights violations in South Africa. They supported Alan strongly when he supported the right of an individual to choose whether to join or not to join a union, yet those same people opposed him when he advocated equal opportunities for women or equal opportunities for Aboriginal people. Alan remained consistent and true to Liberal philosophy throughout his life. If he clashed with others in the Party it was not because he was in any way inconsistent with or in breach of Liberal philosophy. He was never motivated by personal ambition and he was scathing in his criticism of others who acted out of political expediency. His only motivation was his principles and the dignity and rights of others. We would all do well to reflect on his life. If we can, even in part, emulate his selfless dedication to Liberal values it will do much to lift the standing and integrity of Parliament as our major pillar of democracy. It will do much to make Australia a better and more compassionate society in which to live. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I also seek to associate myself with the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and, in doing so, speak not only in my personal capacity but, I think I can confidently say, on behalf of the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, of which, of course, Alan was the Chairman and for which he was an active worker for a very long time. I came to know him, I hope as a friend as well as a colleague, during the relatively brief time I had the opportunity to serve as Secretary of that Group while he served as Chairman. I know that the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), who was my predecessor in that position, wishes to be associated with my remarks as she also came to hold Alan in the highest regard, as did I. Before I make a number of remarks about Alan I also indicate that the entire Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International can never be the same as it was before Alan's death. I think that the administrative officer or secretary of that group, Dorothy Bennett from the Parliamentary Library, also would like to be associated with the motion before the House. Having said that, I believe, as other members have indicated, that the loss of Alan is not only a loss to Parliament and the country but also indeed a loss to the broader international movement for human rights. I extend, as do others, my sympathy to his wife, Mollie. I had never met her until the funeral but one needed to look at her only once to see why Alan loved her so very much and what a very special person she was to him. From the Senate viewpoint, Alan's achievements in the Senate probably epitomise what a senator ought to be and what a senator ought to represent. Alan's achievements working on committees defending the independence and the role of a member of parliament in the Senate probably cannot be equalled in our time, because he truly defended that position as, unfortunately, no others could have hoped to do. His Party achievements, which have been spoken of, were extensive. Of course, he was a member of the Victorian Executive of the Liberal Party of Australia for a very long period. He was a patron of the Victorian Young Liberals. Of course, as he would have agreed and as every honourable member here would agree, his relationship with the Liberal Party was from time to time a particularly stormy one. Newspaper reports have it that he was expelled from the Party on a couple of occasions and each time rejoined. However, he remained committed to the ideals of the Liberal Party as he saw them. It is not my intention to canvass Alan's view of liberalism-I think that that has been done very ably by the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr)-but I suggest that it was his view of liberalism which motivated Alan throughout his adult life and certainly throughout his parliamentary career. He never held ministerial office and, trite though it may be to say it, I think it should be said that he was, perhaps, a terrible politician but a wonderful parliamentarian. From time to time he took remarkably courageous stands. In the 1950s many members of the Australian Labor Party ran for cover when there was an attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. Alan Missen had the tremendous personal courage, which I find difficult to understand from this historical reflection, to stand up and raise the civil liberties and broader democratic principles that led him to oppose that particular legislation. However, it was in the field of human rights that Alan truly strutted the world stage. Few back bench members of parliament can claim to have rubbed shoulders or made friends with people like Bishop Tutu or to have been in regular contact with human rights activists in parliamentary forums in other places throughout the world, but Alan did that and did it as an equal. I am sure that, if tributes have not already come from people like Bishop Tutu, they will follow because Alan was a world leader in the defence of human rights. When we lose a loved one or a friend, it sometimes gives us comfort to reflect on more humorous or lighthearted aspects of the person we have lost. I listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his comments that Alan worked tirelessly up to the time of his death. After the very distressing news of Alan's death over Easter, I went to my electorate office and one of the first things I did was look at the morning mail. I found a letter from Alan Missen raising the question of a joint delegation to East Timor with the United Kingdom House of Commons Human Rights Group. Even after his death, Alan's initiatives were still coming to me. I can well understand that many members of his own Party were driven to distraction by Alan's enduring commitment and hyperactive initiatives in the human rights area. I wish to refer briefly to the tribute that has been paid by Amnesty International (Australia). The President of Amnesty, Mr Eric Moxham, has written of Alan's very broad defence of human rights, including those of people in Sri Lanka, East Timor, El Salvador, South Africa, the Soviet Union and the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. The sting, if it can be referred to as that, in Mr Moxham's letter is this: Alan Missen leaves more than the record of his words in Hansard. His legacy will be measured by the future actions of members of the Parliament on behalf of the victims of human rights violations throughout the world. As I have indicated, not only will the parliamentary group miss Alan, but so too will the broader international movement for human rights. I conclude my tribute to Alan by referring to some of his own words when he spoke last year to the eighteenth world conference of the Society for International Development on the role of the parliamentary human rights group. He said: Australia sees itself as an active democracy, something of a rarity in the world. We believe that democracies must make their voices heard more strenuously in a world torn by civil strife and by bestialities and offences against human rights indulged in very often in secrecy by governments. He went on: Covenants exist to which many governments pay lip service. We make no apology for our interference in the domestic concerns of other nations, for we believe that the defence of human rights is a world-wide problem and nations cannot shelter behind national barriers and allow these wrongs to be done to their fellow citizens with impunity. He concluded with this reference to the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International: The existence and vigorous operation of such bodies strengthen the individual integrity and sense of personal responsibility of Members of Parliament often threatened by the arrogance of Executive power. It must proclaim its message without fear or favour in this world where injustice thrives in the shadow of silence. I join with the Prime Minister in expressing my deep condolences to Mollie Missen. I deeply regret Alan's death. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I wish to be associated with this tribute today to my former colleague, Alan Missen. Like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I first served with Alan on the platform committee of the Liberal Party in 1973. That was when I first met him and appreciated very much the prodigious nature of the work he would undertake in any of our collective efforts. The platform we produced at that time for the Liberal Party, as we look back at it, is very much a tribute to the contribution made by him and one of his colleagues, Maurice Williams, from Victoria. These two people were very keen to ensure that the document was wide ranging in its ambit. Some who looked at it later were concerned that it may have covered many more policy issues than platform issues, but it was a much more comprehensive document than might otherwise have been the case. I have no doubt that that document covered as many areas as it did because of the efforts of Alan Missen. That document is testimony to the wide-ranging interests he had, even at that time. He came to Parliament in 1974. I arrived here shortly before that in 1973 and I sat on the Opposition's law and government committee. I can remember well the rather sparkling discussions between Alan Missen and the late Ivor Greenwood. Those who knew both Alan and Ivor will know the nature of those meetings. They were not always as productive as they might have been because the discussion was particularly vigorous and strong views were held on either side. The other area in which I have had a significant involvement with Alan is that of human rights. I have been a member of the Parliamentary Group since its inception, along with Alan and other parliamentary colleagues. To be a human rights advocate throughout the world is not easy. It may be assumed that it is an easy task to go to the Soviet Union, to seek out dissidents and to bring out documents. I have never done this, but I imagine that it takes great courage to do so. I do not think it is easy to go to South Africa and to befriend people like Bishop Tutu and Chief Buthelezi and to have to incur the wrath of those who are involved in the maintenance of a system which one sees as unjust. I have on occasions raised human rights issues. Recently I was in Kampuchea and I had the opportunity to press some matters on a government leader. I found that he was not particularly gratified to receive my message. Whenever Alan spoke, whether it was on Sri Lanka, about which he had been very active of late in putting the position of the Tamils and the human rights abuses there, or on Irian Jayan refugees, and he had some views to offer there-one needs only to look at recent debates in the Senate to appreciate the nature of his comments-or whether it was on the world stage, Alan Missen had strong views and he put them with great courage. In doing so, he brought great credit to all of us as Australians. The point that needs to be understood, and Alan Missen understood it better than most, is that if one walks the world stage and puts the plight of those who are oppressed, one cannot do so unless one has a clean slate at home. Alan Missen was conscious, as he talked to people involved in the Westminster Human Rights Group and as he went to international conferences to put the plight of others, that we here in Australia should not have a blemished record of our own. I think that was why he was as involved as he was in such questions as freedom of information. His speeches in the present debate on the human rights Bills bear reading. His views in relation to the implementation in Australia of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in relation to the National Crime Authority, equally, are worth reading because people might argue that there is a certain element of inconsistency between the position that he might put on human rights and civil freedoms and the efforts that he put into bringing to justice some of those who were involved in perpetrating dreadful crime upon Australia. In each of those areas Alan Missen was involved. I found him courageous, not only in Parliament but also in the councils of my own Party. I found frequently that when I might be thinking about speaking on issues Alan Missen was there long before me and was jogging all of us. He did not always carry the day, but he certainly influenced the outcome. I think it is the mark of a great parliamentarian that he is able to influence the course of events. Alan Missen was able to do that. He will be sorely missed by all of us, and I send my tribute to Mollie as well. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —This, I think, has been a day of the finest tributes paid to a member of parliament for as long as I can recall. Yet, to me, there has been a singular element missing and those who knew Alan Missen-and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and I were fortunate enough to know him for 30 years-would appreciate that, frankly, he was a far more rounded person than has oft come out in some of the statements supporting the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. From the Prime Minister down, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and others, there really have been very fine tributes. But Alan Missen was an extraordinarily rounded man. He did not only defend human rights-he was passionate in that-he also saw the benefit in the lighter side of elements. He shared with the Prime Minister and I the love of having a bet on a horse; he would like a chat about the football. We are not talking about a remote human being and some academic who would fight for civil liberties; we are talking about a genuine, warm human being whose influence will live long after the majority of us leave this Parliament. He was up for expulsion twice from my Party. He did not laugh about it at the time but he laughed about it afterwards. He fought against the referendum that Prime Minister Menzies sought to introduce in the early 1950s. The Party moved for his expulsion. I was not then a member of the Party. I joined the Young Liberals in 1955. Alan Missen was a bit of a cult hero to some of us then, but it was not just a cult hero worship because some of us were dragged back again a few years later to defend him when once again he was up for expulsion because he stood for the rights of a particular member who interestingly enough had lost his endorsement. We won on that occasion. I would like the House to remember how vigilant and how vigorous he was in his pursuit, and how compassionate he was. He was also one of the warmest human beings. No one was bothered more than I as Foreign Minister by the frequent notes in my office day after day on behalf of some body in some remote part of the world. The remarks of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) who quoted from the Honourable Peter Block are correct: `To be a friend of Alan Missen was pretty difficult'. He worked you pretty ruggedly, but at the same time I would also have at the bottom of some of those representations just what he had a bet on in a jumping race at Caulfield or Flemington. There was in fact a horse running some years ago called Mizzen, and the honourable senator took great delight in attending the races and inspecting the noble steed before it would race. I did want to inject into a serious occasion a reminder of the sort of person he was. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) spoke of Senator Missen's liberal inclination-Liberal he was. John Wheeldon wrote that had Senator Missen been a politician in the United Kingdom he would have been a member of the Liberal Party and not the Conservative Party. I think that is probably true. Yet for those who seem to think that genuine Liberals are not interested in concepts such as deregulation and the like, who was it who wrote the policy on deregulation with which we went to the election in 1984? It was that `wet' politician Senator Missen. Vigilant, compassionate, tolerant, rounded, warm, amusing-all these things make up a part of Alan Missen. Many of us loved him, and so many of us were irritated from time to time. He was a zealous opponent of mine when I stood for preselection in 1966. He was standing also. The honourable member for Moncrieff was right to remind us that on occasions he would reach into the depths of despair and lift himself out and go on. On occasions he would despair, and not just for his Party but fairly, let it be put, because he too was suffering personal disappointments. Some of us would carry and share those; some of us would be blamed on occasions, but for those he valued as friends he would come back again and again and again. He was, in fact, one of the most persistent people I have ever known. He was also in many ways that combination of one of the most irritable and yet personable persons because he adhered scrupulously to those principles that have been so oft and so eloquently mentioned today. I join with members in paying the warmest tribute to a man who was a friend, to a man who was very difficult, as Peter Block said, to have that friendship with, but from whom one gains so much. Whilst Alan has gone his influence on this Parliament certainly has not. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I would like to speak briefly in the same vein as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) because Alan Missen was a most extraordinary and extraordinarily gifted man. His personality impressed itself greatly on everyone he met, in my case back in 1974. I believe, like the honourable member for Kooyong, that if I compiled a scorecard on issues which Alan and I discussed and debated over the past 12 years it would show that we agreed and disagreed approximately half and half; that is to say, for 50 per cent of the time we were in agreement and for 50 per cent of the time we were in disagreement. It is remarkable that on no occasion that we were in disagreement did that fact ever emerge publicly, but on every occasion that we stood together the unanimity of our views was there for all to see. I want to mention just two: The continuing campaign against the brutal violation of human rights in the Soviet Union, and our joint and very lonely stand in our Party on behalf of the people of East Timor. Alan Missen would have been moved by the tribute by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). Alan and I on occasions both shared a platform with that Minister on the question of East Timor. His speech reminded me of the time in 1976 when six of us went to see the Indonesian Ambassador. Six of us dared to ask for visas to East Timor. The ambassador's reaction was indeed hostile. I, having been deputed as spokesman, was copping it. Alan Missen interrupted, took to the ambassador and said `We are now leaving', and he led us out. Others have spoken more eloquently of the exceptional brilliance of his restless and ever-inquiring mind; his indefatigable and unlimited drive and energy; his mastery of detail and the specific, even to the point of pursuing each and every issue right down to the ultimate detail; his unstoppable and relentless pursuit of truth, and his undying commitment to basic and fundamental human rights. He was truly a real life champion of human rights, the like of which this nation has never seen before and will probably never see again. At the most beautiful service, which you attended, Madam Speaker, last Friday-the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) mentioned that the program was inscribed: `A service of thanksgiving for the work of Alan Joseph Missen, Senator for Victoria, Champion for Human Rights'-the Hon. Ian Macphee MP, the Hon. Peter Block and Mr Peter Frankel spoke most movingly. Their words were exemplified by the enormous and most representative congregation that I, and I believe all of us, have ever seen-from a distinguished judge of the High Court of Australia right through the ranks of people involved in civil and public life, trade unionists and Afghan and Timorese refugees. I believe that their attendance was a great tribute to this very great man. In conclusion, two couplets from the two hymns sung at that service encapsulate for me the character and commitment of Alan Missen. I quote from John Bunyan's immortal words: `He'll labour night and day To be a pilgrim'. That, Madam Speaker, is precisely what he did, as we all know. Finally, I quote from Jerusalem: `I shall not cease from mental Fight, Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,' He never ceased, nor did his sword ever sleep in his hand. His work will live forever as we, in our own small way, do likewise. The magnificent tribute paid by A. E. Piddington to Edmund Barton is precisely applicable to Alan Missen: `O never proud in life-lie down in pride'. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —Just prior to the moving of the condolence motion by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I was discussing with my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) the role of people supporting condolence motions, embracing eulogies and so on. I was quite interested to hear him say that he would rather have no comments in this chamber on his passing than have the usual types of comments made during debate on condolence motions. Madam Speaker, I was associated with Alan Missen in my role as Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority and, further, through my membership of the executive of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, which was, of course, chaired by the late senator. I will attempt to be as accurate as possible in the very brief points I wish to make about Alan's views. I certainly will be astringent but I will endeavour not to say things now that I would not have said previously. Some of the legacies and monuments to Alan Missen are the many issues he embraced, often against the tide not only of his Party but also of public opinion. Those issues have been adverted to previously by a number of speakers. The one that stands out most strongly in my mind is his opposition to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill and the subsequent referendum. I think it is fitting testimony to his views on that particular issue that we have many years later, I hope, all come to the view that that was a very grave mistake, and it stands this country in very good stead that there were people like Alan Missen to tip what in the final analysis was a very finely balanced argument to the side of rationality and freedom of political views. I do not call myself a friend of the late Alan Missen. I did not do that when he was alive and I think it would be most presumptuous of me to do that now. I had a very strong liking for Alan Missen as an individual and a very high regard for his integrity and his contribution to this Parliament. Leaving aside the perhaps amorphous and rather hard to grasp concept of friendship not only in politics generally but certainly across the divide of political parties, I can say that he was one of the few members of the Opposition with whom I could have imagined developing a friendship over a greater period had fate allowed that. I think most honourable members would agree that as a result of what happened in 1975 there are not the friendships that there may otherwise have been. This is largely the result of the poisoning of the political atmosphere that developed around 1975. I think this situation has arisen regardless of which view one took on the merits or otherwise of the blocking of Supply. I think it is a fine legacy and a fine monument to Alan Missen that he fought as hard as one could be expected to fight against the blocking of Supply in 1975. To that extent he attempted to prevent the sort of poisoning of relationships which subsequently arose in this place. I think the dust and turmoil of that period have settled down and people are moving across party lines to develop something approaching friendships. I would have very much liked that to have been the case between Alan and me. I attended his funeral at Kew because of my very high regard and my respect for him. I will close on this note: Respect is something that cannot be demanded; it must be earned. Certainly Alan earned that from me. On behalf of my colleagues on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority, I extend condolences to Mollie. I wish her and her family the very best for the future. We have not only lost a person for whom I have respect and a high regard, but we have lost a very great Australian. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Madam Speaker, as this debate draws to a close, I do not wish the impression to remain that Alan Missen was very largely a man who played the international stage and was concerned only with important matters such as the National Crime Authority and legal and constitutional affairs. Alan Missen had an interest in the everyday man. I wish to make brief reference to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. Fortunately, Alan Missen belonged to a party which tolerates-and in saying this on this occasion, I am not even remotely casting aspersions on the other side of the chamber-a greater degree of individualism than does the Australian Labor Party. On the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, Alan Missen sided with the Australian Democrats in the belief that the stance that we on this side of the chamber were taking was morally wrong. It could well be argued that had the Liberals opposed the Bill outright and had the Democrats advocated a sunset clause Alan would have been with us. That is more a reflection on the Democrats than anything else-they were probably watching which course we would follow. But even on that domestic matter, Alan Missen opted out and voted with the Democrats. Only today we received correspondence from Senator Gietzelt in which reference is made to Alan Missen's opinions which were expressed during the sittings of the sub-committee that examined the retrospectivity aspects of the veterans' entitlements legislation. I say that because Alan was a man whose interests went right across the spectrum. I believe that in his own way he was a great senator, that my Party was very enriched by his presence and that my Party and this parliamentary institution are much the poorer for his passing. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I wish to be associated with the motion of condolence. We have heard from both sides of the House today about the public and private life of Alan Missen and his outstanding achievements in this Parliament. All those of us who were at his funeral in Melbourne last Friday will remember the Amnesty International candle which was lit in his memory. We must also remember that it was surrounded by barbed wire, which was a very poignant reminder not only of Alan's chosen task but also of the fact that his work is still far from completed. In fairness to Alan, let me say that he would want this Parliament to put substance into those famous Latin words `vitai lampada tradunt' because he has passed on the torch of his life to us. We must not forget the eternal truths in which he believed. I join my colleagues in extending my sympathy to his wife Mollie and his family. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Alan Missen was a controversial parliamentarian and a controversial member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Other speakers have attested to that in this House today. As fate would have it, in the last week of the parliamentary sittings before Easter I had a lot to do with Alan Missen. It was a constituent matter that brought us together on that occasion. We in this House are often cynical about the attitude of senators towards constituent matters; but this matter, which concerned immigration, the liberty of someone and that person's right to come to this country, was one on which he took issue, and we both made representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is in the House today. Alan Missen harassed the Minister during the last week of sitting. We made joint representations and we were successful. The representations concerned someone getting permission to come to Australia to marry. I rang the constituent-this was before Alan Missen died-and she said to me: `I am going to have some photographs taken of the wedding so that I can send them to Alan Missen'. I met Alan Missen at the airport in that last week when he was on his way to Canberra. When I arrived at the airport an airline official said that Alan Missen had collapsed but insisted on going to Canberra. I was worried about him, when coming off the plane, because he was obviously a very ill man. At the airport I talked to him about our constituent matter. I could see that he was very ill indeed. I guess it is a measure of Alan Missen that, sick as he was, he was still interested in the constituent matter that I have mentioned and in coming to the Parliament to pursue issues about which he felt strongly. Senator Harradine was present at the airport. I spoke to him and told him that Alan Missen was very sick. The nature of this place is such that people of different political views come together on matters such as illness and the motion before the House today. Senator Harradine took the matter in hand and made sure that Senate officials looked after Senator Missen and got him to the Parliament that day. I cannot claim to have been a close friend of Alan Missen. I had a close working relationship with him in the Liberal Party, particularly during that last week of sitting. I have close friends who were very close friends of Alan Missen. They had been concerned over some time about his health. Whilst they disagreed with him more than they agreed with him on political issues, they worried about him and would share their concerns with me. I guess he never knew that. The last thing I have to say is that yesterday on a footpath in the city of Melbourne I ran into a Young Liberal. I did not know that he had a close relationship with Alan Missen. The Young Liberal said that the thing he would miss most about Alan Missen was the sharp letters he received from him critical of his stand on a number of issues. Such was the measure of the man. I join with the House in the condolence motion. I pay my tribute to Alan Missen and my respects to Mrs Mollie Missen. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a mark of respect to the memory of Senator Missen, I suggest that the sitting be suspended until 8 o'clock this evening. Madam SPEAKER —I am sure that the suggestion made by the Prime Minister meets with the concurrence of the House. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased senator, the sitting is suspended. Sitting suspended from 3.20 to 8 p.m. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that on the morning of Friday, 4 April-honourable members opposite will remember the date, I think they will have cause to remember it-when the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission gave its decision on the Builders Labourers Federation, $1.5m in cash was delivered by armoured car to the Commonwealth Bank at the corner of Victoria and Russell Streets, Melbourne? Did Mr Norman Gallagher, accompanied by four members of the Builders Labourers Federation, then attend at that bank and leave shortly thereafter with bags containing the same $1.5m? Will the Minister investigate this transaction to ascertain why such a large sum of cash is being moved around the city by a union which the Prime Minister has said shows `complete disdain for the law'? What steps is he proposing to take to prevent the assets of this union, which is about to be deregistered, being concealed or sent out of the country? Mr WILLIS —I am not aware of the answers to the first two questions, although I must say that that bank is my bank and I do not have one and a half million dollars in it. The thrust of the question is what the Government is going to do in regard to the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation. Later this evening I will be introducing legislation which relates to the deregistration of the BLF. Of course, the Government has a constitutional limitation of a very substantial nature in respect of anything it could do in relation to the assets of any union insofar as it seeks to deregister that union because once a union is deregistered the Government has no control over that union as an unregistered association. If the Parliament passes the legislation, as I expect it will, in the near future the Builders Labourers Federation will no longer be a registered union in the conciliation and arbitration system of this country. Therefore at the federal level there will be no capacity for this Government to control the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation except in relation to the Federation's operations in the Australian Capital Territory. The bulk of the assets would be in the hands of associations which are in the States and anything which happens in respect of the control of those assets would, of course, be a matter which would be subject to the operations of State governments rather than the Federal Government. As regards the assets in the Australian Capital Territory, I take the view that we would look closely at the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation in the post- deregistration period and, if some action was warranted in respect of its funds, we would consider taking that course. Mr CHARLES —I refer the Minister for Defence to recent Press reports regarding the Star Wars program or, to be more correct, the strategic defence initiative. How does the Minister propose to respond to the letter sent to him by United States Secretary of Defense Weinberger on 27 March of last year which invited Australian participation in the SDI research program? Mr BEAZLEY —There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the letter that Mr Weinberger sent to me last year. One is that the letter contained some sort of deadline which the Government has failed to meet. In fact, as Mr Weinberger himself made clear in a subsequent letter, there is no such deadline, nor has there been any pressure from the United States for a response. The second misperception, even more important, concerns what exactly it was that the letter was asking for. It has tended to be assumed that Mr Weinberger was asking for specific undertakings to participate in particular SDI research projects. That is not so. The United States has requested us to enter into broadly-based negotiations to establish the ground rules for any Australian participation in SDI-funded research. Such an agreement would cover such issues as security, intellectual property and commercial implications. Negotiations on these matters with the United States Government have been completed or are under way with a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan. The Australian Government does not endorse the SDI concept, and as a result we will not be entering into negotiations of any sort to establish an umbrella agreement of this kind for SDI research. This will preclude Australian participation in research funded under the SDI program. The United States Government is aware of the Government's position, both on SDI as a whole and on Mr Weinberger's invitation to enter negotiations on an umbrella agreement. Cabinet will consider how best to handle any remaining areas of uncertainty which may arise, but that consideration will strictly conform to the basic policies which I have outlined. Mr BEALE —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer the Minister to the categorical assurance he gave to this Parliament prior to the South Australian election that neither he, nor the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer had any intention whatsoever of lifting the housing interest rate ceiling as it would be completely wrong to do so. I ask the Minister, will he now give a categorical assurance that neither he, nor the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has any intention of lifting the interest rate ceiling on existing home loans? In view of the previous broken promises on new home loans, what does he think such an assurance is worth? Mr WEST —We will not be lifting the ceiling for existing loans. Mr Porter —Lies! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw his interjection. Mr Porter —I withdraw. Mr WEST —Early this year it became apparent to me that the high interest rates and the ceiling on savings banks loans were having an effect upon the flow of funds into housing. As the House will be aware, I have put submissions to the Government which were based on the figures of the Indicative Planning Council on 5 March. Opposition members interjecting-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin has asked a question and I presume that he wants to hear the answer. I ask the House to come to order and listen to the answer. Mr WEST —The IPC after meeting on 5 March informed me that it expected about 122,500 starts in 1986-87 upon an assumption that the savings banks would lend approximately $4.9 billion in 1986-87 from a total of $9.5 billion by trading banks, savings banks and building societies. Over the ensuing weeks since then as this matter has been under consideration by the Government, the savings banks have been consistently revising their prediction downwards, until in early April they informed the Treasurer that we could expect about $3 billion in lending for 1986-87, which implied a base of about 100,000 starts during 1986-87. It was against that background and in the knowledge that if we were to introduce the package that we subsequently announced last Wednesday we could kick up starts from 100,000 to 135,000 and, in the process, save 50,000 jobs, that we made the announcement. I repeat: The banks gave the latest information to the Treasurer in early April and Cabinet considered the matter the next day. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Transport a question relating to the Out and About road safety campaign initiated by him for Australian school children. In view of the fact that road crashes are the single biggest killer of children under 16 years of age and in view of the outstanding response to the Out and About campaign, will the Government be providing additional stocks of kits for schools? Will the program be repeated next year? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The issue he raises is one of great importance to this Government and, I believe, to this Parliament-to all members on both sides of the House. Road crashes are the greatest single killer of children in this country. In 1984 some 357 were killed. Last year the figure dropped to 318. Within that figure, 43 per cent were passengers, 34 per cent were pedestrians and 15 per cent were on bicycles. The responsibility for dealing with this grave situation rests with three groups: Parents in the home and how they educate their children in the use of roads, road vehicles and how they travel; schools and how they include in their curriculum the issue of road safety education; and, more broadly, the community itself. I refer to the responsibility of motorists to watch out for other road users, particularly children. The specific purpose of the Out and About campaign is to communicate with parents, teachers and children. Hence, I have written to each member of this chamber, forwarding to each of them a kit. I say that for the benefit of those honourable members who have not looked at their mail. Mr Coleman —We got it a month ago. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the honourable member is not interested, that is his decision. There are a number of items in that kit. Mr Coleman —We read it all a month ago. Mr PETER MORRIS —Good. I am very pleased about that. The honourable member is progressing. The kit includes the parents' guide to safety, the primary teachers' guide to road safety and two other road safety books for different age groups of children. I am very encouraged by the excellent response to this initiative from honourable members on both sides of the chamber, apart from a few exceptions. Road safety and the reduction in the number of road casualties are issues that transcend the political scene. This Government has made it a major priority, but so has this Parliament, particularly through its Standing Committee on Transport Safety with the participation of honourable members from both sides of the House on that Committee. If we are to reduce the level of casualties, we have to strengthen that response from both sides of the Parliament and out in the broader community. I say also that the response from schools has been excellent. Quite a number of schools are now taking the issue into their curriculum. They are responding with requests for more of the kits, and they are getting out and spreading the message. I thank all members of this chamber for the effort and initiative that they have put into the campaign. As members of parliament, we are in an excellent position to be able to spread the message on this very important issue. I congratulate the honourable member for Eden-Monaro on the initiative that he has shown in this matter. I can say to him that the kits have had to go to a reprint. The new edition will be due in a matter of a few weeks and, certainly, next year we will rerun the campaign. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister for Housing and Construction will recall that since the Prime Minister promised that interest rates would fall and would keep falling farmers, small businessmen and home owners have been driven to poverty by his Government's high interest rates policy. The Minister, within his bailiwick, would know that a family with a building society loan for $50,000 is now paying an additional $75 a month. Will the Minister tell the 500,000 Australians with building society loans why they are different from people with bank home loans? Will their interest rates go up again? Why have his Government's policies failed? Why should his word, the Prime Minister's word or the Treasurer's word ever be believed? Mr WEST —The House will be aware that it is the responsibility of Federal governments to control or not control ceilings on savings banks' interest rates and it is the responsibility of State governments to monitor the performance of building societies and control or not control their interest rates. I draw it to the House's attention that over the last few months, at a time when this Government has steadfastly held the cap on savings banks' interest rates, we have faced the situation that the very State governments and permanent building societies who were exhorting us to keep the cap on the savings bank rates have in fact been busily authorising under their own responsibilities some increases in permanent building society rates, decisions which in themselves have helped to exacerbate the outflow of funds from savings banks to permanent building societies. As a matter of fact, this position is illustrated by the fact that in the month of January the savings banks experienced a rundown of $680m in their deposits base, while the permanent building societies held their position. I conclude my answer on this note: The decision we took last Wednesday in effect restored the competitive position of the banks vis-a-vis the permanent building societies. We will be monitoring the position regarding savings banks and the permanent building societies but at the moment we see it primarily as a matter for State governments. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims made by the Leader of the Opposition on the Sunday program that a coalition government would abolish Medicare, that this would save up to $3 billion and that such a step would result in `better and cheaper' health care? Can the Minister inform the House of the drastic effects of cutting $3 billion from the health budget as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition? Dr BLEWETT —Unfortunately, I did not see the program on which the Leader of the Opposition appeared but his remarks have been brought to my notice. Two points can be made about his remarks. First of all, they once again show one of those interesting rifts that are appearing in the Opposition on its policy side. The honourable member for Barker has been running around the country offering the soft option, telling people that they will be able to opt out of Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition makes it clear, by implication in that interview, that he will get rid of Medicare, that he will abolish it. Of course, some of his supporters back him up. We leave it to the Opposition to settle these policy differences. I am sure that will provide fun for all of us. The second point that can be made about the statement of the Leader of the Opposition is that it was made by someone who is economically illiterate about health matters. He could not save $3 billion even by abolishing Medicare and removing all subsidies for pensioners and the disadvantaged. Let me do the sums for him so that they can be quite clear. At the moment the total cost of Medicare, that is, Medicare benefits, Medicare administration and Medicare payments to the States, is $3.7 billion. However, one has to take away from that the levy which raises this year $1.3 billion, so the most the Leader of the Opposition could save would be $2.4 billion. Of course, in that $2.4 billion there is $1 billion for medical benefits for pensioners and the disadvantaged. I think that, when he comes to his senses, even he will not argue that that $1 billion should be saved. That leaves him with a total possible saving of $1.4 billion. But having got rid of Medicare, he will have to subsidise private insurance. If he subsidises it at the rate the Fraser Government did in 1981, that is, provide 30c in every dollar for private health contributions, he would lose the rest of that saving. He would finish up with a saving of approximately $1m. The figures are now on the record. They may be examined by those on the other side and they can deal with these kinds of extreme statements that they have made. Not only will no savings be made, but in fact he will, as a result of these acts, have put the cost of medical insurance beyond the reach of most Australian families. For instance, by getting rid of Medicare he will have left a private health contribution rate for a family of between $25 and $30 a week, that is, between $1,300 and $1,560 a year. That would certainly not be cheaper or fairer for the great majority of Australians. What these people on the other side have yet to realise is that Medicare is not only the fairest and most efficient but also the most popular health scheme this country has had in the last 10 years. The Leader of the Opposition has said that health will be an issue at the next election. We welcome that because our latest surveys show that Medicare, with a 61 per cent satisfaction rate, is the most popular health scheme in the last 10 years. All those opposite have behind them is those five schemes-one scheme every two years. The surveys show that 90 per cent of the Australian people value the service delivered to them through the Medicare offices. So we welcome both the idiotic calculations and the decision to fight the next election on Medicare. Mr CARLTON —Does the Minister for Housing and Construction remember the statement by the Treasurer only four months ago that the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on bank home loans would remain for `the indefinite future' since `the banks have had a meal' and therefore could afford to continue to operate under the existing interest rate ceiling? Why did the Government in its decision of last week ignore the interests of the building societies when formulating its interest subsidy scheme? What will he do about those existing building society-- Mr Hawke —We have already answered that question. Mr CARLTON —What will the Minister do- Mr Hawke —Didn't we answer it the first time around, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr CARLTON —Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister regards this matter as being trivial. Mr Hawke —Coming from you, yes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. Mr CARLTON —What will the Minister do about the existing building society borrowers, referred to this morning by the honourable member for Lilley, whose resources are stretched to the limit and who risk the loss of their homes following the Government's decision of last week? Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I recognise that everyone is a bit steamed up tonight, but could I please have silence while the question is being answered? After all, you have asked the question. I call the Treasurer. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, before the Treasurer answers that question, would you mind explaining to the Opposition side of the House the basis of that comment of yours? Madam SPEAKER —It is very obvious that housing loan interest rates are interesting everybody, both within and without the House. I understand that people are interested in the questions and the answers. May I please have silence while the questions are being asked and while the answers are being given. Honourable members interjecting- Mr KEATING —You cannot help but like them, Madam Speaker. The Opposition seems to misunderstand what the Government has done. Opposition members have trouble getting the penetration. In fact, what has happened in the building industry and in the savings banking system is that the rate of decline in the deposits of savings banks has been very marked, and the Government could not let a position obtain where the banks continued to see those deposits haemorrhage, and to have its principal housing finance lending institutions essentially taken out of the market-place. The decision does two things. It allows the banks to charge what they need to charge to attract deposits for new lending, which is a position which puts them now into some sort of symmetry with permanent building societies, which have largely enjoyed that position in the past, but the subsidy to banks goes only to underpin the deposit base which is itself underpinning existing mortgages. Given that the subsidy is of only about 0.6 per cent in terms of what the Government will be paying, the fact of the matter is that the margin which the permanent building societies have enjoyed and the level of their deposit rates have been such as to keep their deposits growing much more strongly than those of banks. In fact, savings bank deposits have grown by only 2.3 per cent in the 12 months to January 1986, whereas permanent building societies' deposits grew at 11 per cent. The reason why permanent building societies' deposits grew at 11 per cent is that the societies were more competitive-and if they have been more competitive in terms of their deposits and have been able to lend their deposits, the implication in the honourable gentleman's question falls to the ground. The implication is that in some way the subsidy to the banking system is discriminating in favour of banks, whereas the banking system has suffered by virtue of the fact that there is a ceiling on existing loans. The ceiling on the existing loans has meant that banks have not been able to recover in the market deposit rates which they might otherwise have attracted but which permanent building societies have been able to attract, and, because the permanent building societies have been able to attract those deposit rates and to lend, the societies have remained with a rate of deposits which is much stronger-five times stronger-than that of the savings banks, and that is why the assumptions in the honourable gentleman's question fall to the ground. Mr CROSS —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of assertions made by the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Community Services, Mr Bob Katter, Jr, that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs committed the Commonwealth to funding the difference between wages paid by the Queensland Government to Aboriginal people working in reserve communities and the relevant award rates? Did the Minister make such a commitment? If so, has he now reneged on that arrangement? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the assertions made by the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Community Services. He is, of course, mistaken. There has been a continuing problem on Queensland reserves which is well known to the Queensland Government and would be well known to members of this Parliament; that is, that on almost every Queensland reserve award wages are not paid for award work. I would have thought that a government which was concerned to talk about the maintenance of law would not want to be continually in breach of its own laws and continually in a situation where award wages were not being paid. The commitment that I was prepared to make was that, as deeds of grant in trust were being issued to Queensland reserve communities, the Commonwealth would be prepared to enter into arrangements with the Queensland Government for a joint working party which consisted of representatives of the Queensland Government, the Commonwealth and the communities and, as Aboriginal communities took over control of the economic and social resources within their own communities, the Commonwealth would be prepared not merely to assist in that arrangement, but to see that they were in a position to be able to comply with the laws of the State and see that award wages were paid. That was the commitment. It was never a general commitment to pick up for what has been a continuing and wilful failure of the Queensland Government over the years. Although it talks about equality between all Queenslanders, the Queensland Government has consistently refused to see that award wages are paid on Aboriginal reserve communities for award work. Of course, the processes of the Queensland Parliament are such that there is no committee of the Parliament to make an objective examination of the resources that are earned by Aboriginal people to see where the money has actually been expended in those communities and to see that the laws of the State of Queensland are being observed by the Queensland Government. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his broken promises on the assets test, the lump sum taxation on superannuation, the capital gains tax, interest rates, the dollar, petrol prices, inflation, the trilogy and the creation of 10,000 traineeships under the Priority One scheme, culminating last week in the wilful breaking of the promise made by him only two weeks ago not to lift the home loan interest rate ceiling. I ask the honourable gentleman: Which promise does he intend to break next? Mr HAWKE —I ask honourable members to understand that it took the Leader of the Opposition 19 days to think up that one. Devastating, is it not? The facts are these: First, let us dispose of the entitlement of the Leader of the Opposition to address himself to this area at all. This is the man who perpetrated upon the taxpayers of this country the greatest fraud in its history. He gave them a tax cut and then grabbed it back from them. This individual has rapidly become the most pathetic figure in the history of Australian politics. Never before have we had the pathetic spectacle of a Leader of the Opposition saying that the only thing that can save his position as the Leader of his Party is the country falling into a recession. That is what the man has said! He has said that the only thing that can save his leadership is the country falling into a recession. It is no wonder, therefore, that, when this Government makes the decisions which ensure that this country will have high and sustainable economic growth, with sustainable levels of inflation and growing levels of employment, when this Government makes the decisions necessary to achieve that objective, this temporary Leader of the Opposition expresses his disappointment. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition and to those behind him that this Government will continue to take those decisions which are necessary to sustain this country on the path of high economic growth and growing levels of employment which distinguish this country under this Government from the worst recession in 50 years inflicted upon it by the gentleman opposite. Mr BALDWIN —I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What action has the Australian Government taken to follow up allegations of child labour in the Philippines, contained in a report on Channel 9's Sunday program in November 1985? What results, if any, have been obtained? Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Sydney raised the question of child labour in the Philippines on 19 November in this House. His question followed a report on Channel 9's Sunday program, which depicted the large scale use of child labour in the Philippines fishing industry. The Australian Embassy in Manila carried out investigations into the allegations raised in the program following the issue being raised in the Parliament by the honourable member for Sydney. Embassy officials raised the matter with officials of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the International Labour Organisation. Officials also talked to the American broadcasting company who made the program, the crew of the research vessel Soll, and a local member of parliament. Following questions raised by Australian Embassy officials, the ILO has given funds to the Ministry of Labour and Employment to start an investigation into the alleged practices shown in the report. The ILO is currently finalising a report on child labour in the Philippines. The Embassy in Manila will continue to liaise with the ILO on the results of its investigations. I congratulate the honourable member for Sydney for having raised this matter in the Parliament and similarly congratulate the Sunday program on Channel 9, which brought the matter before public attention in the first instance. As a result of that conjunction of initiatives, action is now being taken on this matter. I hope that the final result will lead to an amelioration of the working conditions for children in the Philippines. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to the Prime Minister's statement last week that new housing starts would have fallen to 100,000 or less in 1986-87, but that the Government's decision to remove the ceiling for new home loans will now guarantee 135,000 new housing starts. Can the Minister explain why he thinks the Government's housing package will increase the number of housing starts by 35,000 when the Master Builders Federation of Australia believes the package will increase housing starts by only 10,000? Does the Minister now regard the Prime Minister's 1984 election promise that there would be 145,000 new starts each year while the Hawke Government remained in office as now being inoperative and adding to his Prime Minister's ever growing litany of broken promises? Mr WEST —The first thing that we should understand is that in the last year of the previous Government there were 105,000 starts. After two years under this Government the annual figure was 152,700 starts. All I can say is that members of the Opposition are a bunch of slow learners. That fact is evident to everyone. Seeing that they are such slow learners, let me repeat to them the mathematics of what I have just said. Mr Howard —This is better than the movies. It really is. It took you 12 months to learn about the ceiling. Mr WEST —The Leader of the Opposition is Mr Thirteen and a half per cent. He leads a front bench of slow learners who think they are on to something, but they are not. I said, in answer to the first question that I was asked today, that on 5 March the Indicative Planning Council had indicated that, from a base of nearly $5 billion in savings bank loans in 1986-87 out of a total of $9.5 billion, we would be looking at about 122,500 starts, but that that figure would fall during the June and September quarters to an annualised rate of about 115,000. We then found that three weeks later the banks were saying that they would be lending about $3 billion, so we would be looking at a base not of $9.5 billion, but of about $7 billion. If we took no action, the figure could be down to as low as 100,000 starts, at an annualised rate during the June and September quarters. For every 10,000 housing starts, about 15,000 jobs are involved, either directly or as a spin-off. A figure of $6 billion from savings banks instead of $3 billion during 1986-87, means that about $10 billion to $10 1/2 billion would be available from trading banks, savings banks and permanent building societies during 1986-87. It is a perfectly rational assumption that the number of housing starts would increase from 100,000 to 135,000, thus saving 50,000 jobs. I quite understand that such simple arithmetic is beyond the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Thirteen and a half per cent, but that is the way it is. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are a number of economic indicators supporting and reinforcing the Government's long term economic strategy? Mr HAWKE —The short answer to the honourable member's question is yes. But I owe it to the honourable member to add, at least at slight length, to that answer. The facts are that on the basis of the latest national accounts, non-farm product growth over the 2 1/2 years from June 1983 to December 1985 was 15 per cent, or at an annualised rate of 5.9 per cent. That is double the sort of pathetic achievement that existed under the previous Government. That fundamental statistic shows the truth of the implication of the honourable member's question. In the same period 600,000 jobs have been created. Since June last year, employment growth has been 3.3 per cent, which sustains the analysis of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the employment performance of the Australian economy was the best of all OECD countries. Looking at the level of non-farm gross domestic product growth, the level of employment growth and the fact that we have weathered significant devaluation and are now moving on to a lower inflation path, these fundamentals of growth, employment and inflation indicate that this Government has continued to do what it promised to deliver when the other mob were thrown out rightly in 1983; that is, we said that we would turn this economy around. We have done that. That is why one ceiling that certainly will not be lifted is the 13.5 per cent rating of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to the fact that any forecast of housing activity must include an assumption about the prevailing level of interest rates. In view of this, can the Minister tell the House what specific interest rate assumptions underlie the Government's 135,000 figure for new housing starts in 1986-87? Mr WEST —The assumptions of the Indicative Planning Council, headed by Professor Gruen and with representatives from industry, on 5 March were that there would be a sustainable fall in interest rates, particularly from the June quarter onwards. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr WEST —That is what the Indicative Planning Council said. Because our projections are based on the IPC assumptions, and the pick-up arising from the $3 billion-plus increased lending that will be generated by our package, the assumptions underlying our forecasts are the same as those of the IPC. Madam SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report relating to the proposed construction of the National Bicentennial Science Centre within the parliamentary zone. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr STAPLES —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr STAPLES —I believe that I have been seriously misrepresented by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his media statement of 26 March 1986. His statement reads in part: The Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, today called on the Prime Minister to dissociate himself and his Party from the remarks of the Labor Party backbencher, Mr Peter Staples. Mr Peacock said that while Mr Staples was an insignificant Labor Backbencher, he was still a member of the Australian Parliament and his remarks could not be ignored. `The effect of Mr Staples' remarks is to support a regime that sponsors terrorism as an instrument of Government policy'. While the honourable member, for his own sake, stopped short of stating that I support a regime which supports terrorism-in this case Libya and Colonel Gaddafi-his statement quite clearly insinuates that this is the case. I unequivocally reject this assertion-or at best, cheap insinuation-as a gross and insulting misrepresentation of my statement and position. My remarks on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio are available from the Parliamentary Library for all to read. Basically they were limited to the following points. I accused the United States of provoking the incident. Subsequently this accusation has been clearly proven to be correct by reports from a wide variety of sources inside and outside the United States. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will quickly get to the point. Mr STAPLES —I was asked whether I believed that Libya's attempt to sink United States ships was entirely justified. I responded by saying that it was not entirely justified because both the United States and Libya were at fault. I have consistently spoken out against terrorism, whatever its forms, whoever the perpetrators. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the point. He will resume his seat; he has finished his personal explanation. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CHARLES —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CHARLES —In an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 2 April, under the heading `Pressure mounts to refuse Star Wars research' by Ross Peake I have been misrepresented. In fact, a completely inaccurate report appeared in that article. While Mr Peake quotes me at length over a few paragraphs, which are perfectly correctly, he goes on to say one thing that is totally wrong, which I wish to put before the House. The article states: The Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee is working on the final draft of a report on disarmament and arms control, which will focus heavily on Star Wars. That is his own assumption and I cannot comment on that. The next paragraph, which is totally inaccurate, reads: The chairman of the disarmament sub-committee, Mr David Charles (ALP, Vic.), said yesterday that Opposition committee members would probably write dissenting reports from the main recommendation. I deny completely that I made, to Mr Peake or to anyone else, any statement in regard to that matter. The Parliament will note that that paragraph is not in quotes. Obviously Mr Peake or some sub-editor down the track has either got things back to front or made certain assumptions which are totally incorrect. There are 28 members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, who will make up their minds on a range of matters on disarmament and their decisions will become known only when the report is tabled in Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is starting to debate the subject of personal explanation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a question of parliamentary procedure. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —As a result of an interchange between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me, recorded in the Daily Hansard of 19 February 1986 at pages 857 and 858, you made the following statement to the Parliament, as recorded in the Daily Hansard of 20 February 1986 at page 946: . . . I will not tolerate, from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature . . . Since then your ruling has been tested by members of the Government on at least two occasions, as recorded in Hansard. The efforts of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), recorded on page 1425, to which I protested, resulted in changes to the guidelines for rebroadcasting of parliamentary proceedings and raises the question whether the convention of withdrawing is sufficient redress for more serious breaches of your ruling. The other action, that of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) by interjection, was properly and promptly dealt with by you. Pages 1717 and 1718 of the Daily Hansard of 20 March 1986 record me protesting about the use of the word `hobos' by the Treasurer in reference to members of the Opposition. The comparison of the level of insults on a scale of one to 10 of `hobos', `harlots', `dogs returning to their vomit' or the suggestion that a member has welshed on a marriage contract is clearly up to the Chair, but I suggest all are equally bad and unnecessary. Mr Leo McLeay —Intellectual hobos. Mr TUCKEY —The suggestion-it has just been made by the honourable member for Grayndler-that one can be an intellectual hobo is grammatically incorrect and therefore is no excuse. As Hansard records, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees ruled that my protest at the use of the word `hobo' in this context was not valid. I therefore request, Madam Speaker, that you consider my point of order and rule at your convenience on this point and on whether you will in future accept a simple withdrawal for more flagrant breaches of your ruling. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I wish to speak on the issue raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey); I was not aware that he was going to raise it. However, I have been concerned, especially since he referred to an incident in which I was involved, about the fact that at the end of an answer to a question which I gave he asked that I withdraw something that he found objectionable. I was not quite sure what he was objecting to. Madam Speaker, you will recall that at the time you said that you did not hear it and in order to facilitate the business of parliament I said that I would withdraw anything that the honourable member for O'Connor found objectionable. Later I felt that he must have been objecting to the remarks I had made about the late Sir Robert Askin. Mr Cadman —No, two members of this House. Mr YOUNG —Just a minute. I found it difficult to understand why any honourable member would want remarks about Sir Robert Askin withdrawn. Nevertheless, to facilitate the Parliament and because- Mr Spender —That is disgusting. Mr YOUNG —Just a minute. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Earlier this session you made rulings about the standard of conduct of honourable members. I think that the Minister's remarks about the late Premier are really unsatisfactory and should be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG —I repeat: Madam Speaker, you said at the time that you did not hear what I had said and I withdrew because the honourable member for O'Connor said that he found something that I had said objectionable. Honourable members are very sensitive about the person to whom I refer. Mr Spender —Because he is dead and because he showed decency and you don't. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for North Sydney is yelling and screaming. Honourable members should read what is blazoned across the Sydney Morning Herald today. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I was not yelling and screaming. I was raising a point. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for North Sydney raising a point of order? Mr Spender —Yes, I am. Madam SPEAKER —He will wait until the Chair recognises him. Mr Spender —Do you recognise me? Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr Spender —I am glad to hear you call me. Madam SPEAKER —I would be glad if the honourable member for North Sydney would wait and observe the courtesies of the House. It is normal to wait until the Chair recognises a member before he speaks. Mr Spender —I was raising a point of order about the opportunity which has been taken by the Special Minister of State to repeat what he said some time ago about a man who is dead and cannot answer. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Mr Spender —Perhaps a sense of decency may moderate his tongue. Madam SPEAKER —It is not covered under the Standing Orders. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Madam Speaker, I did not repeat anything about the person tonight. I said that I found it difficult to believe that the Opposition wanted what I had said withdrawn: I was not sure what the honourable member for O'Connor wanted withdrawn. However, let me continue. The next day the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)-he is the Opposition Leader of the House-raised the question about my having withdrawn the statement that I was asked to withdraw although there was some confusion about what had actually been withdrawn and the media repeating it. My attention was drawn to the printed Hansard when it became available which, I think, was the following week when we came back here. If honourable members read the Hansard they would see that at the time I was talking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) interjected. I responded to him and tried to go on with what I was saying but if honourable members read the Hansard they will see that it appeared that I implied something against the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Cadman —Which you did. Mr YOUNG —It certainly appeared that way but I made it perfectly clear the following week after I had seen the Hansard that that was not my intention at all. I made it perfectly clear to the House on two occasions in the following week when this matter became the subject of discussion that I in no way wished to associate the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) with what I had said in answer to that question. I think that when we look at the matters raised by the honourable member for O'Connor we will get into some difficulty if on questions of this nature we are asked to withdraw statements which do not affect an honourable member but which affect a person outside the House. Are the Opposition members arguing that an honourable member can say: `I find that objectionable'? Mr N.A. Brown —Surely, that makes it worse. Mr YOUNG —Does it? I do not know. Mr N.A. Brown —How can he defend himself? Mr YOUNG —I do not know. If the honourable member had watched television tonight he would have seen a discussion on the National Crime Authority when there were all sorts of loose allegations about corruption in politics. We are all subjected to those innuendoes and accusations. Mr N.A. Brown —With names? Mr Carlton —Not under privilege. Mr YOUNG —Even under privilege some of these things have been said about people who were not parliamentarians. In some ways parliamentarians, now alive or dead, have wanted to use privilege to name people outside who are not parliamentarians but they do not want themselves named. Mr N.A. Brown —Denis Horgan, John Reid- Mr YOUNG —There is a very fine line. Madam Speaker, all I suggest is that when you look at the question raised by the honourable member for O'Connor you also give consideration to the matters I raised about people who are not here-whether they be alive or dead-who may be mentioned in these sorts of discussions because of their previous activities and to whether in fact it is legitimate for a present member of the House to ask the member speaking to withdraw that reference. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have listened with interest to what the honourable member for O'Connor raised in the House tonight. I think he will appreciate that it would be quite improper for me publicly to comment on a ruling given by another occupant of the chair. As well as the Speaker there are a number of deputy chairmen and deputy speakers who occupy the chair. Mr Coleman —You are the Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I will not comment publicly on rulings given by occupants of the chair. That procedure has been followed by previous Speakers and I think it is one which the House should appreciate. However, I will discuss the matters raised by both the Leader of the House and the honourable member for O'Connor with other occupants of the chair. I just repeat for the honourable member for O'Connor part of the statement I made to the House, which he repeated but did not complete. I said: . . . I will not tolerate, from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature- Allegations or imputations are fairly clear statements- particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. I suggest to honourable members that they concentrate on those words. In the hurly burly of politics we often get political compliments or insults thrown across the chamber. I do not expect to bring the House to a total standstill on the exchange of those compliments or those interchanges. However, honourable members will pay regard to my comments on imputations or allegations that intrude into their personal lives. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate members: To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Blunt,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Hunt,Mr Macphee,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Holding,Mr Barry Jones,Mr McArthur,Mr Macphee,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Reith and Mr Scholes. 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 Conquest,Mr Hicks,Mr Hodges,Mr Hunt,Mr MacKellar,Mr Millar and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable 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 air ship 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 the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; to offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 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 Grace,Mr Hollis and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the A.B.R.D. fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, - perpetrates inflation, - increases the cost of goods to country people, - reduces the living standards of all Australians, - Short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are NOT spent on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: - Give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance Allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned do strongly protest against the continuing killing of wild horses in the Gulf of Carpentaria. by Mr Cleeland. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The freedom of the individual is the fundamental right of man. Nobody should be sent to gaol because of his faith or his way of thinking. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray and urge the Government to demand the immediate release of all political prisoners, and an end to repressions in Poland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The long, drawn out, prolonged effect of ever expanding interest rates has and will continue to tear this country apart as home purchasers are given temporary easement or extended time payments, paying a mere pittance off the original loan with a complete disregard for the final result, i.e. the selling of small business and an intolerable position for the early or young home purchasers, also social disruption at its worst for the last 15 to 20 years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge politicians that therefore no government or opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2% annually for the next five years or until it is down to 6%. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in Government spending. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- We, the undersigned, recognise that every individual has the basic right to negotiate employment conditions if he or she so chooses, free from Union interference of any kind. We request that the Federal and State Governments introduce new legislation or amend existing legislation to permit negotiated employment contracts as an alternative available to those who do not wish to have a Trade Union acting for them in matters relating to their employment. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned believe that the quality of reception of the Brisbane SBS UHF television station is of a very poor quality in many of the Brisbane suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to erect a translator capable of providing a service comparable to that of the major cities in Australia. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable 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 North Randwick be closed by Australia Post. The location of the North Randwick Post Office Agency has been of immense service and convenience to us, and has been in existence for 65 years. It will be extremely difficult, inconvenient and expensive to us the residents, and visitors, of the North Randwick, Centennial Park area, to travel all the way to Randwick, Bondi Junction or the Waverley Post Offices, for our postal transactions, banking, parcel collection and other agency requirements. This Post Office not only serves a large retired community and working community but also the business community which is vital to the economy of this area, and for our convenience. The 2 hour Saturday trading also helps the working section of the community immeasurably. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the monetary policy of the Government is causing Australians to pay high interest rates. This is imposing enormous burdens on new and existing home owners and the small business sector. We call upon the Government to reassess its current economic policy and adopt a more appropriate mix of fiscal and monetary policies in an effort to bring about a restoration of confidence in the Australian dollar thus easing the need for high interest rates. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government will act to reduce interest rates. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain electors of Australia 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-service men and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by 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 of Australia respectfully sayeth: - That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; - That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; - That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: In this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers. That such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament, impede the development of new nuclear weapons, decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy, inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the nuclear test moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear test moratorium and comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 would not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West African Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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 destabilising 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 weapons states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time; (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, residents in the State of Queensland, shows: We express concern at the proposed amendments to the Child Care Act to effect the new subsidy arrangements. The industrial implications of the proposed changes are extensive and will result in deterioration in the quality and quantity of staff employed in child care centres. Any changes to the legislation should not take place until there is a full and open review. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Government conduct a thoroughgoing review of child care funding, in consultation with all concerned parties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden and Mr Humphreys. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil and Mr Wilson. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. that the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. that the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Portuguese community in Australia respectfully showeth that: the present Immigration requirements for sponsorship of brothers and sisters and for skilled migration are such that immigration from Portugal will be severely reduced, because of the criteria under the new points system. Your petitioners humbly pray that: the Australian Government relax the stringent requirements under the Family Reunion policy, particularly those related to the speaking of English and level of education, to allow Portuguese immigrants in Australia to be reunited with their families. the requirements for speaking of English and a certain degree of education also be relaxed in the skilled migration category, to facilitate the emigration of Portuguese tradespersons, whose professions appear on the Occupational Share Schedule. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. 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,Mr Cowan and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Parkes in New South Wales respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the Total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Macarthur respectfully showeth that 1. There are not enough lines in or out of the exchange to handle the amount of subscribers. 2. The exchange was brought to this area from somewhere else as a temporary measure quite some years ago, with a promise of a new one when needed. 3. The state of the cable work along the roadsides is a disgrace, where in a number of places wires are sitting up out of the ground with plastic wrapped around the joints, or in some cases wires are run along the tops of fences through paddocks. 4. The phones can be out of order for at least four or five days before they are repaired. 5. There are too many wrong number connections which are not the fault of the person dialling and calls dropping out in the middle of conversations. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to establish a larger and more modern complex in this area and not to keep saying it will be done in the future. by Mr Macphee. Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Your petitioners pray that your honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. by Mr Tickner. 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. Any your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 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 fear, worry and insecurity created in countless Australian families by the Government's high interest rate policies and its confused and inequitable actions on home loans. 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)(9.12) —The matter of public importance raised this evening by the Opposition states: The fear, worry and insecurity created in countless Australian families by the Government's high interest rate policies and its confused and inequitable actions on home loans. I note that on a matter of considerable importance to the whole community and a matter of central importance to the Government's economic strategy neither the Treasurer (Mr Keating) nor the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is present in the House to answer- Mr Beale —Nor the Minister for Housing and Construction. Mr CARLTON —No, neither is the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). Mr Hurford —I am a good substitute for them all. Mr CARLTON —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is trivialising the matter by making a joke of it, as did the Prime Minister in Question Time- Mr Hurford —Let's get nice and worked up about it all. Mr CARLTON —What did the Minister say? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will cease interjecting. Mr CARLTON —I wish to make the point very seriously that when a matter of this importance is raised, the Government owes it to the people of Australia, particularly those who are suffering from the Government's high interest rate policies, to have the Ministers responsible here in the chamber to answer. If the Government is not prepared to do that, the Opposition will take the appropriate action to ensure that it does so in the future. Also, I might point out that there is not one single Australian Labor Party member present in the chamber other than the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There is not a single Labor member other than this junior Minister here to debate a matter of very considerable importance. It is all very well for the Labor Party to get itself into a lather in Caucus this morning about this matter because members are unhappy about the decision made by the Government, yet not one single Labor member, apart from the duty junior Minister, has come here to answer the case. Everyone in Australia who is listening to this debate should understand that fact. Over the weekend I spoke to a young man who has a wife and a baby daughter and who bought a home on the western outskirts of Sydney about 12 months ago. The young couple worked out their budget very carefully. The wife had had to give up work in order to look after the newly arrived baby. The husband had calculated that, by taking on extra overtime in his job and by cutting back household expenditures to the bare minimum, the family could just afford the monthly repayments of something over $600 on a building society loan. That was round about the time of the last Federal election when building societies were charging 13 per cent interest on their loans and that is not a small figure. Thirteen per cent is a lot of money. The young couple felt perfectly confident about their plans and their purchase. After all, they had the assurance of the Prime Minister of Australia that the Government placed homes for young people at the top of its priorities. The Prime Minister, in his 1983 policy speech, said: To provide a stable and adequate flow of funds for housing at affordable interest rates, the Labor Government will maintain interest rate controls on bank mortgage interest rates and extend those controls to building societies. That was the promise of the Prime Minister in 1983. Our young couple would not have seen the inherent contradiction in that statement. They would not have known that, if interest rates rose above the controlled levels, the flow of funds would dry up. But they trusted the Prime Minister. They also trusted him when he repeated his commitment in his 1984 policy speech in these words: We pledged ourselves to bring home ownership within the reach of ordinary Australian families-to end that sense of despair and frustration that was beginning to engulf thousands upon thousands of young people seeking their own homes. Those were the confident words of the Prime Minister seeking re-election only 16 months ago and they would indeed have been reassuring to our young couple embarking on the most important financial decision of their lives which, of course, was buying their own home. The Prime Minister was also categorical about interest rates. In the course of a major address in Adelaide on 20 November 1984, as the election campaign was drawing to a close, the Prime Minister said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr CARLTON —The Prime Minister in the 1984 election campaign only 16 months ago. Mr Donald Cameron —That is not a long time ago. Mr CARLTON —As the honourable member for Moreton quite correctly points out, it is not a very long time since that was said. The Prime Minister said: We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. The Prime Minister was backed up by this Treasurer who, in a Press release of 15 November 1984, declared: Continued success against inflation will create conditions conducive to lower interest rates. Unfortunately for that young couple I spoke about, the election was not long over when interest rates began to rise. Indeed, they were worried that even by the time they had completed the settlement on their home they would already by paying over $40 a month in additional repayments because the building society interest rates had gone up and they have gone up yet again to 14 1/2 per cent since then adding $60 a month to the initial monthly repayment which was the basis of their careful calculations. At this time their budget has been stretched to the very limit and it has not been helped by the husband's wages going into higher tax brackets with overtime and the general rise in prices over recent months. With an inflation rate of over 8 per cent all Australian families, and particularly those on low incomes, are feeling the pinch. Mr Goodluck —They are battling. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honourable member for Franklin has said, they are battling. He is known as the little battler and he would know that these people are really feeling the pinch. So honourable members can imagine the extreme nervousness of this family feeling trapped by the situation but managing at this stage to cling on by its fingernails. Meanwhile, a stream of reassuring statements has been emerging from Government Ministers. On 17 October last year in this House the Minister for Housing and Construction said: Let me say quite firmly again, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said several times in the House, that we do not intend to deregulate housing interest rates, at this time. It is completely the wrong time to do so. We do not intend to lift the ceiling from 13 1/2 per cent. On 14 November 1985 the Treasurer appeared on AM and we had the following exchange: Question: You are still insisting are you that the 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates should be maintained? Keating: Yes I am. Question: And there's no possibility of changing that in the foreseeable future? Keating: No. Then there was a whole string of announcements and reassurances from the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the hapless Minister for Housing and Construction, culminating in the solemn assurances given in this House in response to Opposition questioning just over two weeks ago, on 19 March. The Minister for Housing and Construction declared: The Government remains committed to the retention of the ceiling on housing interest rates. The Prime Minister, only two weeks before the fateful announcement which reversed yet another policy and broke yet another promise, said: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government will be considering the whole question of the housing industry in Cabinet next week and I say to him, as the Minister for Housing and Construction did, that the Government remains committed to the retention of the ceiling on housing interest rates. It is a pity that there is no member of the Press Gallery other than the Australian Associated Press here to witness this debate, where the Treasurer is absent and not meeting his responsibility to answer these charges. Mr Hunt —Where is he? Mr CARLTON —Where indeed is the Treasurer and where is the Press Gallery to watch this debate? We might forgive our young couple clinging to their home on the outskirts of Sydney for starting to have some doubts as to the strength of the Prime Minister's commitment. The Treasurer appeared to be equivocal the following day on the steps of Parliament House, but at Question Time he too repeated this commitment. What happened just two weeks later, on 2 April? The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that the ceiling would be lifted for new savings bank loans, a subsidy would be provided to the banks, and the banks only, so that existing savings bank loans could be maintained at 13 1/2 per cent, but that essentially existing building society borrowers could be thrown to the wolves. The young man I spoke to on Saturday was aghast at this decision. He simply could not afford to meet the weekly repayments at a higher rate. Building societies were saying that to meet the additional competition for deposits from the savings banks following the Government's subsidy to the savings banks they would have to raise their deposit and lending rates. Existing building society loans would rise to 15.5 per cent interest. On a $55,000 loan-not uncommon in Sydney for even a modest home-a rate of 15 1/2 would mean an additional monthly cost of $96 in interest charges since the last election only 16 months ago and since the Prime Minister promised that interest rates would not rise. My young couple simply cannot afford that. They are desperately worried that they will have to sell their home and are frightened that so many others will be doing the same and that in the price drop they will lose the value of their initial deposit and hence their whole life savings. All they have worked for is suddenly disappearing before their eyes. They feel cheated, disbelieving and angry. What answer can the Prime Minister give this young couple? How can they possibly believe ever again a solemn promise from the Prime Minister? The fact is that Hawke promises are worthless promises, broken promises-on interest rates, on taxes, on the trilogy, on petrol prices, on the assets test, on the tax on lump sum superannuation payments, on the value of the Australian dollar, on the 10,000 traineeships under the Priority One scheme; you name the promise, the Prime Minister has broken it. I am not alone in reflecting the feeling of betrayal amongst so many Australian families. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) is quoted in today's Sydney Morning Herald-this is a Labor member in a marginal seat in Brisbane-as saying: I believe that if we do not act to protect the interests of thousands of home buyers who have taken out building society loans, we will be guilty of an error of mammoth proportions from which we as a Government, and home buyers may not recover. Mrs Darling says: The reality we face is that thousands of couples who have budgeted to their last cent in order to buy a modest home through a building society and who have already had their resources strained to the limit by four increases in repayments over the last year . . . will now face further increases as a result of lifting the ceiling on bank rates. She goes on to say: . . . many building society borrowers were paying about $620 a month on $50,000 loans over 30 years, and had seen repayments increase by $60 a month since January. This is not what I am saying; it is what a member from a marginal Government seat in Brisbane is saying. If I had time I would also refer to what was said by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) from Western Australia, who is listed to speak tonight. He said similar things two weeks ago, just before the Prime Minister gave him the reassurance that the honourable member wanted. The honourable member and his constituents were cheated by the Prime Minister. It is awfully lonely in a marginal seat like Stirling when one is led by a man whose word cannot be trusted. No one can ever trust the Prime Minister or the Treasurer again. Like the Australian dollar under the Prime Minister's administration, his word is devalued. The main problem is that this Government has failed to produce the economic policies to reduce high interest rates. The Treasurer, like an arsonist who has started a fire, has come in to join the fire brigade to put out the fire in the outhouse, leaving the house itself to burn. The Government, through its economic policies, has failed to reduce interest rates and failed to attack the main part of the problem. It has let down ordinary householders throughout Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.27) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer forthwith responding to the matter of public importance raised by the honourable member for Mackellar and directly relating to the high interest rate policies of the Government, that being a matter entirely within the Treasurer's portfolio responsibility. The Government tonight has shown absolute contempt for every ordinary Australian. Today we had 300 farmers, in dire straits, outside this House. Why? Because the cruelling policies of this Government are grinding them into the dust. We have 500,000 Australians who have borrowed from building societies. Why? Because they thought that the Government meant its word when it said that interest rate ceilings would be maintained. This Government has decided that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will not come into the House to respond to debate on a policy for which he is directly responsible. Whether we are talking about small businessmen, the average home owner or the farmer, it is the Treasurer who has responsibility. It was the Treasurer who tonight during Question Time refused to allow the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to respond to a question from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton); it was the Treasurer who said that it was his responsibility. But when it comes to an opportunity to respond to a matter raised by the shadow Treasurer, when it comes to the shadow Treasurer laying down the ground rules and showing that the Treasurer has misled the Parliament and the people of Australia and has culpably tried to beguile people into thinking that high interest rates are okay, the Treasurer does not bother to come into this place to respond. It is essential that Standing Orders be suspended so that those ordinary Australians can hear from the Treasurer why he has misled them and why they are being called on to pay higher and higher interest rates. Australia is going broke and the Treasurer is leading them in that direction. It is the Treasurer and the Treasurer alone who should come into this place to answer the shadow Treasurer. The honourable member for Mackellar was talking about average Australians, about the average family investing its savings. He was talking about a policy of high interest rates that this Treasurer has introduced into the House, for which this Treasurer is responsible and in respect of which the media is saying what a good fellow he is. Yet, the Treasurer is not even prepared to come into the Parliament and answer to his cause. It is not good enough that a junior Minister, albeit one who is assisting in the portfolio, should respond in an area in respect of which even at Question Time the Treasurer said: `But I cannot let the Minister for Housing and Construction answer a question-it is too hard. We all saw the mess he made of it'. The Treasurer got up and said: `I have to respond'. It is impossible for the people of Australia to have any confidence in the policies of a government which insists on passing the buck. We want the organ grinder, not the monkey. We want the man who is responsible. We do not want the fellow who is out there playing at the end of the string. This is far too serious a matter for the average Australian. Farmers, small businessmen and home owners have been misled by this Government. They are the people who are suffering. They are essentially the people who have been affected by the promises which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have broken. Yet, the Treasurer will not come into the House to defend what he has done. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is essential that the man who is responsible for this policy should be in this House tonight to answer. It is interesting that the Prime Minister is not here. It is interesting to note that at this moment, this matter having been canvassed in the way it has, five members of the Australian Labor Party are in the chamber and that these members are totally incapable of responding to this matter. We know what happened in the Labor Caucus. We know how the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) feels on the issue. We know how the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) feels on the issue. We know how the people of Australia feel on this issue. Yet, the Government says: `Oh, don't worry'. We know that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is not prepared to accept this Government's policy. Twenty-eight members of the Caucus moved a motion of no confidence in the Government today. It is a great government that is not prepared to come into the Parliament and answer its cause. What is happening, of course, is that the responsible Ministers are just running away from it all. They have passed the buck. They are not prepared to tell anyone why high interest rates will continue. They will not tell us why the dollar was allowed to float. They will not tell us about the increase in overseas debt. They will not tell us about the effect of the drought in the bush. They will not talk about the fact that everyone of us who has been falsely led into the belief that living standards will be maintained is being progressively screwed because of the economic policies of the Treasurer who has run for cover and who is not prepared to come into this House and respond to the charges properly made and laid by the shadow Treasurer. Tonight the shadow Treasurer laid down a list of sins and ills for economic disaster in this country. He laid down a cause for the average Australian. It is interesting that the Government no longer is prepared to tell average Australians what it is going to do. The average Australian knows that he cannot trust the Prime Minister. He knows that he can no longer trust the Treasurer. Every Australian knows that he cannot believe the Minister for Housing and Construction. Every Australian knows that when the monkey comes into the House and the organ grinder stays at home, what we are getting is not the real story but a little bit of a subterfuge. We are being told: `Just tell everybody that everything is all right. We will play the issue down. Don't worry about interest rates. Don't worry about the people of Australia. We read the polls a few weeks ago and we think we will be all right'. The Government should ask members in marginal seats what they think. It should ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) who knows that he will lose his seat the next time round. It should ask the honourable member for Lilley, who is not in the chamber, what she thinks about the Treasurer's economic policy. What has happened in Australia is that the Treasurer- Mr Howard —She is on the phone, or talk back. Mr SINCLAIR —That is right. She is probably on the phone or talk back. The whole point of this debate tonight is that the Government has shown it neither has the answers nor the integrity to respond to a matter of high economic principle. It is not sufficient for this Parliament to be treated with contempt by the Treasurer. He can run away and say: `Oh, it does not matter. Look, I am too good for that place. I'll go off in my Ferrari and I'll look at my antiques and my clocks and I won't worry about little Australians'. I have a word for the Treasurer. He needs to understand that the average Australian at the moment is worrying about bread and butter. The average farmer is looking at a level of income whereby many of them will run into essentially losses of more than $20,000. The interest bill on rural debt this year will be greater than the total farm income. It is in that climate that the Treasurer says: `I am not going to worry about farmers'. One has only to look at small businessmen, who have been forced to lay off employees, or at the housing area where one has building societies which, we are told, are a lesser breed. The banks get a $120m subsidy. What about the building societies? We heard the Minister for Housing and Construction tonight say: `It is a State matter-never mind about us'. Frank Walker, the Minister for Housing in New South Wales, has a few views on that topic. The Government in Queensland has a few views on the matter, too. The point is that this matter deserves to be treated with respect, the people of Australia deserve to be treated with respect. The home owners, the home loan borrowers, the small businessmen, the farmers, average Australians deserve to be treated with respect. When the Treasurer and all the members of the Labor Party say `Never mind about home owners, never mind about interest rates', I can tell them that that is exactly the attitude the electors of Australia will have to the Government. If the Government is prepared to treat in this way the most serious and fundamental crisis and economic management which this country has faced under this disaster who is the Treasurer, we shall be in a position where we cannot any longer sustain our standard of living. The accord will go. The shadow Treasurer tonight has laid down a case which is unanswerable. It is the responsibility of the Treasurer to come into this House and respond, and we on this side of the House are not going to stop disrupting the affairs of the Government until it is prepared to treat this House and the people of Australia with the respect that they deserve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.30) —I second this motion, and I do so because the House is entitled to hear from the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-not from a junior Minister, albeit a junior Minister who has some responsibility in this field. We believe that the matters raised in this matter of public importance are of such overwhelming importance and contain such an indictment of the Government that there is only one proper way for the Government to respond, and that is by having the Treasurer contribute to the debate. We say that because this matter is of extraordinary importance. We have drawn attention to: The fear, worry and insecurity created in countless Australian families by the Government's high interest rate policies and its confused and inequitable actions on home loans. If there ever were an issue that went directly to the responsibility of the Treasurer personally, it must be this matter. Interest rates are the responsibility of the Treasurer, and the effect on the economy, on small business people and on farmers of those home interest rate policies, of interest rate policies in general, of economic policies in general, are directly and personally the responsibility of the Treasurer. If this Government has an ounce of responsibility towards this Parliament, it will produce the Treasurer from his funkhole or wherever he is and get him in here to contribute to the debate and reply to the allegations which have been made against him by the shadow Treasurer. Why is the Treasurer not here? He is full of bravado at Question Time. He is very happy to throw words around and smear people whenever he has the opportunity of doing so, but when it comes to making a speech on major matters of economic policy, where is he? He is missing. He must be out at an auction of antique clocks or buying a new car or something. Why is he not here to respond to these allegations? This is where he should be and it is up to the Government to produce him. We believe it is important because the Treasurer is responsible for these matters. The Treasurer-let us pause and think about this simple fact-came here to the Parliament, where a person's word is supposed to be above reproach, only a matter of days ago, in the last two-week sitting, and said: `I will not be taking to the Cabinet a submission suggesting or proposing that the interest rate ceiling will be lifted'. He said he would not do that. When he made that statement he had before him all the facts that he has before him now. Yet he was prepared to stand up in the Parliament and say that he would not take such a submission to Cabinet. What did he do as soon as the Parliament got up? He did exactly the opposite. He went off to try to save his skin and the skin of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by producing to the Cabinet the very submission that he had said in this Parliament he would not produce. How can one take the word of the Treasurer when that is what he has said? How can one take the word of the Prime Minister when he has said virtually the same thing? One cannot take him at his word. If the Treasurer has an ounce of decency he should come in here now and explain the economic policies of the Government. He should explain why there was an extraordinary turnaround in events in a matter of a few days. He should explain how small business people will survive with high interest rates. He should explain how rural industries will survive with high interest rates. He should give the people some sort of hope for the future that this Government has at least a modicum of knowledge about what is going on with regard to the economy. There is a double obligation on the Treasurer to do this because it is not simply a matter of broken promises on interest rates. Let us think of some of those momentous remarks made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister over the last few months. Who can forget the memorable statement: `There will be no capital gains tax'? That promise was broken. We were told that interest rates would come down. That promise was broken. We were told that inflation would come down. What utter nonsense. That was a completely baseless promise. The young unemployed of this country were promised 10,000 traineeships under the Priority One program. How many have been produced-one, two, 10, 100 or 200? It is about time that members of the Government answered some of those questions. It is about time that they exercised some of their responsibility. It is about time that they came into this Parliament and defended their policies. Above all, it is about time they got the Treasurer to defend their hopeless economic position. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(9.35) —First of all, I congratulate the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) for his outstanding example of how to use the Parliament. Honourable members opposite were in all sorts of trouble with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). He was giving the worst speech this Parliament has heard for decades and the right honourable member for New England said to himself: `How can I save the situation? What should I do to give our team a lift? We can't go on like this because the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) will slay him when he gets up, so we have to stop this'. The poor old honourable member for Mackellar was drivelling on about what the Opposition would do and even honourable members opposite were not listening to him, so the right honourable member for New England had to save the situation. I say to him: Congratulations. It was a good tactic, and if I had not been here it would have worked. Is it not funny that the Opposition has moved a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders so that its members can listen to the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? Honourable members opposite have been away from the House for 19 days. I ask those honourable members opposite who asked the Treasurer a question just an hour ago to put up their hands. Who asked the Treasurer a question? No one did. There are 60 honourable members sitting opposite. They were given 45 minutes of Question Time and they did not even have a question to ask of the Treasurer. That shows how good they are. Not even one question was asked. After 31 minutes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Leader of the Opposition has been away from here for 19 days and he could not even ask the Treasurer a question. Yet honourable members opposite now say that the Treasurer has to come into this chamber to speak. Let me remind honourable members opposite of what used to happen when the late Sir Phillip Lynch was the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer proposed a matter of public importance. Do honourable members know who used to be sent in and who used to come trundling in smiling because he had got this big job? The honourable member for Bennelong used to be given the job for the late Sir Phillip Lynch when he was Treasurer. Without checking the records, I think that the Treasurer of this Government has responded to more matters of public importance on these questions than any Treasurer previously. He has been excellent in coming to the Parliament and responding to them. He was in the chamber for 45 minutes. Question Time is put on for the Opposition. When I came in to the House and sat down, I thought: `Paul, you will get lots of questions tonight. They have been away. They are frisky. They have been waiting for 19 days. They have got all these questions on housing interest rates to ask you and questions on what will happen with commencements. They want to forget about John Valder. They will be really screwing you tonight, Paul'. There was not one question of that type asked during Question Time. The Opposition then moved for the suspension of Standing Orders so that Paul Keating would come in and speak. He was here available. Those opposite need not worry about Paul Keating looking at antiques. All he has to do is stand here at the despatch box and he will see enough antiques. He would get his fill just standing here and surveying those opposite. I do not blame honourable members opposite for wanting to give us a bit of curry on the first night back because we have had the Valder theories reimposed on the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) are both going to be expelled for standing against decisions made in the Party room. There is a new line of values in the Liberal Party. If an honourable member is north of the Victorian border, he is okay; if he is south or west of the Victorian border, he is no good at all, and John Valder will get rid of him. They must not stand up against the majority decisions. This once great party, the Liberal Party, used to let everybody have his say and vote as he liked. That was always the way with Menzies, if one looks at his record. He did not mind how people voted; he just sent them overseas for the rest of their lives. This great tradition of the Liberal Party is going to be reimposed by John Valder. Mr Carlton —I rise on a point of order. The Minister has not yet mentioned building society interest rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —The Opposition has asked for the suspension of Standing Orders. I am arguing against it because I do not think the Opposition used the opportunities that were available to it during Question Time when the Treasurer was present to ask questions. There is no standing order that says that the Treasurer has to respond to any matter of public importance which may be selected by Madam Speaker and put in by any member of this House. I repeat that the Treasurer has been excellent in responding to matters of public importance. He is among the two or three busiest people in this country, so for him to spend additional time in this House is something that has to be taken notice of. The honourable member for Mackellar keeps screaming about interest rates and housing. The proof of the cake will be in the eating. Let us have a look at the commencements in a few months time. Let us get this clear. We are saying that those with present savings bank loans are not going to have their interest rates lifted; they will stay at 13 1/2 per cent. New loans will be at 15 1/2 per cent. As I understand it, the Liberal Party policy is that everybody should go to 15 1/2 per cent. Mr Carlton —Our policy is lower interest rates. Mr YOUNG —Is that right-everybody to 15 1/2 per cent? So the other million home owners who currently have a savings bank loan will go up to 15 1/2 per cent, under the Liberal Party policy. I really do not know what they are complaining about. What did the honourable member for Mackellar tell that young couple he talked to in the western suburbs? What was he doing in the western suburbs, by the way? Mr Carlton —I was born in the western suburbs. Mr YOUNG —It is a long way from his electorate. The honourable member has forgotten all about life in the western suburbs. Did he tell them that the Opposition's policy is to lift interest rates for everybody? Is that what he told them? We are going to go back up to 135,000 commencements, as has been said by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). That is what the Opposition is upset about. We are going to put 50,000 people back to work, and that upsets the Liberal Party. They really do not understand it. Cockies' corner over there, of course, wants all the money spent in the bush. They think it all should be spent up there. We have a very good government. In some ways we have adopted an idea that the Opposition put forward, except that intellectually it could not argue properly to persuade people around Australia what ought to be done. As time goes by and we see these commencements, as interest rates drop and the commencements get under way, I am sure that the people of Australia, as they have displayed over the last three years, are going to be more than happy with the judgments made by this Government. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— 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 Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duffy, M. J. O' Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Milton, P. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Macphee, I. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. 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 Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. 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) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Milton, P. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Macphee, I. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the business of the day be called on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The question is that the business of the day be called on. All those in favour say `aye', those against `no'. Is a division required? A division is required. Ring the bells for one minute. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order: The bells should ring for two minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Standing order 200A provides that when there is no debate between subsequent divisions the bells shall be rung for one minute. Mr Sinclair —A new motion has been moved by the Leader of the House. To the degree that he was speaking on a new issue, it is a matter that does not follow. Debate constitutes a speaker within this House. I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the intervention by the Leader of the House is debate and, therefore, it is necessary for the bells to ring for two minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The understanding of the Chair is that the Leader of the House moved a motion. There was no debate on that motion. Standing order 200A provides: When successive divisions are taken, and there is no intervening debate after the first division, the bells for the ensuing division shall be rung for one minute only. The Chair's understanding of that standing order is that the bells for this division shall be rung for one minute and I have directed that way. Mr Sinclair —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I made a mistake. Of course, the bells should ring for three minutes, not two minutes. But the definition of debate is a little extraordinary. Surely, if a speaker participates in this place on the floor, that constitutes debate. I find it incredibly hard to understand why it is not a debate if somebody rises. You will understand that in the preceding instance, when a gag had been applied, there was no obvious intervention in the House between the gag being applied-that is, that the motion be put-and the suspension of Standing Orders. There was no debate. In this instance there has been an intervention and it is necessary that the bells ring for three minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The opinion of the Chair is that it was necessary to ring the bells for only one minute. Mr Sinclair —Well, you are wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will decide whether I am right or wrong, not you. However- Mr Peacock —Oh no, you don't! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If members of the Opposition will listen to what I have to say in continuation, if it is the wish of the House that the bells be rung for three minutes, that is not of much interest to the Chair and the bells can be rung for three minutes. The Clerk will ring the bells for three minutes. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Milton, P. Jull, D. T. Fitzgibbon, E. G. Macphee, I. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(10.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and another consequential Bill, which I will shortly introduce, provide for the cancellation forthwith of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation and consequential measures which flow from that action, including the re-allocation of BLF work coverage to other registered unions. Immediate legislation to achieve these objectives has become necessary because of the intolerable situation with which the industry is faced as a result of the actions of the BLF. On 20 August 1985, I introduced the Building Industry Bill into this Parliament and in doing so I set out the reasons why the Government concluded there was not other course than to deal with the BLF as proposed in the Bill. At that time it was clear to the Government that the BLF had established an unparalleled pattern of broken industrial agreements and undertakings and that, through its industrial excesses, it had set itself apart from the mainstream of the trade union movement generally and also from other building industry unions. I went to some lengths to outline the considerable steps which this Government had taken since coming to office to deal within the established industrial relations framework with the problems posed by the BLF. However, efforts by the Government, employers and the trade union movement to achieve a permanent resolution to the problems were repudiated at every turn by the BLF. It was against this background and the immense damage being done not only to the industry, but also to the job security of building workers, by the actions of the BLF that the Government decided it had no alternative but to pursue the course of action set out in the Building Industry Bill. Accordingly, following the passage of the Building Industry Act, I applied on 6 September 1985 to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a declaration under the Act. I sought a declaration that the BLF had engaged in conduct which contravened agreements or undertakings to which it was a party, which seriously hindered or prevented the achievement of objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or which was inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. In short the Full Bench was asked to consider whether the BLF had engaged in conduct which threatened the very basis of our present system of industrial relations. My application was duly dealt with by a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which handed down its decision last Friday. I should add that the Government's application was supported by the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, by the Confederation of Australian Industry and by building employers through the Australian Confederation of Construction Contractors and the Master Builders Federation of Australia. This support for the Government's application emphasises the extent of concern within the community at the behaviour of the BLF and the damage its actions have inflicted on the building industry and on the economy. Because of the serious consequences of the action under the Building Industry Act the Government was most concerned that the Builders Labourers Federation should receive every opportunity to know in detail what the Government alleged against it and to answer those allegations. The Act made such provision and there were extensive proceedings before the Commission. These proceedings occupied 56 sitting days and covered 4,500 pages of transcript. Counsel representing the Government tendered 298 exhibits to demonstrate to the Full Bench that the BLF's conduct was such as to warrant the making of a declaration. The BLF itself tendered 105 exhibits, was represented by four counsel-including two Queen's Counsel and called 75 witnesses and evidence from all States, including the Australian Capital Territory. On 4 April, the Full Bench issued the declaration which the Government had sought. In doing so, the Full Bench concluded that: It has been established beyond question that the Builders Labourers Federation has rejected the standards of behaviour accepted by most trade unions in Australia. The Federation has no standards as that word is commonly understood, but reacts to events according to the view taken at the time by the Federal Management Committee. Instead of a rational policy designed to advance the interests of the members, the Federal Management Committee is addicted to slogans. The Full Bench went on to say: It is under such archaic banners that the Federal Management Committee has waged its campaigns, leading the rank and file from one disaster to the next. The efforts of the leaders have caused hardship to other workers and aroused the hostility of the other building unions. Builders labourers have been deprived of national wage case increases until long after other Australian workers have received that benefit; the excesses of the leadership have taken the Federation so far outside conventional trade union activity that it has been expelled by the Labour Council of New South Wales. As our review of the evidence has shown, the activities of the Federation have brought extensive dislocation to the building industry. The case against the Builders Labourers Federation is overwhelming. The declaration made by the Full Bench illustrates the breadth of the Federation's disregard for normal standards of industrial behaviour. The declaration specifies numerous fundamental breaches by the BLF of agreements and undertakings regarding its conduct within the Federal system. These include breaches of undertakings the BLF gave to the Industrial Registrar, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, employers and of industry agreements. Those breaches were the result of many instances of extremely damaging industrial action which led the Full Bench to declare that the BLF had prevented or seriously hindered the achievement of objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and had engaged in conduct that was inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. Even while the hearing was before the Commission, the union showed its complete contempt for the Commission, and its disregard for its undertakings, by pursuing claims that were patently in breach of the national wage principles and by backing those claims with widespread industrial action. The consequences of that action were very serious indeed. For example, many building sites in every Australian State have been affected by strikes, bans and threats in pursuit of claims for the 3.8 per cent national wage increase, other wage claims, implementation of a shorter working week and payment for time on strike. As a consequence of these actions major projects have been held up and fellow building workers have been stood down and their livelihood jeopardised. The BLF, by its actions during and immediately after the hearing, has led the Government to the view that immediate measures are needed so that the Federation should no longer remain a registered organisation. The Federation has continued to flout every accepted convention on which the Australian system of industrial relations depends and its guerilla tactics, industrial blackmail and intimidation are an anathema to the vast majority of trade unionists. A clear illustration of the BLF's total contempt for the system is seen from the fact that on the very day that the Full Bench's decision was handed down, more than 100 sites in New South Wales and Victoria alone were subject to bans in support of various BLF claims with no regard to the normal processes of dispute settlement through conciliation and arbitration. The Government cannot allow the threat to the Australian conciliation and arbitration system, to the building industry and to its workers posed by the behaviour of the BLF to continue. It cannot allow one organisation to disregard utterly the accepted processes of dispute settlement and prevent the establishment of a strong, efficient building industry which can make a major contribution to economic and employment growth in Australia. The stage has now been reached where: After a very lengthy hearing, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has made a declaration based on a careful and thorough examination of the evidence before it. That decision is a damning indictment of the BLF's behaviour; Time and time again, the BLF has shown it will not mend its ways and that it has no respect for the processes of conciliation and arbitration or the system which enables it to enjoy the status and benefits of a registered organisation; The BLF has lost the support of the trade union movement as a whole; The building industry continues to be seriously disrupted by the BLF's industrial action and faces the prospect of further sustained attack; and The system itself continues to be under serious challenge. The union is clearly only interested in using every available avenue to threaten, intimidate, coerce and weaken the resolve of all those engaged in the building industry to resist unreasonable demands by the BLF while it remains registered and enjoys the privileges and protection of the system. In these circumstances the Government has decided that the only responsible course is to immediately cancel the registration of the Federation. This means that the BLF will no longer be a registered organisation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act anywhere in Australia. The Bill I have now introduced will have that effect. Without immediate action, the BLF will undoubtedly do everything in its power to string out for many months final resolution of proceedings under the Building Industry Act in relation to it and, at the same time, place massive industrial pressure on employers not to support the Government's action. The BLF has no right to the protection of the system whilst at the same time it seems intent on destroying the system. Registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not confer only rights and privileges but also involves obligations to behave responsibly and in a manner consistent with the objects of the Act. I must emphasise that the action which this Government has already taken in relation to the BLF and what is proposed now is not intended as an attack on ordinary builders labourers. It is the leadership of the Federation which cannot be trusted and which, as the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said, has led the rank and file from one disaster to another. The Government will be concerned to ensure that the jobs and conditions of individual labourers are protected and that they are able to join appropriate federally registered unions with coverage of their work and which will properly represent their interests. It is essential in the interests of the workers concerned and the system of conciliation and arbitration that they should be able to be represented and enjoy the protection of their conditions of employment by awards and agreements secured under that system. Employers will have a vital role to play under the new arrangements. They will have to ensure that the rights of labourers prepared to work normally are maintained. In addition, builders will have to be prepared to stand firm against efforts of the BLF to maintain its place in the industry. The Government will be looking to employers to remain united in support of our action. I should add that the code of conduct to which the employers are required to adhere will be maintained and any employer seeking to deal with the deregistered BLF will risk exclusion from government contracts. Furthermore, should it prove to be necessary, the Government, with the co-operation of the State governments, stands ready to ensure the maintenance of order so that workers wanting to get on with their jobs in the industry will be able to do so without interference, threat or coercion. The terms of this Bill are simple. Honourable members will note that its preamble places emphasis on the public interest in preserving the system of conciliation and arbitration. The proceedings before the Commission, the Commission's findings, and the BLF's continuing misconduct demonstrate conclusively how serious a threat to that system the BLF has been. Flowing from that and from the concerns I have expressed, the Bill goes on to declare that, upon its becoming law, the registration of the BLF will forthwith be cancelled. This is a step which the Government is taking as a last resort and after the Government has shown great forbearance and patience in exploring all reasonable alternatives. However, the BLF has shunned every effort to resolve this matter within the established industrial relations processes and has alienated itself from virtually all other groups within the community, including the trade union movement. The BLF's activities have been condemned by other building unions, led to its expulsion from the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council and caused the Australian Council of Trade Unions to declare that it cannot support the BLF. The circumstances confronting us are therefore unique in the history of the nation and they require a unique solution. It is in that context that the Government has decided to take the serious action contained in this Bill. Such action is essential to preserve the future of the building industry, to establish rational industrial relations behaviour in that industry, to protect the national wage fixing principles and to preserve the authority of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Most of all, this legislation is essential to secure the preservation of the federal system of prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(10.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I have in my second reading speech on the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 explained why the Government has decided to take action which will result in the immediate de-registration of the Federation as a registered organisation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Bill which deals with three important areas that are consequential upon the cancellation of the Feder- ation's registration is expressed to come into operation when that occurs. These areas relate firstly to the consequences of the Federation's deregistration, secondly, to the question of the registration in the future of the Federation or a similar body, and thirdly, to the coverage by federally registered unions of work which was covered by the Federation before the cancel- lation of its registration. I shall address each of these areas in turn. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the consequences of the Federation's deregistration. Important elements of this provision relate to operation of awards and access to the federal conciliation and arbitration machinery. It provides that no award applying to the Federation or its members will have any force or effect in relation to them. The clause also provides that the deregistered Federation, or any association of members or former members of the Feder- ation formed in relation to the building industry, will not be able to participate in proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbit- ration Commission or be a party to an award made by the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission will not have jurisdiction over industrial disputes brought about by such bodies or their members, or by employers who are in dispute with them. The provision makes it clear, however, that the Commission is not denied jurisdiction over disputes between an employer and a registered union in relation to any of its members who may not have relinquished their membership of the Federation or of some other association in the industry formed by the members or former members of the Federation. This is necessary so that Federation members who join registered unions before they cease to be members of the Federation have access to the federal dispute settlement procedures and awards as members of such registered unions. The second significant area of the Bill concerns the future registration of the Federation. The Government believes that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Federation to be able to re-apply for registration immediately after its registration has been cancelled. Honourable members need reflect only on the Federation's conduct after it was registered again in 1976 after being deregistered in 1974. Despite undertakings about its industrial behaviour and adherence to the process of conciliation and arbitration, it demonstrated within months of reregistration that it had no intention of abiding by those undertakings. Its subsequent conduct showed how little the obligations of a registered union meant to it. I refer honourable members to last week's decision of the Full Bench of the Commission to make a declaration under the Building Industry Act for a clear exposition of the appalling history of the Federation's conduct after it was so reregistered. The Government therefore believes that a reasonable period should be set before the Federation can apply to be registered again. We consider that three years is the minimum period in which stability can be restored to the building industry without the presence of the Federation as a federally registered union. Such a period is provided for in clause 5. Furthermore, the Government believes that the Federation should not be capable of registration again unless it is prepared to behave responsibly as a registered organisation. Accordingly, Clause 5 also contains a requirement that a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission must be satisfied that the Federation would not, if registered, engage in conduct inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration, and that such registration would not prevent or seriously hinder the achievement of an object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The other requirements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as to registration will also apply, but any application for registration must also be dealt with by a Full Bench. These requirements also extend to any association formed in the industry by members or former members of the Federation. This will prevent any attempt to sidestep the requirements as to registration. The third important area of the proposed legislation relates to arrangements for federally registered unions to cover work of which the BLF had coverage when registered. Clause 7 provides that regulations may be made to give federally registered unions coverage of work in the industry in or in connection with which the Federation was registered. This can be done only with the consent of those unions. The regulations will declare persons who work in that industry to be eligible for membership of the consenting union. Such regulations may relate to work of specified kind in the industry or part of the industry, and in Australia generally or specified parts of Australia. This is considered an essential measure to provide industrial peace in the industry, and to ensure that workers who are or were members of the Federation are able to be represented by responsible registered unions, to have disputes over their employment settled through the proper processes of conciliation and arbitration and to secure the protection of federal awards. I wish to emphasise that no union will be compelled to accept an extension of its existing work coverage and the Government will be consulting fully with all interested parties to ensure that the most appropriate arrangements are made. It is not our intention that these arrangements should result in disruption to the existing work coverage of any federally registered unions. Another important aspect of clause 7 is that these arrangements are intended to be of an interim nature until federally registered unions can alter their rules to cover such work. The regulations will therefore cease to operate to the extent that they are not consistent with any subsequent rule alterations made under the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Madam Speaker, each of these elements of the Bill represents an important part of the Government's approach to securing the proper operation of the federal system of dispute settlement, and the achievement of better industrial relations in the building industry. I stress that this cannot be achieved without the best efforts of employers, unions and workers in that industry to strive for a permanent improvement in their industrial relationships. Australia cannot afford to continue to have a situation like that brought about by the BLF. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.46) —Last week the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) at my invitation visited the Mallee electorate. This visit allowed him to see the human face of the effects of the rural crisis and the impact of the Government's assets test on pensioners. Most of what I am about to say was included in the submission presented to the Minister by the Women in Agriculture group from Sea Lake. In order to understand fully the predicament of so many of the elderly people affected by the assets test it is necessary to have a measure at least of the people themselves, who have taken pride in the fact that they have never received government welfare assistance of any nature. Our present day elderly, in line with the above, have been steeped in the work ethic and have taken pride in their independence. In earlier times this pride was a survival kit enabling them to overcome heartbreaking difficulties, but it is now one of their biggest liabilities. Many have continued to work their farms until they are physically no longer able to do so. Of course, age has very little to do with it. They all like to feel that they are in control of their own destiny. Whether eventually they transferred the land to the next generation, willed it to the next generation or sold it was an individual decision. One way or another they anticipated that the farms would provide them with an income for life. Now they are trapped, because the world they knew and understood and in which they are competent no longer exists. It is being destroyed by high interest rates, high domestic costs, low commodity returns and no warning of the Government's attack upon thrift and capital through its attack upon the hard-earned assets of generations. It may not have mattered how much information the Government gave to the public prior to the introduction of the assets test. These people, in effect, would have said: `That's got nothing to do with me'. This is not a reflection upon their intelligence but an indication of their psychological response to life. Into this scenario has come the rural economic crisis and in the central Mallee area as well a succession of poor seasons. Mr Tim Fischer —Soldier settlers have been hit particularly hard. Mr PETER FISHER —That is right. Soldier settlers have been hit as well. The land, their asset, which in theory was to provide them with an income, is now useless for this purpose. Their traditional survival kit, a tightening of the belt, will no longer work. The cost structure under which the contemporary wheat industry operates is now outside their life experience. Those who made the personal decision years ago to transfer the land to the next generation and therefore retain only personal assets have been able in this rural crisis to apply for and receive the age pension without difficulty. Others who made the personal decision to retain the land in their name until some future date find themselves in the same financial position as those I have mentioned and have been caught by the assets test. The elderly in the second category have been living on their now dwindling savings or on their children's bank overdrafts, sometimes using their savings to prop up the ailing farm business. If in desperation they apply for the age pension, under the requirements of the assets test they hit what seems to them to be a solid brick wall in the form first of all of being required to have their land revalued which, in effect, means devalued-a frightening and unrealistic requirement given the crisis in the whole industry. Then follows the implementation of the 2 1/2 per cent deemable income clause, when the property is now returning a negative income. The hardship clause requires proof that that asset is producing little or no income and also that these people are unable to sell, lease or borrow against it. Finally, there is the pensions loans scheme, which is better known as the pay as you die scheme. In order that the present generation might continue their employment in the industry, the older people have no option but to use their asset as collateral to maintain the viability of the farm in today's conditions. The above fact explains the inability of the elderly to sell or borrow further against the asset or to apply for the pensions loans scheme, since to do so would destroy the present employment of their children. The practicalities involved in an application for the age pension against the background of the assets test are these: While the brochures of the Department of Social Security give the impression that it is a relatively simple procedure, in practice it involves numerous interviews to set the review process in train and then months of waiting for the decision. It appears that decisions cannot be made at a regional level, but must be made in Melbourne or Canberra. Appeals cannot be made to the Tribunal until the results of the review are known. This applies to a whole class of people, not just one or two individuals. Bearing in mind that this class of people may be aged anywhere between 65 to 85 years plus, it is no wonder that they find it to be a daunting, frightening procedure in which they see themselves in the position of peasants appealing to the Government for help. Given the aforementioned traditional pride, very few, even in difficult circumstances, are prepared to use the appeals system to its fullest. The Minister for Social Security must modify the assets test if he is not prepared to abolish it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.51) —Dorothy Elizabeth Jean Saunders was 76 years old a few months ago. Although she is not known to this House, she was an identity in the goldfields. She was born and bred in the goldfields. She came from a family of eight children. She grew up in Kalgoorlie, went to North Kalgoorlie Primary School and then to the Eastern Goldfields District High School. She worked for many years for legal firms in Kalgoorlie. During the war she served in the legal corps of the Army. She then joined the Eastern Goldfields Technical School, where she taught commercial studies to generations of goldfields girls. She was the acting deputy and then head of that school for many years. Dorothy Saunders was involved in numerous community activities. She was secretary of the Paraplegic Society for years. She was past president of the Golden Mile Art Group and a member of Meals on Wheels, whose meals she kept on delivering until a few months ago despite the fact that for some time she was not in the best of health. She was a regular Friend of the Hospital. She should have been citizen of the year for many years, but it was an honour she never sought and in truth would not have considered herself worthy of, for she never wanted any limelight. She helped numerous people financially and otherwise and was a tower of strength to people in need, emotionally and in other ways. One of her loves was music and she conducted the St John's Choir for many years. In 1975 she was the driving force behind the production of the Messiah in the goldfields, a production which is still talked about today. She was very involved with the Anglican church in the goldfields. A couple or years ago she compiled a history of the church which is quite a scholarly document. `Saundy', as she was affectionately known by people in the goldfields, was a Christian. I am not a Christian and I have a very jaundiced and cynical view of most religions, but in her case she lived her religion by her everyday example, by the kindness and compassion that she brought to living. Today she was buried in Kalgoorlie. She is survived by a brother, Charles, in Sydney, a sister, Joan, in Tasmania, and two brothers, Syd and Norm, in Perth, to whom I send my condolences. She was my neighbour and she was a de facto grandmother to my children. I have two children, Ainsley and Leyland, who have no grandparents of their own. They loved her deeply and she loved them. Kalgoorlie knows what it has lost in the death of `Saundy', but the world has lost too, for people like `Saundy' are very rare and hard to find. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.55) —I offer my condolences to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who is obviously very moved by such a sad loss. There have been many farmers around here today and I sympathise with them, especially in regard to the price of fuel. I also sympathise with the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who have been in the House tonight, because they represent rural electorates. The thing I have not against the governments but against the oil companies concerns home heating oil. During the boom, before Australia went to import parity pricing, everybody installed home oil heaters. In the cooler climates of Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia everybody put in an oil heater, but as soon as we went to import parity pricing-I do not have time to talk about that-the price of home heating oil went up astronomically. The peaks in price always commence in the winter, when most people need their home heating oil. I am absolutely staggered to find that in Tasmania, instead of coming down, the price of home heating oil has gone up. The further I checked the more intrigued I became with this commodity. The Prices Surveillance Authority, which recommends a maximum wholesale price for most petroleum products, does not recommend any price for home heating oil. The regrettable thing is that the oil companies know this. Their feed stock has gone down and there has been a reduction in the price of oil. The price of a barrel of imported oil at the moment is the lowest it has been for eight years. The price of home heating oil to the pensioners, to the ordinary people and to the farmers of Australia should have come down, but instead it has gone up. It is 54.5c a litre in Hobart at the moment, which is the same as petrol. That is outrageous. I have written to the responsible Minister in a nice, sensible way saying that he should have a good look at it. It is absolutely wrong that the price should go up when we are coming into the peak time, when heating oil is most needed in the cooler climates of Tasmania and Victoria, where 90 per cent of home heating oil is consumed. It needs to be far cheaper; after all, it is only a by-product. The oil companies use the argument that they have been losing on fuel prices and they need to make it up on home heating oil. That is wrong. After that serious matter I would like to get on to something light-hearted. Today I was staggered. I have always followed marketing and the activities of the airlines. One often sits in the plane, twiddles one's thumbs and thinks about how the airlines make a buck. I saw today the classic example. I flew with Trans Australia Airlines from Hobart and I had a bit of time to think. I was looking at the packets in the compartment where they put their booklets and so forth and I saw this little packet labelled `Leisure Photos'. The packet stated: Save up to 65% on your holiday photos. The address was Freepost No. 4, Leisure Photos, P.O. Box 100, Turramurra, New South Wales, 2074. It continued: Relive those wonderful memories from only $3.99. This meant that, if one has a film, the film can be put in the packet and sent off. Then I saw: Should you feel ill during the flight, please use this bag. So it is an air sickness bag! People can either put their films in it or other things. I thought that was a classic. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. Mr Downer to ask the Speaker: (1) Why have airconditioning and exhaust units been installed in offices in the House of Representatives 1965 wing. (2) What was the cost per unit. (3) What was the cost of installation and any other work required on the units. (4) Was the work put out to tender; if so, which companies tendered. (5) Which company was the successful tenderer. (6) What was the bid of the successful tenderer. (7) When was the work (a) started and (b) completed. (8) Did the work overrun the quoted time schedule; if so, (a) why and (b) what was the additional cost. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 April 1986: Archives Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 31. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 36. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1986- No. 2-Engineering construction survey. No. 3-Survey of beach usage-Adelaide. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1986- M28/86-Amendment to Order No. M24/85-1986 Performance. MQ17/86-Amendments to the Corporation's 1986 Quota Administration Schemes for EEC covered by Order Nos. MQ14/85, MQ15/85 and MQ16/85. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 44. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1986-No. 3-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Christmas Island Act-Regulations-1986-No. 1 (Motor Traffic Ordinance). Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 1. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 33. Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 34. Defence Act- Defence Force Regulations-Declaration of defence practice area, dated 15 January 1986. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1985-Nos. 7, 9. Determinations-1986- No. 12-Cadet Forces Allowances. No. 13-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 14-Outfit Allowance. No. 16-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. Defence Force Discipline Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 46. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986- No. 4-Prescribed Goods (General) (Amendment). No. 5-Fish (Amendment). Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 32. Freedom of Information Act-Regualtions-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 45. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to sub-section 6a (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 26 March 1986. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 40. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 39. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 38. Poultry Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 42. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Foreign States Immunities Act 1985-Provisions other than sub-section 18 (2)-1 April 1986. Marriage Amendment Act 1985-Sections 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 23-7 April 1986. Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1985-Sections 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39-1 April 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 37. Rural Industries Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 41. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1986- No. 2-Rates (Amendment). No. 3-Motor Traffic (Amendment). Securities Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 35. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 43. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 64. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 41. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 581) Mr Cadman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are provided with credit cards. (2) Which companies are used to provide these cards (e.g. American Express, Diners Club). (3) Who pays the membership and service fees. (4) At what level is an officer entitled to credit cards. (5) What limits are placed on the usage of the cards. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Since the issue of Finance Circular 1985/18 of 20 September 1985, credit cards, other than Telecom, are the officers' responsibility and official records are not maintained. At that time, 19 officers of the Department or statutory authorities held Telecom credit cards. (3) In accordance with Finance circular 1985/18 of 20 September 1985 and 1984/21 of 15 Oct. 1984 payment of fees for credit cards is the responsibility of the officer concerned. (4) The issue of Telecom credit cards to nominated senior officers e.g. Departmental Secretaries and their Deputies has been longstanding. There are no restrictions on the level of officers who may apply for credit cards but they are issued in accordance with Finance Guidelines on a needs basis. (5) Telecom credit cards are intended for use by senior officers where there is an urgent need to use the services of this body for official purposes in circumstances that do not allow the usual procedures to be followed, such as outside normal business hours or in locations remote from the Department's or authorities' offices. The pre-condition to the use of credit cards for official purposes is as prescribed by Section 34 of Finance Directions. (Question No. 1244) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quota; if so, by what amount. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. A list of consultants employed by the Department and statutory authorities since March 1983 is attached. The list provides the details which the honourable member has requested. In respect to part (c) each consultant agrees to carry out and report on a specific project, the particulars of which are either set out in the consultant's proposal and subsequently attached to the contract or described in the body of the contract itself. Consultants DEPARTMENT OF TRADE Name of Company Purpose Timing Date Signed Initial Quote Final Cost $ $ Pak Poy and Kneebone P/L Consulting services feasibility study fund (CSFSF)-Marikina Valley urban planning study-Philippines 18.6.85 for 16 weeks 18.6.85 65,565 68,605 Qld Assoc. of Consult. Surveyors O/S Projects P/L CSFSF-study for a large scale mapping/land information system project-Bangkok, Thailand 14.6.85 for 16 weeks 14.6.85 52,972 52,972 Scott & Furphy Engineers P/L CSFSF-study for town water supply project in Papua New Guinea 14.6.85 for 16 weeks 14.6.85 96,727 96,727 J. A. Henderson Appointment as journalist to perform written and journalistic services relating to a mission in Brazil 10.7.85 for 6 weeks 9.7.85 5,000 5,000 Competitive Edge Aust. import market report for domestic electrical products Open 25.7.85 2,000 2,000 Matt Wilson Ltd Agro/indust. survey report Open 12.6.85 45,540 45,540 Matt Wilson Ltd Computer software report Open 12.6.85 2,930 2,930 Matt Wilson Ltd Energy equipt study Fiji Open 10.1.85 2,490 2,498 Leightons Holdings Ltd China technical support facility (TSF) MGT plan for Xiamen Port in Province of Fujian 11.6.85 for 7 weeks 11.6.85 49,680 49,680 Aust. Hydro-geologists Int. P/L Middle East TSF Batinah Coast saline intrusion control prefeasibility study Oman 21.6.85 for 16 weeks 21.6.85 57,720 57,720 Yano Research Institute Assist export activities of Aust companies in Japan 16.5.85 to 15.11.85 16.5.85 7.92m YEN 7.92m YEN Price Waterhouse Assoc. Pty Study of effectiveness of selected recent overseas trade displays 28.5.85 to 30.8.85 28.5.85 48,075 48,075 Centre for S.A. Economic Studies (C. Findlay) Provide economic rationale on submission to the independent review of int. air freight policy 2.7.85 for 6 weeks 2.7.85 4,000 4,000 Mr R. S. Harris Project re Western Australian business advisory group, WA trade union adv. group, WA iron ore industry cons. cncl 2.5.85 for 1 year 2.5.85 38,690 39,690 Shanghai Ind. Cons. Market Research Services-East China 12 months 3.4.85 20,000 20,000 Y. C. Wong & Assoc. Market Research Services-East China 12 months 3.4.85 20,000 20,000 General Counsel P/L Austracom Legislation Legal Consultancy 8 weeks 24.6.85 11,200 11,200 Hardin & Assoc. P/L Aust. import market report for fire extinguishers 3 weeks 31.5.85 2,480 2,480 Gibb Australia P/L China TSF. dev. of thermal power station, coal, port and cement works-Prov. of Fujian 6 months 24.6.85 90,000 90,000 B. Oxenford Market research services Solomon Islands- (4 reports) 4 months 14.2.85 8,000 8,000 AGB Spectrum Research New Zealand market research (NZ MR) health and specialty foods Open 4.4.85 $NZ7,300 $NZ7,300 AHI Market Research NZ MR-professional & scientific equipt. Open 3.4.85 $NZ6,000 $NZ6,000 P.A. Mgt Consult. NZ MR-security printing & equipt. Open 3.4.85 $NZ9,200 $NZ9,200 MATRA Market survey-specialist vehicle & transport equipt. industry Malaysia 15.3.85 to 7.6.85 15.3.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 Price Waterhouse Assoc. Pty Market survey-pharmaceutical & medicinal products Malaysia 11.4.85 to 7.6.85 11.4.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 Price Waterhouse Assoc. Pty Market survey-sporting & leisure industry Malaysia 15.4.85 to 7.6.85 15.4.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 Price Waterhouse Assoc. Pty Market survey-motor vehicle components & accessories Malaysia 15.4.85 to 7.6.85 15.4.85 $M15,000 $M15,000 S. G. V. NA Thalang and Co. Ltd Market survey-professional & scientific equipment-Thailand 24.12.84 to 15.3.85 24.12.84 BHT 200,000 BHT 200,000 Development Services Ltd Market survey-computer equipment Thailand 14.12.84 to 15.2.85 14.12.84 BHT 120,000 BHT 120,000 Geddes and Whitehead Market survey-procurement in Indonesia's oil & gas industries 14.2.85 to 27.3.85 14.2.85 14,850 14,850 Geddes and Whitehead Market survey-engineering companies in Indonesia 13.11.84 to 24.12.84 13.11.84 23,800 23,800 Coopers and Lybrand Market surveys-Papua New Guinea Agricultural equipt. Electrical equipt. Medical products 6.2.85 to 28.2.85 31.3.85 30.4.85 11.2.85 20,000 20,000 Malaysian Trade Research Mgt Ass. Market survey-meters, gauges & valves industry Malaysia 29.3.85 to 7.6.85 29.3.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 SGV-Kassim Chan SDN BHD Market survey-electrical equipt. Malaysia 29.3.85 to 7.6.85 28.3.85 $M13,000 $M13,000 SGV-Kassim Chan SDN BHD Market survey-machine tools and accessories industry Malaysia 28.3.85 to 7.6.85 28.3.85 $M13,000 $M13,000 IMG Consultants P/L. Market survey-food process & dispensing equipt. industry Malaysia 28.3.85 to 7.6.85 28.3.85 $M13,900 $M13,900 Dr. L. O'Brien Market survey of Australian manufacturing enterprises in Malaysian Peninsula 12.11.84 to 23.12.84 12.11.84 $6,000 $6,000 Peter MacKenzie Market survey-mining & petroleum equipt. ind. Malaysia 4.4.85 to 7.6.85 4.4.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 C. A. Wade Market survey-marine craft & accessories ind. Malaysia 27.3.85 to 7.6.85 27.3.85 $M8,750 $M8,750 Malaysian Trade Research Mgt Ass. Market survey-packaging materials & machinery industry Malaysia 29.3.85 to 7.6.85 1.4.85 $M10,000 $M10,000 Datasearch Inf. Services P/L Japan market office provision of services of Mr P. Denton 6.5.85 for 2 years 13.4.85 49,500 1st year 49,500 1st year Peter Frankel Provide advice on marketing & promotional techniques in Western Europe 1.6.85 to 1.1.86 26.4.85 11,000 11,000 Executive Task Force P/L Consulting services to Sydney office of Thailand Board of Investment Open 22.4.85 10,025 10,025 Industrial Mgt Co. Ltd Bangkok Market survey of manufacturing industry in Thailand 30.1.85 to 19.8.85 30.1.85 BHT 500,000 BHT 500,000 Touche Ross Product surveys-Papua New Guinea Open 4.4.85 15,000 15,000 Matt Wilson Ltd Market survey-retail trade in Fiji Open 10.4.85 $F3,000 $F3,000 Shedden Pacific P/L CSFSF-study on pulpwood transportation-Sabah 16.4.85 for 3 1/2 months 16.4.85 75,132 76,682 GRM International P/L CSFSF-study for a beef feedlot facility in peninsular Malaysia 4.4.85 for 3 1/2 months 4.4.85 25,000 25,000 Cramb Corporate Services Review effectiveness of Dept of Trade marketing support program for New Zealand Open 11.4.85 40,000 40,000 Mr B. Marks Research and report on aspects of the taxation system Open 12.3.85 2,500 2.500 Prof. Y. Grbich Research and report on aspects of the taxation system Open 12.3.85 2,500 2,500 National Capital Development Comm. Market survey-commercial opportunities for Aust. firms in urban planning and development in Shenzhen China Open 8.3.85 9,899 9,899 Yano Research Institute Assist export activities of Aust. companies in Japan 18.2.85 to 18.5.85 18.2.85 3.6M YEN 3.6M YEN G. J. Hall Provide advice on ways to acquit backlog of EMDG claims during 1984-85 Open 13.3.85 3,000 $150 per day 3,000 $150 per day Hardin and Associates P/L Market report-Australian import market for spices Open 6.3.85 5,250 5,250 Harold Scruby Consultancies P/L Market report-Australian import market for childrenswear Open 5.3.85 7,850 7,850 Christopher Pearsall & Assoc. Market report-Australian import market for textiles Open 5.3.85 6,000 6,000 W. D. Scott and Company P/L Market report-Australian import market for menswear Open 6.3.85 7,730 7,730 W. D. Scott and Company P/L Market report-Australian import market for household electrical goods Open 6.3.85 6,350 6,350 W. D. Scott and Company P/L Market report-Australian import market for automotive replacement parts Open 6.3.85 7,800 7,800 W. D. Scott and Company P/L Market report-Australian import market for rubber and rubber products Open 6.3.85 8,150 8,150 Mentor International Conduct seminars to encourage Aust. software firms to penetrate the North American market Open 3.2.85 $US10,000 $US10,000 Helms and Associates Conduct seminars on how to obtain underwriters lab. approval for export products in the U.S. market Open 27.1.85 $US10,650 $US10,650 Elina MacKay Design P/L Market match-consultancy support-Philippines Open 24.10.84 64,250 64,250 Touche Ross Services Pty. Indonesian apparel and textile promotion consultancy Open 7.11.84 36,400 37,756 Maunsell and Partners P/L China TSF-Dredging feasibility study of the Min River-China 26.9.84 for 28 weeks 26.9.84 59,200 64,100 Peter Forest Provide advice and assistance to selected Aust. exporters of manufactured goods & services to Japan 14.1.85 to 13.1.86 20.12.84 8,792,500 YEN ($A42,000) 8,792,500 YEN ($A42,000) W. D. Scott and Company P/L Footwear promotion consultancy-Malaysia 29.10.84 29.10.84 20,900 20,900 Competitive Edge Plasticware survey, briefing promotion consultancy-Thailand 30.10.84 30.10.84 29,800 29,800 Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Timber, products and furniture components promotion consultancy-Indonesia Open 22.10.84 34,845 34,845 Sheffield Stoll & Associates P/L Trade promotion training course international trade development centre-Melbourne 3-14.12.84 31.10.84 7,550 7,550 Harold Scruby Consultancies P/L Apparel survey, seminar and promotion consultancy-Thailand Open 29.10.84 43,950 43,950 ERU Research Services P/L Processed food promotion consultancy-Malaysia 30.10.84 to 26.11.84 30.10.84 13,000 17,950 Coopers and Lybrand Services Provision of consulting services for Middle East Food Export Drive (MEFED) 23.10.84 to 25.1.85 23.10.84 110,400 108,148 P. Harrobin Provide advice to the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel (services provided free) D. Fitch Assist the Dept. in the Japan market strategy 20 days work 12.10.84 2,000 100 per day 2,000 100 per day ERU Research Services P/L Processed food promotion consultancy-Philippines 8.10.84 to 2.11.94 8.10.84 7,500 7,500 G. J. Hall Assist in preparation of report on trade policy for Minister 20 days work 5.9.84 3,000 150 per day 3,000 150 per day J. Bayutti Advise on expansion of trade to Italy and Europe in particular the area served by the Port of Trieste 24.8.84 to 2.9.85 28.8.84 17,640 17,640 Merrill Lynch (Australia) P/L Provide international prices of iron ore etc. in China 17.8.84 to 22.8.84 17.8.84 $US 25,000 $US 25,000 P. W. Grutzner Assist in conducting export marketing seminars in Vietnam 5-11.6.84 1.6.84 2,600 2,600 Competitive Edge Conduct trade promotion course-Forum islands countries and federated states in Micronesia 4-15.6.84 1.6.84 10,150 10,150 Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Conduct trade promotion marketing course Open 6.4.83 5,000 5,000 Davy Agro CSFSF-Feasibility study into improvements in the sugar industry in Indonesia 8.5.84 for 17 weeks 8.5.84 101,600 101.600 GRM International P/L CSFSF-Feasibility study into agricultural development in Pakistan 4.6.84 for 11 weeks 4.6.84 64,909 64,909 SAGRIC International P/L Middle East TSF-Conduct an Australian dryland farming technology study-Morocco 24.5.84 for 11 weeks 24.5.84 48,900 48,900 Mentor International Market research-Computer software market-U.S.A. 16.5.84 for 6 weeks 16.5.84 $US 39,000 $US 45,890 PA Consulting Services P/L Consumer income and consumption study of Singapore 12.4.84 for 2 months 12.4.84 50,000 50,000 SGV Kassim Chan Son BHD Survey on communications industry in Malaysia 10.4.84 to 8.6.84 10.4.84 $M45,000 $M45,000 Taurelus P/L Survey on property developers in peninsular and East Malaysia 9.4.84 to 8.6.84 9.4.84 27,630 27,630 Alex Graham and Associates CSFSF-Feasibility study into upgrading of Meat Processing Facilities in Vanuatu 10.4.84 for 19 weeks 10.4.84 22,500 22,500 Holt Public Relations P/L Plan and implement Japanese marketing seminars 29.2.84 to 29.6.84 29.2.84 8,125 8,125 Maunsell and Partners CSFSF-Feasibility study into location of expressway near Ipoh in Malaysia 27.2.84 for 19 weeks 27.2.84 94,508 94,508 Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Conduct trade promotion courses in Sydney and Melbourne Open 30.3.84 19,600 19,600 C. W. Pope and Associates P/L Conduct training course for Mr A. Clavecilla of the Philippines Metals & Res. & Development Centre 9.3.84 for 8 weeks 9.3.84 5,100 5,100 SEIBU Marketing Inf. Services Inc. Advise on the market opportunities for Australia in Japan 9.1.84 for 6 months 9.1.84 26.8m YEN 26.8m YEN Nomura Research Institute Advise on the market opportunities for Australia in Japan 9.1.84 for 6 months 9.1.84 17.5m YEN 17.5m YEN T. G. Pilavachi Provide advice in relation to the expansion of the fruit and vegetable trade to selected countries 16.11.83 to 30.11.84 16.11.83 16,200 16,200 J. Bayutti Advise on expansion of trade to Italy and Europe in particular the area served by the Port of Trieste 5.9.83 to 4.9.84 5.9.83 16,200 16,200 Australian Bank Ltd. Advise on the feasibility of establishment of a proposed overseas trading company Open 11.11.83 150,000 150,000 G. F. Clarke Undertake a study and report on the world steel industry 12.12.83 for 8 months 23.11.83 1,000 1,000 Elina Mackay Design P/L Consultant for the Philippine trade authority (CITEM) in respect of the top lines in motion promotion 9-25.11.83 4.11.83 9,100 9,100 Coleman and Associates CSFSF-Feasibility study to assess the economic and technical viability of the expansion of the LI lignite mine in Thailand 23.9.83 for 8 months 23.9.83 95,177 95,177 National Assoc. of Testing Auth. Conduct training program for the metals industry and development centre in Manila 4.8.83 for 3 weeks 4.8.83 9,965 9,965 David Baker Consultant to assist Thailand in the area of trade fair planning and public relations Open 27.7.83 7,800 7,800 Eric White and Associates Consultant for the B.K.P.M. promotion program Open 22.7.83 275,000 275,000 W. L. Meinhardt and Partners P/L Consultant for an evaluation study of the electrical/electronics sector of Singapore Open 20.6.83 43,682 43,682 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corp. CSFSF-Feasibility study of technical viability of incorp. aqueduct system in Pergau river project in Malaysia 2.6.83 for 19 weeks 2.6.83 65,650 88,160 Western Australian O/S Projects Auth. Middle east TSF-Conduct a feasibility study on sheep meat production in Jordan 11.5.83 for 11 weeks 19.5.83 42,728 42,728 GRM International P/L Middle east TSF-Prepare fresh meat marketing and processing study in Oman 6.5.83 for 13 weeks 6.5.83 84,860 84,860 Hassall and Associates P/L Middle east TSF-Prepare pre-feasibility study of sheep raising and fodder prod. in Qatar 13.4.83 for 11 weeks 13.4.84 63,905 63,905 EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION Rogan S. Moody P/L Assess rust damage to window system of export house Jan '84 to April '85 17.11.83 $10,863.50 hrly rate $10,860.50 Thorlyune P/L Ergonomic investigation of work environment relative to repetitive strain injury June '84 to March '85 3.5.84 $1,150 $1,150 Canto Consultancy Services P/L Review of management services division 11.5.84 to 30.5.84 11.5.84 $3,507.45 hrly rate $3,507.45 Intex Interior Design Fitting out of Adelaide branch office July '84 to March '85 17.4.84 $1,621.85 hrly rate $1,621.85 Oldham Boas Edne Brown Fitting out of Perth branch office 19.9.84 to Dec. '84 19.9.84 $2,140.25 hrly rate $2,140.25 AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS PROJECTS CORPORATION Executive Leasing Provision of personnel to undertake financial co-ordination 24.8.84 to 15.5.85 24.8.84 $28,434 $28,434 A. Walmsley Provision of an internal audit service 7.2.83 to 13.3.85 7.2.83 $26,700 $26,700 A. L. Paltridge Corporation's Canberra representative 1.3.83 to 28.2.85 1.3.83 $24,000 $24,000 Tan Sri Ibrahim B. Ismail Advise on project matters in Malaysia 28.1.83 to 27.4.85 28.1.83 $27,200 $27,200 P. Horrobin Advise on financial arrangements for an Indonesian project Open 26.6.83 $15,000 $15,000 Lloyds International Advise on the financial standing of an Australian company 12.2.85 to 15.2.85 12.2.85 $7,118 $7,118 (Question No. 1333) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) In each office of the Human Rights Commission how many officers are involved in (a) processing complaints of breaches against human rights and (b) conciliating alleged breaches of human rights. (2) How many complaints of alleged breaches of human rights have been received by the office of the Commission. (3) How many of these complaints have been (a) settled or withdrawn before conciliation, (b) conciliated and determined by the Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) The full-time equivalent of officers involved in processing (as distinct from conciliating) complaints of breaches of human rights under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 in offices of the Human Rights Commission is as follows: Canberra 1.9, Brisbane 0.1. (b) The full-time equivalent of officers involved in conciliating alleged breaches of human rights under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 in offices of the Human Rights Commission is as follows: Canberra 2, Brisbane 0.25. These figures relate only to the processing and conciliation of complaints under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 in offices of the Commission. Under co-operative arrangements with Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, complaints under that Act are being handled by State human rights and equal opportunity bodies. (2) During the period 10 December 1981 to 30 June 1985 there were 874 complaints of alleged breaches of human rights under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 received by the Human Rights Commission. Of these, 393 complaints were outside jurisdiction, leaving 481 for inquiry and attempted settlement and conciliation under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. (3) During the period 10 December 1981 to 30 June 1985, of the 481 complaints accepted under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, (a) 216 matters were withdrawn before conciliation; (b) 202 matters were conciliated and settled; and (c) 63 matters were in the process of conciliation by the Commission. (Question No. 1650) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since July 1984 this Department has accepted reverse charge telephone calls, on legitimate business, from Aboriginals and Aboriginal organisations. This arrangement allows the caller to contact officers of the Department at no cost. The Department has recently taken action to install one toll free telephone service in its central office for a 12 month period. On completion of the 12 month period a further study will be undertaken by the Department to assess the viability of the toll free facility. (Question No. 2188) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: What is proposed for the Inter-State Commission after the conclusion of the inquiry into interstate road and rail freight cost recovery. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 10 March 1986, I forwarded to the Inter-State Commission for investigation and report a reference on the transport of bulk packaged salt between South Australia and New South Wales. The Inter-State Commission also has before it a reference that I forwarded on 5 August 1985 to investigate the extent to which the rates of assistance recommended by the Commission in its report on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme should be varied to reflect changes, if any, in the level of the interstate freight cost disadvantage suffered by shippers. (Question No. 2213) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Australian Telecommunications Commission on research and development in its own research laboratories in each year since 1975-76. (2) What is the role of the research laboratories. (3) What is the relationship between managers of the product divisions and the research laboratories. (4) Which products, terminal or network, were developed for the (a) domestic and (b) export markets in each year and what were the unit sales and their value. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The total annual operating costs of Telecom Australia's Research Laboratories from 1975-76 are tabulated below. Year Actual costs $ million 1975-76... 9.3 1976-77... 12.2 1977-78... 14.7 1978-79... 15.4 1979-80... 16.7 1980-81... 20.0 1981-82... 25.0 1982-83... 27.4 1983-84... 29.1 1984-85... 32.4 (2) and (3) The Research Department of Telecom is required to maintain a position at the forefront of knowledge in communications science and technology. It provides expert participation in the promulgation and implementation of policies for the introduction of advances in science and engineering of relevance to Telecom. It is required to conduct specific development and design projects and scientific and engineering investigations which are relevant to the discharge of Telecom's obligations under its Act. In essence the Research Department underpins Telecom's massive annual capital works program of about $1.5 billion and an operational program of similar size. The Research Department is an integral part of the total Telecom organisation and is available to all areas for advice and consultation. Telecom issues on an annual basis, a `Review of Research Laboratories Activities', copies of which should be available in the Parliamentary Library. I commend these comprehensive reports to my colleague for his perusal as they deal in some depth with the role of the Research Laboratories. (4) Nil-for the reasons outlined above. (Question No. 2345) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People (1) (a) $2,577.04; (b) Nil. (2) (a) Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism; (b) Gordon and Gotch advertising agency. (3) Promote availability of grants under the Program. (4) Standard rates. (5) (a) No; (b) Yes. Innovative Recreation Programs (1) (a) $1,305.14; (b) $1,278.60. (2) (a) Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism; (b) Gordon and Gotch and Neville Jeffress advertising agencies. (3) Promote availability of grants under the Programs. (4) Standard rates. (5) (a) No; (b) Yes. Innovative Employee Fitness and Recreation Program (1) (a) Nil; (b) $2,494.80. (2) (a) Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism; (b) Gordon and Gotch advertising agency. (3) Promote availability of grants under the Program. (4) Standard Rates. (5) (a) No; (b) No. National Australia Day Council promotion activity (1) (a) Nil; (b) $1,000. (2) (a) National Australia Day Council (NADC); (b) KODAK and NADC. (3) To make school children, both secondary and primary, aware of the Young Shots Photography Project competition. (4) A `global' fee for services provided. (5) (a) No; (b) No. `A Guide to Taxation Reform' booklet (1) (a) Nil; (b) $95,195. (2) (a) The Information Co-ordination Branch on behalf of the Department of the Treasury; (b) John Clemenger (Vic.) Pty Ltd. (3) The issue of taxation reform was deemed a matter of national importance to all Australians. (4) The creative advertising agency was paid according to the accepted formula under the Commonwealth's central advertising system; net head hours for creative work plus 200 per cent. The agency was reimbursed production costs at net. (5) The campaign was conducted by the Information Co-ordination Branch which since 1 March 1984 has operated the Commonwealth's central advertising system. Australian Tourist Commission (a) 1983-84 Australia $ Advertising PATA Sri Lanka '84... 7,059 Domestic Awareness... 2,092,383 Co-op Advertising Development... 15,000 Overseas: New Zealand NSW Image Campaign... 114,966 Queensland Image Campaign... 141,105 Victorian Image Campaign... 85,778 Joint Product Advertising... 61,852 Special Advertising Supplement... 5,284 Tasmanian Image Campaign... 87,868 Western Australian Campaign... 93,160 South Australian Image Campaign... 104,789 Northern Territory Image Campaign... 34,737 `Jump Across to Australia'... 14,883 `Nipper Tripper/Piggy Back' Fare... 15,139 Singapore M.A.S. Co-operative Advertising... 7,079 Co-op. Advertising: Aust. Industry... 103,706 `8 Wonders of Australia' Campaign... 174,492 `Hong Kong Tatler' Supplements... 2,920 `Signature Magazine' Supplements... 554 `Singapore Monitor' Supplements... 2,179 `TTG-Asia' Supplements... 1,409 Co-operative Advertising-Qantas... 1,034 `Diners World' Key Agents Supplement... 1,492 Hong Kong Key Agents Support... 12,332 `Peninsular Tours Enterprises' Support... 5,411 Concorde Service Support... 5,656 `Gulf Travel Trade & Traveller'... 8,572 `Travel Trade Reporter'... 2,825 Aust. Trade Display-Al Khobar... 1,541 Zenith Travel Pty Ltd Support... 3,040 Japan Aust. Tourism Product Promotion Centre... 42,702 Major Co-operative Marketing... 28,423 Agency Group Tours Support... 19,598 Japan Festival Day in Sydney... 2,799 ATC/JTB/QF Co-op Marketing Sapporo... 9,502 ATC/JTB Co-op Marketing... 24,044 `Friendly Australia' Campaign... 11,041 ATC/JTB `Look' Co-op Marketing... 48,950 Koala Tomonaki... 54,581 Europe `Touristik Aktuell' Advertising... 5,405 IIB `84... 16,044 `Meridan Travel'... 1,734 `Flug & Fern Touristik'... 2,986 Berlingske Tidende... 4,738 Travel Trade Gazette... 15,314 Co-op Trade Advertising... 6,596 Tours 33/France... 13,349 ABR Reisen Munich... 1,899 Optimundus Reisen Austria... 5,624 Jemoli Reisen Switzerland... 3,825 Kuoni Travel Switzerland... 15,375 Airtours France... 3,601 Austrement France... 1,455 Rast Reisen Switzerland... 5,149 Inter Air V. Reisen... 3,464 Jetstream... 1,581 Aust. Tour Consultants... 3,644 Motivational Campaign... 74,770 Co-operative Advertising Campaign... 279,522 Airtours International... 8,048 UK and Ireland Aust. Travel Guide... 100,498 Marketrack... 54,595 Australia Special agents... 13,106 GBTA Annual conference-Sydney... 1,242 Tour Operator Multi/Retail Agents... 33,368 Corroboree `84... 18,249 Directories Support... 9,965 1983 Autumn Consumer Advertising... 97,083 UK Travel Trade... 31,413 Travellers Guide Video... 5,800 UK Consumer Advertising... 431,076 North America Trade Advertising... 41,500 Consumer Advertising... 88,892 Asta World Travel Congress-Seoul... 10,356 America's Cup Expo Promotion... 5,667 `Its Best' Campaign... 418,521 Sea Australia... 15,699 `Time' Supplement... 39,985 Ptn-Australian Supplement... 15,623 Enhanced Awareness Campaign... 3,718,765 Hispanic Market... 6,959 Convention and Incentive Advertising... 49,024 Regional Trade Advertising... 37,290 Travelage Market Guide... 13,949 Advertising Canada... 112,310 (b) 1984/85 Australia National Tourism Awareness Campaign... 1,328,130 Pata `85-Auckland... 22,573 Overseas New Zealand N.T. Image Campaign... 40,961 Tasmanian Image Campaign... 61,567 South Australian Image Campaign... 88,806 Western Australian Image Campaign... 89,533 Victorian Co-operative Advertising... 64,089 NSW/ACT Image Campaign... 92,245 Queensland Image Campaign... 40,572 SA and NT Co-operative Image... 33,552 NITC/ATC Co-operative Campaign... 34,963 QTTC/ATC Co-operative Advertising... 12,988 Trans Tasman Co-operative Advertising... 12,924 Child Air Fare Advertising... 24,389 Australian Umbrella National Consumer... 83,793 Australian Umbrella Magazine Advertising... 34,109 Singapore `Dynasty Tours' Support... 8,130 `P&O Travel (Singapore)' Support... 1,959 `Overseas Travel Service' Support... 1,570 `Concorde Travel Hong Kong' Co-op Advertising... 1,223 `TTG Asia' Competition... 1,181 Basic Advertising and Directories... 10,146 Key Agents G/G Jakarta support... 2,467 8 Wonders-Co-operative advertising... 35,676 Royal Brunei Air Line Co-op Advertising... 5,575 Consumer Supplements Special Selection... 12,200 `Mini-Mart' Campaign... 50,814 ATC/States 8 Destinations Campaign... 377,431 ATC/Qantas/Ansett Advertising... 2,354 ATC/Qantas/Teleford Advertising... 28,325 ATC/Singapore Airlines Advertising... 19,560 ATC/Qantas Jakarta Advertising... 7,398 Qantas TV Advertising Support... 31,964 ATC/Cathay Pacific Airlines Advertising... 9,780 ATC/TG/QF Advertising... 46,239 ATC/Jetabout/Other Key Agents... 5,455 Japan Minor Consumer Promotions... 6,934 Trade Advertising... 72,337 Aust. Tourism Products Promotions Centre... 3,897 `Friendly Australia' Awareness Campaign... 504,018 Europe ATC/Queensland Joint Campaign... 22,866 Australia-A Travel Guide (German)... 1,218 Joint Advertising-Consumer... 50,933 Advertising-Trade General... 11,750 Various Supplements... 3,142 Travel Trade Europe... 59,119 Airlift Switzerland... 3,546 UK and Ireland UK Travel Trade... 10,828 Industry Directories... 10,595 Tour Operators/Multi Agents Co-operative... 14,436 Special Agents Program... 28,952 Conventions & Incentive Travel... 6,534 Consumer Advertising Autumn `84... 31,613 Travel Trade Advertising... 36,711 UK Travellers Guide... 8,816 Consumer Advertising-Spring Campaign... 900,347 `Market Pack'... 6,526 ATE Marketplace... 1,420 North America Asta World Travel Congress... 7,525 Consumer/Trade Print Advertising... 1,000,844 Convention and Incentive Advertising... 48,003 `Wonder Down Under' Market Development... 2,067,840 `Wonder Down Under' Enhanced Awareness... 5,156,351 Trade Advertising-Canada... 12,124 Consumer & Trade Advertising-Canada... 168,581 Many of these promotions were conducted jointly by ATC and various airlines, wholesalers, State Tourist offices etc who contributed to the advertising and other costs. (2) (a) Whilst most campaigns were initiated by ATC, in some instances ATC support was requested by joint partners. (b) All campaigns were conducted by ATC. (3) Each campaign was deemed to be an integral part of ATC role in the promotion of Australia as a tourist destination. (4) Due to staffing constraints, and the specific knowledge required for differing areas and markets, contractors are employed by ATC to assist in the production and placement of advertising. Remuneration for such contractors is based upon standard commission fees paid in the industry for each area or market. (5) No assistance was sought or obtained from either the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch, or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service. (Question No. 2349) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, 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 Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on information provided by the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 (1) Department of Communications $ $ UHF... 4,216 64,905 Radio Licensing... 880 915 HACBSS... - 2,807 Telecom Australia $ $ Product Advertising... 8.5m 10.6m Loan Advertising... 0.858m 0.983m Australia Post $ $ Service Information... 1.562m 1.536m Product/Service media advertising and publicity display... 2.769m 3.697m Philatelic advertising and display... 1.624m 2.997m Post Office displays... .412m .645m Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) $ $ 1.36m 2.258m Australian Broadcasting Corporation $ $ Television... 0.736m 1.133m Radio Australia... $S'pore 2674 $HK1969 $US1850 Cen. Pac Francs 53,600 $US2850 $A5929 $ $ Media and Information... 6,211 3,682 Corporate Management> - 0.110m Marketing... 58,798 85,148 Concerts... 0.865m 0.969m Radio... 0.220m 0.250m Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Nil Nil Special Broadcasting Service $ $ - Corporate Management Advertising... 14,692 1,049 - Television Major Promotions (Media)... 0.938m 1.441m Major Promotions (Production)... 0.323m 0.376m Advertising (other)... 4,101 539 - Radio Advertising... 450 2,029 (2) Department of Communications (a) and (b) The Department Telecom Australia (a) Telecom Australia (b) USP Needham Pty Ltd and George Patterson Pty Ltd Australia Post (a) Australia Post (b) Either by Australia Post itself or by its advertising agency, John Clemenger Pty Ltd before 30 June 1984 and Monahan Dayman Adams from 1 July 1984 Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) (a) O.T.C. (b) George Patterson Pty Ltd Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a) ABC (b) Samuelson Talbot and Partners, and Ogilvy and Maher Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Not applicable Special Broadcasting Service (a) SBS (b) JWT Enterprise Pty Ltd (3) The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access to information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective way of their rights and responsibilities, and of matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of information campaigns such as those listed above is determined according to this criterion. Department of Communications The UHF campaign was needed to explain the reasons for the use of the UHF band, and advise the public on reception matters. The radio licensing campaign is part of a continuing program to encourage the licensing of radio-communications equipment, in order to avoid congestion and interference on the airways. The HACBSS campaign was designed to tell the public where they could get information about the AUSSAT satellites, and about reception of the ABC HACBSS broadcasts. Telecom Australia To support Telecom's commercial activities and assist in achieving financial objectives. Australia Post To contribute to the long term growth of the enterprise by increasing awareness of postal products/services available. It also enabled the community to make informed choices between various forms of communications and competing products/services. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) To promote international telecommunications services. These advertising campaigns are ongoing and reflect OTC's responsibility to advise customers of service developments, costs, convenience and conflicts. Australian Broadcasting Corporation To advise of programming and to promote activities, shops and merchandise. Also to promote the ABC's corporate image. Special Broadcasting Service To promote SBS television programs, launches of the television network into new cities and UHF Education campaigns around these launches. There were also campaigns in Sydney and Melbourne during these periods for UHF Education and the cessation of the transmission of SBS TV programs on VHF Channel 0. (4) Department of Communications Payments were made for services rendered under normal contractual arrangements. Telecom Australia Negotiated prices with the advertising agencies. Australia Post Australia Post contract. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Agency commission. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Standard Agency fees. Australia Broadcasting Tribunal Not applicable. Special Broadcasting Service Standard Agency fee. (5) Department of Communications (a) No. (b) Assistance was obtained for the UHF campaigns. Telecom Australia (a) and (b) No. Australia Post (a) No. (b) Some use made of AGAS billing facilities. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) (a) and (b) No. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a) and (b) No. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Not applicable. Special Broadcasting Service (a) and (b) No. (Question No. 2464) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) How many passenger cars are in his Department's motor vehicle fleet in (a) Victoria, (b) New South Wales, (c) Queensland, (d) South Australia, (e) Western Australia (f) Tasmania and (g) Northern Territory. (2) What were the operating costs of the motor vehicle fleet in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 in each State and Territory listed. (3) What was the cost of leased and hired motor vehicles used by his Department in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 in each State and the Northern Territory. (4) What was the cost of leased and rented motor vehicle parking space used by his Department in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 in each State and the Northern Territory. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Victoria ... 180 (b) New South Wales ... 182 (c) Queensland ... 93 (d) South Australia ... 46 (e) Western Australia ... 44 (f) Tasmania ... 16 (g) Northern Territory ... 39 (2) (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 Victoria... $1,721,500 $1,973,800 New South Wales... $1,648,500 $1,785,500 Queensland... $ 813,000 $ 906,000 South Australia... $ 406,700 $ 430,500 Western Australia... $ 470,300 $ 542,000 Tasmania... $ 84,900 $ 92,900 Northern Territory... $ 300,700 $ 309,000 The motor vehicle fleet includes the passenger cars referred to in part (1), together with a variety of trucks, vans, utilities and other commercial vehicles. The fleet was transferred to DOLGAS in July 1983 and that Department is responsible for determining hire rates and fleet quotas for all Departments. The operating costs referred to in this part include all payments made to DOLGAS for the long-term hire of motor vehicles, together with other approximate direct costs (for servicing, petrol etc) associated with the operation of these vehicles. (3) (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 Victoria... $167,500 $289,900 New South Wales... $261,500 $108,800 Queensland... $ 18,700 $ 19,900 South Australia... $ 41,300 $ 40,600 Western Australia... $ 54,200 $ 73,700 Tasmania... $ 9,400 $ 10,100 Northern Territory... $ 16,800 $ 25,800 The costs quoted in this part of the answer relate to those vehicles, excluding plant items, hired on a short term basis from any source, including DOLGAS car with driver service, not covered in part 2 of the question. (4) DHC (a) 1983-84 DOLGAS DHC (a) 1984-85 DOLGAS Victoria... NIL $16,900 NIL $16,100 New South Wales... $15,700 NIL $1,800 NIL Queensland... NIL $30,100 NIL $30,500 South Australia... NIL $26,500 NIL $28,900 Western Australia... NIL $27,100 NIL $34,500 Tasmania... NIL NIL NIL NIL Northern Territory... NIL $4,200 NIL $5,700 (Question No. 2509) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes, the Department of Education administers general recurrent and capital grants to non-government schools and systems in the ACT as well as grants-in-aid to education related bodies operating in the ACT. The Commonwealth Schools Commission also administers grants to non-government schools in the ACT. (2) Yes, there is a requirement that all non-government schools in receipt of general recurrent funding be fully incorporated. Either Articles and Memorandum of Association or a statutory declaration of intent to incorporate must be sighted. There is no such requirement for bodies in receipt of grants-in-aid. (3) No; see (2) above. (4) The school or body is contacted. Clarification is sought as to the reasons for non-incorporation. Grants are only paid if the school is in the process of incorporation and, for new schools, provisional approval has been given for general recurrent funding. (5) Yes, where applicable. (Question No. 2511) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Act provides for the payment of taxable cash grants to Australian exporters to assist them to seek out and develop overseas markets for goods, specified services, industrial property rights and know-how which are substantially of Australian origin. Grant entitlement is based on eligible expenditure incurred on overseas market research and development. (2) No. The EMDG Act does not require organisations operating in the ACT to be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953. (3) No. See answer to (2) above. (4) Not applicable. See answer to (2) above. (5) Not a requirement of the EMDG legislation. (Question No. 2547) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A petition referred to my office is referred to my Department to ensure that it reached the appropriate agency/ies for the preparation of advice to me. I then write to the Member who has brought the petition to the House. Subsequent petitions on the same matter are not responded to again as the views of the petitioners initially are always given careful consideration and for this reason it is not considered necessary to respond again. (Question No. 2599) Mr Hunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 2299, 2327, 2403, 2411, 2497, 2498, 2499, 2501, 2529, 2563. (b) 2124, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2179, 2183, 2201, 2217, 2253. (c) 2035, 2042, 2047, 2107. (d) 1611, 1666, 1669, 1845, 1859, 1932. (e) 1383, 1384, 1433, 1461, 1489, 1546, 1559, 1560, 1569. (f) Nil. (Question No. 2793) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, 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 Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Since 13 December 1984, the Minister's Department has advertised in all offices, all Public Service Board Schemes which may lead toward greater career opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. Those of particular relevance are the Aboriginal Undergraduate Study Award and the Aboriginal Staff Sponsorship Program, in which 4 employees have participated. (2) The number of Aboriginal and Islander employees employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 13 December 1984, was as follows: (a) Sydney... 8 (b) Sydney... 6 Perth... 0 Perth... 0 Melbourne... 1 Melbourne... 1 Hobart... 0 Hobart... 0 Darwin... 2 Darwin... 0 Adelaide... 2 Adelaide... 0 Brisbane... 1 Brisbane... 0 Canberra... 1 Canberra... 0 15 7 (NOTE: 13 December 1984 has been used in lieu of 31 March 1983 as this was the date of the Department's creation.) (Question No. 2871) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What level of funding is to be allocated for domiciliary care in the electoral division of Hughes in 1985-86. (2) How many persons receive the benefit. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The estimated level of funding for domiciliary nursing care benefit in the electoral division of Hughes in 1985-86 is $379,000. (2) 347 persons currently receive domiciliary nursing care benefit in the electoral division of Hughes. (Question No. 2942) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has the Australian Defence Force (ADF) any contingency plan for situations arising out of industrial action in essential services. (2) Was a contingency plan drawn up by the ADF on the instructions of the Fraser Government; if so, (a) what was the plan called, (b) where in the ADF was the plan drawn up, (c) who directed the ADF to draw up the plan, (d) what was the definition of essential services in the plan, (e) did the plan contemplate the use of armed forces against strikers, pickets, union officials or officers; if so, under what conditions and on whose authority, (f) under what circumstances was the plan to come into effect and on whose authority, (g) did the plan contemplate the replacement of absent workers by ADF personnel; if so, (i) in what industries and functions, (ii) under what circumstances, (iii) on whose authority and (iv) which ADF units or types of unit were designated for the replacement function, and (h) did the plan make provision for the treatment and evacuation of killed and wounded ADF personnel and strikers; if not, why not. (3) Was he advised of the existence of such a plan by the responsible ADF personnel. (4) Will he give an assurance that (a) no such plan is now in the ADF and (b) all previous plans have been cancelled or destroyed. (5) If the plan is still valid, will he issue instructions that all such plans are to be cancelled or destroyed. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Such a plan was developed under the previous government, and the then Mnister was informed of it in 1982. It has now been cancelled. (2) I am advised that the plan was not drawn up on the instructions of the Fraser government. (3) Yes. (4) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (5) See answer to (4). (Question No. 2960) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken by the Commonwealth to encourage the introduction of combined air-rail-road passenger fares. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Although the Federal Government has no direct control over the fares offered by transport operators I have encouraged all operators to continue to offer appropriate package arrangements where it is in their interest to do so. I am advised that the Australian National Railways Commission has, within the forum of the Railways of Australia Committee, proposed that a combined ticket covering air, rail and bus travel be investigated. This matter is being progressed through that Committee. The legislative arrangements governing domestic aviation were introduced by the previous Government in 1981 and provide for the formulation and development of new fare initiatives, including conditions attached to a fare, as matters for the airlines based on their own commercial judgment. Fare proposals must then be submitted to the Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC) and be approved by the Committee before they can be offered to the public. The Government places a high priority on encouraging the airlines to introduce new fare initiatives in order to make air travel available to a wider cross-section of the public and improve tourist potential throughout Australia. The domestic airlines introduced `Air Pass' discount fares in 1983. These fares were specifically aimed at the domestic and international tourist markets and are designed to offer the traveller greater flexibility in the arrangement of tours around Australia. A major advantage of these fare types is their availability to travellers at a known price without restrictions as to time of day or date. Passengers are basically free to choose their own itineraries within maximum distance and stopover limitations. As the origin and destination of travel on `Air Pass' tickets can be different, there would already appear to be scope for passengers to use this fare in conjunction with travel they wish to undertake on other modes. (Question No. 3042) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What was the level of funding provided by the Government (a) to assist the States and Territories to assess the availability of open space in major cities and (b) to assist local government authorities to identify the present and potential users of undeveloped or disused urban land and property, in each year since 1982-83. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No specific programs of assistance were available for these purposes in 1982-83. (a) There is presently no specific program of assistance to the States and Territories for the assessment of the availability of open space in major cities. However, under the Local Government Development Program (LGDP) and its predecessor the Regional Community Development Program (RCDP), administered by my Department, some $40,000 in 1983-84 and over $250,000 in 1984-85 was provided to local authorities to work in partnership with State agencies on strategic planning for public open space. The LGDP is designed to improve co-operation and co-ordination between the three spheres of government as well as raising the capacity and capability of local government. (b) In 1983-84 under the RCDP $123,000 was allocated for the development of projects that involved the identification of present and potential uses of undeveloped land and property. In 1984-85 $160,500 was allocated to six projects designed to determine the range and type of manufacturing and industrial sites in parts of Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. These projects will be completed shortly and will provide valuable information on the present and potential uses of undeveloped or disused urban land and property. In 1984-85, $198,200 was allocated to ten projects relevant to the assessment of housing stock in parts of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. A number of these projects are examining the potential use of undeveloped land for housing for disadvantaged groups in the community. (Question No. 3043) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) On which forums, committees and other consultative mechanisms established by the Federal Government is there local government representation. (2) Who are the local government representatives on these bodies and (a) in what capacity are they appointed and (b) who do they represent. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is committed to recognising local government as a genuine partner in the Australian system of government. As well as representation on the bodies outlined below the government liaises closely with local government through forums such as the local Government Ministers' Conference and the Joint Officers' Committee to that Conference. In addition, the Office of Local Government, within my Department, is in constant contact with local government representative bodies, councils and relevant State Department concerning the implications of Commonwealth policies and programs for local government. All Departments were consulted and have provided the following information- Department Forum Representative Capacity Sponsoring Organisation Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) Mildura Aboriginal Affairs Ms H. Casey Mr R. Dobrzynski Youth Worker Deputy Shire Secretary Shire of Mildura As above Co-ordinating Committee, Vic. Mr R. Kuhn Mr R. J. Nokes Mr B. Stephens Councillor Councillor Health/Building Surveyor Wentworth Shire As above As above Shepparton Aboriginal Affairs Co-ordinating Committee, Vic. Mr B. Hunter Ms K. Collins Councillor Community Develop- ment Officer City of Shepparton Shire of Rodney In other areas contact with local government is made and maintained when specific issues arise. Community Services (DCS) The Office of Child Care has established Children's Services Planning Committees in each State which have local government representation. The Committee members are appointed in their capacity as representatives of local government associations in each State/Territory. New South Wales Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales Victoria Municipal Association of Victoria Queensland Local Government Association of Queensland South Australia Local Government Association Tasmania Municipal Association of Tasmania Northern Territory Northern Territory Local Government Association Australian Capital Territory Department of Territories Western Australia No representation at present Housing and Construction (DHC) Joint venture for more affordable housing Mr M Verhoeven Appointed in response to a Ministerial invitation Australian Council of Local Government Associations (ACLGA) Australian Uniform Building Regulations co-ordinating Council - Council - Executive Ms L. Cutts Mr K. P. Finn Both appointed following an inter-government agreement As above As above Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement-Local Government and Community Housing Program-State Advisory Committees- Local Government members are nominated by, and represent, the local government association in the State or Northern Territory and are appointed by the (State-Territory) Minister responsible for housing New South Wales Alderman H. Marland Observer Local Government and Shire Association of New South Wales Councillor T. McGrane Shires Association of New South Wales T. Watson Local Government Housing Officer Victoria Councillor U. Arrowsmith Municipal Councillor B. White Association of Victoria (M.A.V.) Mr M. Tierney M.A.V. Officer Queensland Councillor W. Laver Local Government Association of Queensland Western Australia Mr L. Humphries Local Government Association of Western Australia Mr H. Foulkes-Taylor Country Shire Councils Association of Western Australia South Australia Mr K. Price Local Government Association of South Australia Tasmania Ms L. Scott Municipal Association of Tasmania Northern Territory Mr N. Lynagh Local Government Association of the Northern Territory From time to time co-ordinating bodies with representation from the three levels of government are established to oversight major projects for which DHC is responsible for the design and construction by: recognising the overlap of interests of the three levels of government and the complexity and number of issues involved in the project. identifying each government body's viewpoints within a consultative forum identifying areas of concern to the relevant authorities and ensuring adequate consultation in their consideration and resolution. providing a steady information flow on the state of progress to all authorities concerned. A current example is the Joint Government Co-ordinating committee on New Brisbane International Airport which has representatives drawn from the following organisations: Federal Departments of Aviation, Housing and Construction and Finance. Queensland Premier's Department Brisbane City Council Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) There are 22 Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs) managed by independent committee which include representatives of all three tiers of government-Federal, State and Local. MRC Management Committees- Appointed by, and represent, the council or shire. New South Wales - Illawarra MRC Alderman N. Wilson Illawarra City Council - Liverpool MRC Alderman N. Short Liverpool City Council Ms M. Sharkey Campbelltown City Council - St George MRC Alderman B. Hasham Rockdale Council Alderman P. Heslop Kogarah Council Ms K. Linnert Hurstville Council - Botany MRC Alderman D. Tory Botany Municipality - Newcastle MRC Mr K. Swan Deputy Town Clerk - Blacktown MRC Ms V. Keen Blacktown Council Victoria - Melbourne MRC Ms C. Hargreaves Melbourne City Council - Geelong MRC Mr M. Gigic Geelong City Council - Footscray MRC Cr R. Hall Footscray Council - Preston MRC Cr S. Merchak Preston Council Cr D. Sheldon Mayor Preston City - Prahran MRC Cr B. Theophilos Prahran City Council Mr D. Jesson Prahran Town Clerk Cr M. Nial St Kilda City Council - Broadmeadows MRC Cr D. Alexander Broadmeadows Council - Latrobe Valley MRC Cr S. Panayioton Traralgon City Council Cr R. Miles Moe City Council Queensland - Brisbane MRC Mr G. Clay Brisbane City Council - Townsville MRC Mr F. Gallo East Baron Shire Mr B. Draguet Ayr Shire Mr F. Hornby Townsville City Council South Australia - Adelaide MRC Mr J. Fayad Thebarton Council Western Australia - Fremantle MRC Mr P. Tagliafen Fremantle Council - North Perth MRC Mr V. Scurria Perth Council Tasmania - Hobart MRC Cr I. Barnard Hobart Council - Launceston MRC Mrs M. Barnes Launceston Council Northern Territory - Darwin MRC Mr C. Taylor Darwin City Council Australian Capital Territory - Canberra MRC Alderman S. Taskovski Queanbeyan City Council There are four sub centres which have local government representation Queensland - Cairns MRC Sub centre Mr T. A. Pyre Mulgrave Shire Council South Australia - Woodville MRC Sub centre Mr M. Newton Woodville City Council - Salisbury MRC Sub centre Mr A. Leak Salisbury City Council - Whyalla MRC Satellite Centre Cr A. Gloyn Whyalla City Council National Population Council (NPC) - Migration Committee - Ethnic Affairs and Settlement Committee While there is no official local government representation on the NPC, local government officials, representatives or employees are limited to participate in all NPC regional consultations. Migrant Centre Settlement Committees South Australia - Pennington Migrant Centre Victoria - Midway Migrant Centre Mr D. Surrell Ms J. Grosdas Ms G. Lialos To advise the Department's Centre Director on settlement matters affecting centre residents. Woodville Council City of Sunshine As above Prime Minister and Cabinet Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations- Provided for by section 8 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976-appointed by the Governor-General. Appointed on the nomination of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations (ACLGA). Nominees are persons associated with local government in different states. New South Wales Councillor B. Irvin Victoria Councillor L. Greenwood, O.B.E. Queensland Alderman J. Webber Western Australia Councillor G. Kilpatrick South Australia Mrs E. M. Grome Tasmania Councillor L. J. Moroney Northern Territory Dr C. H. Gurd -Australian Bicentennial Authority The Australian Bicentennial Authority is encouraging the formation of Bicentennial Community Committees in all local government areas in Australia. Over 500 such committees have been established to date. These committees are usually formed in consultation with and have representation from the Local Government authority. -Economic Planning Advisory Council Ms L. Cutts Appointed under section 9 (1) (e) of the Economic Planning Advisory Act 1983-which states that one member shall be selected after consultation between the (Prime) Minister or his representative and the Council of Local Government Associations. Trade Mayor of Fremantle Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) Mr J. A. Cattalini Fremantle City Manager Local Government of Fremantle Intergovernmental Officials Group (IOG) Mr F. F. Kinner Mayor of Fremantle (Question No. 3045) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What current Government programs exist to assist (a) in training local government representatives and staff and (b) with community education about local government. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Under the Local Government Development Program (LGDP), which is administered by my Department, $127,000 was allocated in 1984-85 for nine projects relevant to the training needs of the local government industry. They include the development of new training courses for local government (elected representatives and personnel), the conduct of training workshops and seminars, and the production of training materials. Training projects are again eligible for consideration under the LGDP in 1985-86. Additionally my Department administers the Local Government Scholarships Scheme which assists elected members and officers of smaller and more remote local authorities to attend courses at the Australian Centre for Local Government Studies, Canberra College of Advanced Education. Assistance is in the form of a grant in payment of the full or part cost of the fees for the Senior Management Courses, Elected Members Courses, and Local Government Issues Programs. In 1985-86 $45,000 has been made available for scholarships under the Scheme. (b) Under the LGDP in 1984-85 over $100,000 has been allocated for projects designed to develop community education on local government matters. Similar projects are again eligible for consideration under the LGDP in 1985-86. (Question No. 3136) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to 3 spelling mistakes on the first page of the UNESCO background paper, dated 18 December 1985, circulated by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: My attention has been drawn to the three typographical errors in the paper cited. (Question No. 3183) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) What are the terms and conditions of the agreement between the ABC and the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA) in relation to broadcasting on the Inland Radio Transmitter System in the Northern Territory. (2) How many hours of broadcasting over the system does CAAMA engage in per week. (3) Are there any changes to the current arrangement between the ABC and CAAMA being contemplated. Mr Duffy —Based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA) has been contracted by the ABC to provide programs for Aborigines in the service areas of two of the three HF Inland Radio Transmitters-VL8A Alice Springs and VL8T Tennant Creek. This contract has been entered in response to Recommendation 8 of the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal Broadcasting and Communications, presented to the House on 27 November 1985. The contract provides for CAAMA to broadcast programs in three Aboriginal Languages and English. Programs are broadcast from the CAAMA studio, via the ABC studio, overriding control being at the ABC's discretion. (2) CAAMA currently broadcasts 62 hours per week on the service, through Alice Springs. Tennant Creek transmitter is not yet operating. (3) Changes to the arrangement are contemplated and are subject to further study by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs/Department of Communications implementation group charged with the carriage of the Task Force recommendations. This study includes the possibility of legislative amendments to allow for transmission sharing and alternative management arrangements for the HF Inland system. (Question No. 3189) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: Did any officer of his Department have discussions with the Mayor of the Gold Coast Alderman Dennis Pie, regarding a trip he proposed making to Taiwan, if so: (a) What was the nature of the discussions, (b) what was the outcome of the discussions, (c) who was the officer involved, (d) on whose instructions was he or she operating, and (e) how did his Department become aware of Mr Pie's proposed trip. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) The Department of Foreign Affairs' advice was sought by the Office of the Town Clerk, Gold Coast, concerning travel to Taiwan. The enquiry was in the context of a possible visit there, among other destinations, by the Mayor of the Gold Coast and several councillors. The Office of the Town Clerk was informed of Federal Government policy concerning non-recognition of Taiwan. It was noted that Federal public servants could only advise bodies such as local councils of Federal policy, as a factor to be taken into account in determining their own decisions. Other factors noted to the Town Clerk's Office as having a possible bearing on any decision to travel to Taiwan by a Mayoral delegation from the Gold Coast were the growing links between the Queensland Government and China and any interest the Gold Coast might have in developing its own relations in China. (b) It is understood that the Gold Coast delegation decided not to visit Taiwan. (c) The initial enquiry from the Town Clerk's Office was received on 28 January 1986, by an officer in the Department's Consular and Passports Branch and referred to the China/Korea Section. The Acting Head of that Section, Ms M. Marginson phoned the Town Clerk's Office on 29 January to convey the views noted in (b) (d) As acting Section Head, Ms Marginson is familiar with Federal Government policy on relations with Taiwan and responsible for day to day inquiries which relate to it, and she was acting under the supervision of her immediately senior officer. (e) The Gold Coast Town Clerk's Office brought the visit to the Department's attention through its enquiries on 28 January 1986. (Question No. 3213) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) What were the (a) total values and (b) types of payments for pensions and allowances affected by (i) the direct credit system and (ii) cheques throughout Australia in January 1986. (2) Are financial institutions participating in the direct credit system required to comply with specific Government requirements; if so, what are the requirements. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a and b) The total values and types of payments made by Direct Credit and cheque for the month of January 1986, are shown in the table below: Pension/ benefit (i) Direct credit (ii) Cheque payment Total $ $ $ Age... 399,253,152 58,376,695 457,629,847 Invalid... 109,716,154 22,450,879 132,167,033 Widows A... 37,893,845 3,343,834 41,237,679 Widows B... 28,776,949 2,898,851 31,675,800 Widows C... 38,559 18,044 56,603 SPB Mothers... 82,612,425 9,380,980 91,993,405 SPB Fathers... 4,691,806 720,413 5,412,219 Family Allow... 166,585,980 10,348,787 176,934,767 FIS... 3,436,092 437,348 3,873,440 HCA... 3,129,837 212,803 3,342,640 Orphans... 300,889 23,572 324,461 UB... * * 263,851,705 Sickness... * * 32,882,901 Special... * * 9,256,049 Rehab Allow... 1,319,950 559,901 1,879,851 HPMA... 354,059 107,899 461,958 * Records do not separate out types of payments as either cheques or direct credit. (2) The financial institutions participating in the direct credit system are not required to comply with any specific government requirements outside those set down in the Banking Act. The Department of Social Security is developing a Code of Conduct with the financial institutions that covers a range of issues related to an acceptable level of service to our clients. The Code is in its final draft and has been discussed in detail with the institutions. (Question No. 3215) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: What were the rates in cents per litre for automotive distillate for farmers for (a) Commonwealth excise after any rebate was subtracted, (b) State Government business franchise fees and (c) petroleum freight subsidy on (i) 1 January 1983, (ii) 1 July 1983, (iii) 23 August 1983, (iv) 2 February 1984, (v) 1 February 1985 and (vi) 14 February 1986 at (A) Mitchell, Qld, (B) Nyngan, NSW, (C) Manangatang, Vic, (D) Maitland, SA and (E) Merredin, WA. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The rates of excise duty for automotive distillate for farmers after subtraction of the rebate are as follows:- Date Excise Duty Rate Rebate Rate Net Duty 1.1.83 6.155 6.155 Nil 1.7.83 7.155 7.155 Nil 23.8.83 9.027 7.155 1.872 2.2.84 9.397 7.155 2.242 2.2.85 9.641 7.341 2.300 14.2.86 10.437 10.437 Nil (b) I am unable to provide any information on State Government business franchise fees and suggest that the honourable member take the matter up with the relevant State Government Departments. (c) The rates of subsidy applicable to automotive distillate delivered to the nominated places are: Place 1.1.83 1.7.83 23.8.83 2.2.84 1.2.85 14.2.86 Mitchell (Qld)... 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 1.2 Nyngan (NSW)... 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 - Manangatang (Vic)... 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 - Maitland (SA)... - - - 0.2 0.1 - Merredin (WA)... 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 - (Question No. 3251) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) What has been the cost of the assistance packages to the (a) steel and (b) car industries (2) What are the conditions to be observed by each of the recipient industries listed and are they being observed (3) Were any funds from any States required before the Commonwealth Government agreed to assist each industry; if so (a) what amount and (b) from which States Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Commonwealth assistance to (a) the steel industry is provided under the Steel Industry Plan and takes the form of an assistance package which includes bounty payments on certain steel products. Actual payments of bounty from the commencement of the plan on 1 January 1984 until the end of February 1986 total $75.36 million, made up of $5.5 million under the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act 1983 and $69.86 million under the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983; and to (b) the car industry is provided by way of tariffs and quotas on completely-built-up (CBU) imports and under the Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plan by the requirement that Plan manufacturers must achieve an average 85 per cent local content across the range of vehicles produced. In addition the Government is providing $150 million over the 5 years to 1989 under the Motor Vehicles and Components Development Grant Scheme. There were no payments under this scheme in 1984-85. The 1985-86 budget makes provision for $35 million. The Automotive Industry Authority which was established in October 1984 to encourage the development of the industry along lines consistent with the Government's objectives is funded through normal Budget appropriations. Expenditure of the Authority in 1984-85 was $386,989. For 1985-86 its appropriation is $1.2 million. (2) Under the Steel Industry Plan BHP has given commitments to: continue operation of three integrated steel plants to provide increased job security with no compulsory redundancies undertake an $800 million investment program over the first four years of the plan of which $500 million was considered firm and able to be undertaken at an early date The unions, for their part, agreed that wage costs should be consistent with the prices and incomes accord as an initial target, to re-establish a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the major steel works with future increases to be above the trend rate in national productivity to adhere strictly to established grievance settlement procedure. Figures contained in the Steel Industry Authority's September quarterly report, released in February of this year suggest that both BHP and the unions have been meeting their commitments under the plan. In particular authorised capital expenditure since negotiation of the plan exceeds $960 million, well above the $800 million proposed by BHP at the start of the plan productivity levels have reached 300 tonnes of raw steel per employee per year for the first time since the plan commenced levels of industrial disputation have remained low and well below the levels that occurred prior to 1983 no retrenchments have occurred, the general decline in employment numbers being due to natural attrition. The objectives of the Government's Passenger Motor Vehicle Plan are to reduce the number of models produced in Australia provide the industry with time to restructure and modernise increase the industry's efficiency reduce job losses and provide long term job stability. The Government is prepared to impose sanctions on any local producer who acts in a manner inconsistent with these objectives. There are also provisions for penalties to be imposed on any producer who breaches the local content requirements mentioned earlier. (3) No. The two State Governments involved under the Steel Plan, NSW and SA, were asked to contribute to the scheme, principally by way of containment of State charges which impact on the industry. Both State Governments currently provide concessions to the industry and have expressed a resolve to keep rises in State charges to a minimum. (Question No. 3264) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: Is the stability of the Australian engine reconditioning industry under threat from the rapid growth in imported used engines; if so, what action can be taken by the Minister's Department to ensure its stability pending a report being made by the Industries Assistance Commission. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government does not consider that the stability of the Australian engine reconditioning industry is under immediate threat from imported used engines. It did, however, consider that growth in imports could pose a threat in the future and accordingly referred the matter to the Industries Assistance Commission on 19 September 1985 for inquiry and report. In doing this it was concerned to ensure that the views of all interested parties be taken into consideration before a decision is taken on the future assistance arrangements for the industry. The IAC has advised that a draft report on the industry is expected to be released towards the end of April/early May. (Question No. 3284) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Is the Aboriginal Development Commission considering purchasing 30.27 hectares of land 6.5 kilometres south of Tumut, NSW, on the Tumut Plains Road being Lot 2 on Deposited Plan Number 596029 in the Parish of Blowering, County of Buccleuch. (2) Is he able to say whether this parcel of land was passed in at public auction when bidding reached $78,000. (3) Has the Aboriginal Land Council made an offer for the land; if so, what price has been offered. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) I have no knowledge of such an offer nor, I am informed, does the Aboriginal Development Commission.